Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Crash & Rebuild
Reload this Page >

Nice P82 Crash!!!

Notices
Crash & Rebuild Post your crash stories, pictures and if you want to document your rebuild you can do that here too!

Nice P82 Crash!!!

Old 08-24-2005, 06:15 PM
  #1  
Nitrodan73
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Nice P82 Crash!!!

This poor guy lost this nice plane on it's maiden flight. The engines never sounded right to me but who am I to tell an experienced pilot what to do?


http://media.putfile.com/P-82-Crashing
Old 08-24-2005, 07:04 PM
  #2  
love those warbirds
Senior Member
My Feedback: (39)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Orland Park, IL
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

that hurts
Old 08-24-2005, 07:14 PM
  #3  
Flyboy Dave
My Feedback: (21)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pinon Hills, CA
Posts: 13,776
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

The engines sounded Ok to me....it looked like the dreaded...." too much left
torgue syndrome". I've had single engine Mustangs do that on take off. The
only way to diminish the effect on take-off is pure speed.....and you have
to hold some right rudder in there....more with two engines pulling the nose
to the left.

Sorry about the loss of the plane though....it looked like it went straight in. []

FBD. []
Old 08-24-2005, 08:32 PM
  #4  
Liberator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

The plane was never flying, plain and simple stall.
He forced it off too early and was in a climb the whole time.
I'm sure next time he will (hopefully) try and get it on the wing.

Old 08-24-2005, 08:54 PM
  #5  
Nitrodan73
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Yeah he did force it off the ground. In prior video footage, the left engine seemed to spudder when he was reving the engines. It demolished the plane.
Old 08-24-2005, 09:07 PM
  #6  
Edge 540
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -, IN
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

All I can say is that was a hard hit!
Old 08-24-2005, 09:27 PM
  #7  
Mr. Canadian
Senior Member
 
Mr. Canadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: courtenay, BC, CANADA
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

he's lucky it didn't come back enough into the pits
Old 08-24-2005, 09:55 PM
  #8  
Lightning Fan
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hartland, WI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Well guys, I have this P-82, and have flown it for three years.
I have yanked mine off the ground inadvertently several times, and climbed out just as he did.
It is a hard plane to stall.
It is true that you need to hold a lot of right on takeoff.
That plane was fine until it seems to stumble as the pits come into view. After a lot of practice on the simulator with a p-38, and forced engine outs, I can tell you that it sure looks like left engine either lost power or quit. That sickening yaw that you see comes from the single engine torque when you are nose up and slow - it is exactly what happens in the simulator. He only had one chance to recover, and that was to kill the throttle - but I do not think that I would be able to react fast enough either, even with the experience I have with the plane.
Old 08-24-2005, 11:13 PM
  #9  
rjm1982
Senior Member
 
rjm1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

I would say an engine died...

The plane didnt tip-stall, it turned hard like he had yanked the rudder, the right engine was pulling alot harder than the left...
Old 08-25-2005, 04:18 AM
  #10  
Blue_Moon_
Senior Member
 
Blue_Moon_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ., SWEDEN
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!


ORIGINAL: Ultra Stick

All I can say is that was a hard hit!

Then you should have seen my 1/7 p51 crash earlier this year. The plane went stright down from about 100ft into frozen ground (stone hard). Infact, it went so much straight down, and the ground was so hard, that the prop was not broken! [X(][X(] increadible. The first half of the fuse was totaled smashed in.

thats what i call a "hard hit"! [X(]
Old 08-25-2005, 05:36 AM
  #11  
50%plane
My Feedback: (5)
 
50%plane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 3,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Stop bragging.
Too bad about that P82.


Woops
Old 08-25-2005, 05:57 AM
  #12  
RC-Captain
Senior Member
 
RC-Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill, NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

If not a stall , then it was due to not enough elevator being applied in turn. I also noticed how fast he left the ground which is a characteristic of overpowering any plane. When I first saw the video I thought he was going to do a barrel roll , but didn't have enough speed. Did you at least get one flight on the bird ? GL fixing .


RCF esq.
Old 09-03-2005, 08:51 PM
  #13  
rjbranchii
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Harsens Island, MI
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Being a 100% scale multiengine pilot, I'll tell you that was a dead left engine. In twin engine training its called "stall, spin, crash, burn, die." What has to happen in this deal is that full right rudder had to be instituted instantly, the nose lowered so the single engine minimum control speed is maintained, and the plane slightly banked into the good engine, ie to the right. Complicating this one is that since both engines turn in the same direction, and the torque is the same, there is what is called a critical engine. Its the left one. If that one dies, the torque of the right one also adds to the difficulty of flying maintaining control and may make it impossible at full throttle. Most modern twins are designed with counter rotating propellors. The starboard one rotates opposite what we are used to. This makes the torque problem less of an issue and there is not a critical engine when this is done. Some twins are quite gentle, the Piper Sennaca being problably the kindest in the air. The Beechcraft Barons are real nasty. I know a number of multi engine instructors who will not do primary twin engine training in them. The majority of multi engine training is in learning to recognize an engine failure, and handle it and make the right decisions to get the plane on the runway with you alive. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. It is why the twin engine fatality rate is higher than the single engine rate in real aircraft. A light twin is probably the most dangerous airplane there is to fly. The key to recognizing an engine failure is feeling one of the rudder pedals kick pressure when the engine fails. Sadly, this is not possible to feel in our multiengine models. The first sign of a problem as here is usually the yaw into the dead engine and by then its probably too late.

One thing that can help that may translate well to model twins is the difference in flying a 100% scale single vs twin. In a single, altitude is life. Takeoffs should aim at reaching the altitude at which if an engine fails a 180 degree turn can be made without stalling back onto the runway from which you just came. For most planes, this is about 800 ft altitude. Less than this and you will stall and spin trying the move. So you pick your best place straight out. In a twin it is 100% different. In a twin, speed is life. You need to stay above the speed at which the rudder can no longer hold a straight course (ie control) with a dead engine. So rather than going for altitude you go for that speed and never ever go below it. Early in my flying career, I had a single engine failure on takeoff, so all my single engine takeoffs were max climb to 800 ft after that. I was having trouble with this change in the twin. So my instructor told me that on the ensueing takeoff he was going to fail one of the engines just beyond the go-no go point on the runway, so I would have to continue the takeoff and return to the runway to land. BUT.... the tallest obstruction withing 5 miles of the airport was 98 ft. I was not to climb above 125 ft on the entire excercise. He explained, "the tops of trees are not near as dense as the bottom of trees." I did make the manoever. But the leg that was not leaning on the rudder pedal into the good engine was up under my chin, and the one on the rudder pedal wanted to be. Most difficult thing I ever did in an airplane. But I learned the lesson. When we take off with a multiengine model, we should do the same thing. Climb very shallow until the plane is up to full speed and then climb to altitude, but even then conservatively. Oh yea, and I would not fly a twin model if any other planes were up at the same time, at least not the takeoff. I'd wanna be able to tell by sound if anything went amiss. Maybe that's an arguement for big, noisy motors in twins, not sure.

bob branch
Old 09-07-2005, 09:21 PM
  #14  
Lightning Fan
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hartland, WI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Interestingly, right after I saw this video, I was out with my P-82 and having a frustrating day because of some cowl work I had "done". I noticed on the last takeoff that I was holding lots of rudder, but have learned to climb out shallow, so things were OK. Still though, a lot of yaw, she mushed through turns, and it was generally uncomfortable. I landed without incident, other than my usual crappy landing technique.
Back on the ground - the port engine is running way lean. I left the muffler pressure line off by accident!! The loss of RPM on the engine was about 2500 at full throttle.
I got very lucky.
Old 09-07-2005, 09:35 PM
  #15  
rjbranchii
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Harsens Island, MI
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Lightning fan:

El supremo job! Don't ya just love it when the parts of a good plan come together!

bob branch
(still flying merilly along with one motor.... but maybe not for long....)
Old 09-10-2005, 03:02 AM
  #16  
Tailwheel Pilot
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Spring Valley, CA
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Hey rjcbranchii,
Did your instructor really teach you the way to identify a engine faliure in a twin was to feel the rudder pedals kick?How about looking out the windshield and seeing aircraft yaw?
Old 09-10-2005, 08:00 PM
  #17  
rjbranchii
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Harsens Island, MI
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Tailwheel pilot

Well it would be nice if you could see it but you cannot plan on seeing the yaw. If you are in instrument conditions in a cloud you will not see anything. At night you will not see it. Also after the runway goes past the windscreen the aircraft yaws into the crab angle required to hold heading. So you do not have a reference that visually is worth anything. Feeling things with the seat of your pants doesn't work as your learn when you do an instrument rating. You cannot believe anything you feel by the seat of your pants. Prop will still be turning and rpm can be right up there because you run a constant speed prop, so if you have it set for a particular rpm, it will pretty much stay there. Manifold pressure and a drop in rpm are good confirming readings, but you don't have any time to waste getting the rudder turned into the good engine. That feeling comes right from the rudder pedals as the plane yaws, you feel the rudder pressure change instantly. The two guages you are using as primary are the attitude indicator to tell you that you are in the proper climb attitude and not in a bank, and the airspeed indicator. During takeoff, the airspeed in a twin the primary instrument cause that's where life is, in speed to stay above minimum control airspeed on one engine.

My hats off to all ya who fly multiengine rc. I probably know too much to enjoy it. My vision is not good enough to see yaw very well. If they'd give me foot pedals with pressure feedback I'd do alot better. ;-)

bob branch
Old 09-10-2005, 09:01 PM
  #18  
tarvma02
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: , MA
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

"I was not to climb above 125 ft on the entire excercise. He explained, "the tops of trees are not near as dense as the bottom of trees."

As a multi-engine instructor (MEI), that's pretty terrifying that your instructor did such an exercise. I'm guessing this little episode occurred back in the 60's or 70's? Back in the "old" days, such things were pretty common along with low-level VMC demonstrations. A lot of training accidents (even on checkrides) resulted in a lot of deaths. Even today, multi-engine training is by far the most dangerous type of flying one can do which is why I don't actively do it. Also, Barons really aren't that bad, you just have to respect that it's not going to fly like a Piper Seminole.

My verdict is the classic VMC rollover. Basically, when single engine, there's a minimum speed at which the plane has to fly for the rudder to be effective. The P-82 unfortunately got too slow and could not maintain directional control.

Real multi-engine airplanes at gross weight don't climb and can barely maintain altitude when flying on one engine (despite what the POH (pilot's operating handbook) says). If I was on takeoff and the engine quit, I don't think I would attempt to climb out single engine and nurse it around. Instead, I'd just put the plane down and hit whatever fence/trees/etc. was in front of me. Doing otherwise, the odds are pretty decent your going to crash and die.

"when one quits, that extra engine only gets you to the crash site a little quicker".

Mike (CFI, CFII, MEI)
Old 09-11-2005, 08:13 AM
  #19  
rjbranchii
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Harsens Island, MI
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

Mike

You are right on the time frame.

As to the Baron issue, the loss of vmc is pretty rapid and violent as I recall was his reason. He had done some and got a few pretty good frights. Now that I'm back into flying after an almost 20 year hiatus (sport pilot) I have noticed many Barons have sprouted vortex generators on the vertical stab and other flight surfaces, no doubt to tame some of the issues. But my ercoupe does just fine and I did not have to learn a new visual for the descent profile, its just like it was on my Sennaca!

bob branch
Old 09-15-2005, 06:48 AM
  #20  
Ad Clark III
My Feedback: (7)
 
Ad Clark III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

I thought the critical engine was determined by Asymetrical blade thrust(Pfactor). On one engine the aerodynamic thrustline of the engine is inboard of the propshaft and on the other it is outboard of the propshaft. Therefore you dont want the engine that has the aerodynamic thrustline inboard to quit because then you would have to fight the most yaw with the other remaining engine. Thats why its critical that it stays running! It certainly doesnt have anything to do with torque since both motors make the same.
I also thought when an airplane gets slow and yaws left with power its because of spiraling slipstream effect and P factor. Same on takeoff. Torque produces a rolling effect, not yaw. Hence the maneuver "torque roll", not "torque yaw". At least that is what I remember from my private pilot days. Anyway.....thats my .02
Old 09-17-2005, 12:53 PM
  #21  
ALANXP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ??, MALTA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

THE AIRCRAFT SNAP
Old 04-03-2006, 09:11 PM
  #22  
Red Baron Dave
Member
My Feedback: (13)
 
Red Baron Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lincoln, CA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

It stopping the frames you can see it has 2 4 stroke motors (Satios?) anyone else have additonal information on this plane? Looking at the thread I can now see the 'fast and straight' makes sense in this case (high and slow). Any other comments of the P-82?? I have one on the boards currently (old Dynaflite)
Old 04-05-2006, 01:48 PM
  #23  
jamie_duff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: AberdeenScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

I think critical engines etc is pretty irrelevant in this case. The aircraft was going up like the space shuttle.

I thought it was common knowledge that you are supposed to fly warbirds like the fullsize counterparts - ie long takeoffs and near flat climbouts, gaining airspeed as the main priority rather than altitude.

The loss of control is the result of failure to maintain adequate airspeed. The yawing moment from the live engine was too great at such a low airspeed and the nose too high to do anything about it.

It's a sad loss, but from a learning point of view the pilot must assume 100% responsibility rather than blaming the port engine.


I like to think of engines as a nice-to-have. You shouldn't ever need to depend on them!
Old 04-05-2006, 07:29 PM
  #24  
flyernater
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: , AZ
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

you might want practice your landing
Old 04-06-2006, 01:44 AM
  #25  
Jimmbbo
Senior Member
 
Jimmbbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Nice P82 Crash!!!

ORIGINAL: rjbranchii

Being a 100% scale multiengine pilot, I'll tell you that was a dead left engine. In twin engine training its called "stall, spin, crash, burn, die." What has to happen in this deal is that full right rudder had to be instituted instantly, the nose lowered so the single engine minimum control speed is maintained, and the plane slightly banked into the good engine, ie to the right. Complicating this one is that since both engines turn in the same direction, and the torque is the same, there is what is called a critical engine. Its the left one. If that one dies, the torque of the right one also adds to the difficulty of flying maintaining control and may make it impossible at full throttle. Most modern twins are designed with counter rotating propellors. The starboard one rotates opposite what we are used to. This makes the torque problem less of an issue and there is not a critical engine when this is done. Some twins are quite gentle, the Piper Sennaca being problably the kindest in the air. The Beechcraft Barons are real nasty. I know a number of multi engine instructors who will not do primary twin engine training in them. The majority of multi engine training is in learning to recognize an engine failure, and handle it and make the right decisions to get the plane on the runway with you alive. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. It is why the twin engine fatality rate is higher than the single engine rate in real aircraft. A light twin is probably the most dangerous airplane there is to fly. The key to recognizing an engine failure is feeling one of the rudder pedals kick pressure when the engine fails. Sadly, this is not possible to feel in our multiengine models. The first sign of a problem as here is usually the yaw into the dead engine and by then its probably too late.

One thing that can help that may translate well to model twins is the difference in flying a 100% scale single vs twin. In a single, altitude is life. Takeoffs should aim at reaching the altitude at which if an engine fails a 180 degree turn can be made without stalling back onto the runway from which you just came. For most planes, this is about 800 ft altitude. Less than this and you will stall and spin trying the move. So you pick your best place straight out. In a twin it is 100% different. In a twin, speed is life. You need to stay above the speed at which the rudder can no longer hold a straight course (ie control) with a dead engine. So rather than going for altitude you go for that speed and never ever go below it. Early in my flying career, I had a single engine failure on takeoff, so all my single engine takeoffs were max climb to 800 ft after that. I was having trouble with this change in the twin. So my instructor told me that on the ensueing takeoff he was going to fail one of the engines just beyond the go-no go point on the runway, so I would have to continue the takeoff and return to the runway to land. BUT.... the tallest obstruction withing 5 miles of the airport was 98 ft. I was not to climb above 125 ft on the entire excercise. He explained, "the tops of trees are not near as dense as the bottom of trees." I did make the manoever. But the leg that was not leaning on the rudder pedal into the good engine was up under my chin, and the one on the rudder pedal wanted to be. Most difficult thing I ever did in an airplane. But I learned the lesson. When we take off with a multiengine model, we should do the same thing. Climb very shallow until the plane is up to full speed and then climb to altitude, but even then conservatively. Oh yea, and I would not fly a twin model if any other planes were up at the same time, at least not the takeoff. I'd wanna be able to tell by sound if anything went amiss. Maybe that's an arguement for big, noisy motors in twins, not sure.

bob branch
Please allow me to comment for clarification, based on 2000+ hours of multiengine instruction given.

I agree that the cause of too many FS multiengine accidents is failure to act quickly and positively to retain flying speed in the event of an engine failure. That is crticial, and is the focus of all multiengine training.

The correct method for determining an engine failure is to counter the yaw induced by the failed engine... If the LH engine fails, right rudder must be applied to counter the resulting yaw, leaving the left foot with nothing to do, hence the oft repeated litany "dead foot, dead engine" for identifying which engine has failed.

IMO, Beech Barons are not inherently dangerous, but require (as does any other high performance light twin) that a pilot retains proficiency in emergency procedures. As you said, when an engine quits on a light twin, there is not much time to take corrective action...

Can't recommend practicing a 125 AGL single engine return to the airport, tho.. [>:] Margin for error = 0

Cheers!

Jim

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.