FULLERTON RV VANS CRASH, Fullerton California, Vans Rv aircraft, RV 10 CRASH
FULLERTON RV VANS 10
DISASTER - VIDEO ANOTHER VANS RV CRASH
January 4, 2025
VIDEO OF CRASH
It is reported that a low-wing Vans RV 10 aircraft crashed
into a building just short of the runway in Fullerton, Ca. on Jan. 2,
2025, I think about 2 pm.
Did the Aircraft
Experience Engine Trouble?
If you have engine trouble at low altitude it is generally not
recommended to try to return to the runway but if you elect to make it
back to the airport,
you must calculate the glide ratio correctly. Unless the
Van's Rv 10 aircraft has an improved glide ratio over the former Van's
RV
aircraft it has only about a reported 7.89 to 1 or about 8 to 1 glide
ratio according to online information. This is compared to
Cessna's Skylane with glide ratio of about 9.1 to 1. The Cessna
172 is about the same listed at about 9 to 1. This means for
every foot of altitude the plane can travel forward 9.1 or 9 feet, a
pretty
good performance. I think a smooth riveted Mooney 201 aircraft
can beat that with a ratio of about 10 or 11 to 1.
Lots of factors come into play when calculating how far a plane can
glide without power, how many people are on board, how much fuel is
still onboard, what the wind is doing, etc., whether the wings are kept
level.
This unfortunate pilot who lost his life in this Van's RV 10 homebuilt
aircraft had his daughter onboard. There hasn't apparently been a
statement issued on the amount of fuel onboard but there must have been
some fuel left since there was a giant fireball when this plane crashed
into the warehouse.
It appears the plane must have suffered an engine problem just after
takeoff since, at about 900 feet altitude the pilot almost immediately
radioed that he needed to return to the airport.
Returning to the runway even with 2 or 3 hundred feet of altitude is
risky, but it seems he should have been able to successfully return
almost to the runway, but, unless he calculated the loss of altitude
would not guarantee he could make the field he made a serious fatal
mistake. He should have immediately directed the aircraft to an
open area or even a highway while he still had maneuvering speed left
and made some attempt to land and get the aircraft on the ground.
If he had slowed down due to not lowering the nose he may have stalled
or stall-spinned into the building where he crashed. You have
little-to-no control after the airspeed has dwindled and you have to
constantly lower the nose for correct attitude, 'pitch for control', to
avoid a stall and stall-spin. Also, turning with ailerons can
cause loss of precious altitude and a stall at slow speeds. Once
the aircraft enters a stall or stall-spin you need several hundred feet
or maybe six or eight hundred feet to regain control of it and enter a
glide. Serious spins can require even more altitude to recover,
maybe more than a thousand feet.
So, it appears this unfortunate pilot had engine trouble at a critical
phase of flight operations and tried to return to the field and did not
make it and might have stalled or stall-spinned into the building,
however, the doomed plane was in a banked dive attitude indicating
complete loss of control. Was this plane sabotaged? If so
the pilot had little-to-no control of the aircraft.
My Experience With Flying
in Strong Winds
I was executing a turn in one flight lesson in a Cessna 172 Skyhawk and
when I lifted the wing with ailerons the wind blew us over nearly wings
perpindicular to the ground and I probably lost considerable altitude
trying to right the aircraft with opposite aileron input. So if
the doomed aircraft was impacted by those Santa Ana winds in Fullerton
it could have severely upset the attitude and being low to the ground
proved fatal. Funny how those malevolent winds come along at such
critical moments.
Some pilots elect to fly with altitude to the runway and then perform a
slip to get low and land. This slip maneuver is very handy since
the aircraft can maintain enough altitude to get 'over the fence', as
they say, if the engine quits and no power is available. No
wonder it is said that altitude is your friend.
Cessna Aircraft Highly
Recommended
I still prefer the Cessna high wing aircraft design which is very
stable and places the fuel tanks above the fuselage at the top of the
cabin so that during a hard landing or crash the fuel is not subjected
to the hot friction of the crash and might not burn. In an
extremely hard crash I guess it could burn anyway but there is
generally less chance to burn than the low wing aircraft where the
wings are literally right next to the ground. When the gear
collapses in a low wing aircraft the fuel tanks are riding and scraping
the ground, very hot and dangerous friction. I don't mind
climbing a small stepladder to fuel the high wing design, a good
investment in safety.
The Cessna 182 Skylanes and 172 Skyhawks are remarkably safe and stable
aircraft with excellent safety records. If they require a bit more fuel
and go slower than a Cirrus or Vans RV then I'd rather get there in one
piece than not to get there at all - get there dead. Also, I like
that wing strut that adds a near 45 degree brace to the wings for good
strength. Unlike most low wing small aircraft these Cessna planes
have 2 doors, one left and one right, and are easily entered and exited
from. Why would you want anything else? Most low wing
aircraft have only one door on the right side where the passenger sits
and the pilot is relatively trapped in on the left side with no door.
Again, landing the aircraft is a very critical phase of flight
operations -'low and slow, look out below' is the old saying.
Infoeditor
|