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.
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 different? 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.
'Stabilator blues'
I don't like the 'Stabilator' type abbreviated
empennage on the late model Piper low wing aircraft. I prefer a
standard vertical stabilizer and rudder and horizontal stabilizer and
elevator for maximum control of the aircraft. The low wing small
aircraft typically have a broad, approximately 10 feet spread on the
rear landing gear which is more than the approximately 8 feet on a
Cessna small plane but I detest that 'in ground' effect when landing a
low wing job.
Again, landing the aircraft is a very critical phase of flight
operations -'low and slow, look out
below' is the old saying.
Those modernistic gull wing aircraft doors may not be such a good and
safe design of aircraft doors. The famous Fullerton crash might
have reportedly had a pilot's side door open in mid-flight causing
enormous drag. The security details reportedly indicate the door
was not latched properly before takeoff. In a conventional Cessna
or Piper or Mooney aircraft a pilot might be able to simply reach and
close and latch the door in flight. This door probably caused the
deaths of the pilot and daughter and horrible burning crash into the
warehouse.
The door of a conventional aircraft is hinged forward so it tends to
close due to the slipstream of air going over it but the opened gull
wing door on
this doomed RV Vans aircraft apparently created a fatal amount of drag
as the
pilot entered a slowing turn and it stalled fatally. Stalls are
not recoverable close to the ground.
With a narrow bridge of material above the cockpit in gull-wing door
design it appears to be a weaker cabin than a conventional aircraft
door cabin. In a Cessna small aircraft like a 140, 150, 152, 172
Skyhawk, 182 Skylane you have a full cabin around you with two regular
side doors for instant boarding and deplaning.
I have a distaste now for this RV Vans type of aircraft. This
stupid gull-wing design got them killed whereas a conventional door
could have been closed and would not necessarily fly open and flop in
the wind. So that's it - if you forget to latch the gull-wing
door it could kill you! Upon discovering the open door the pilot
should have immediately continued his airspeed well above stall speed
and, not panicking, gradually landed. The abbreviated turn and
slow airspeed coupled with the drag from the open door was too much for
the aircraft to continue flying and it stalled into the
warehouse. You simply don't have that gull-wing door liability in
a regular conventional Cessna-type
aircraft, proving a distinct safety
advantage of flying conventional aircraft instead of experimental
types. This gull-wing door design appears to be a deathtrap
waiting to happen. Tragic Last Call From
Pilot, Crash of N8757R - VIDEO FOOTAGE OF OPEN
DOOR
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cj89GlCS6tY
Unfortunately,
another Vans RV aircraft crashed in landing pattern with
not one, but two pilots in the cockpit. Considering the number of
RV Vans aircraft that have crashed this is getting to be really
creepy. There was no reported or noted engine trouble, and,
like the Vans RV crash above this crash happened in the landing
pattern. I think there may be a flaw in the design of this type
of aircraft.
If you tilt the wings to bank the aircraft when going slow near stall
speed you lose the lift on the wing that is up and a stall can
happen. If at low altitude as when landing you likely will have
no time and height to recover before crashing. You cannot make
severe control changes when going slow at stall speed. Give me a
Cessna 172 Skyhawk or 182 Skylane any day over this crap.
Remember
CO2 guns are not toys and
can cause injury or death if
mishandled. Always wear shooting glasses or some kind of safety
glasses when shooting any gun. WARNING:
DO NOT HOLD OR
DISPLAY BB GUNS WHEN POLICE & LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE PRESENT. COPS HAVE KILLED MANY PEOPLE FOR HOLDING
A BB GUN. Actress Vanessa Marquez Dies
In A Hail Of LAPD Bullets On Verge Of Mass
Exposure
