Nothing Stops the Golf Game

fholbert

fholbert

Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Date:13-JUN-2022
Time:c. 07:25
Type:
Silhouette image of generic P06T model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different

Tecnam P2006T
Owner/operator:Marsh Equipment LLC
Registration:N973GV
MSN:253/US
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage:Minor
Location:Lakewood, Jefferson County, CO -
N.gif
United States of America
Phase:En route
Nature:Training
Departure airport:Broomfield-Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, CO (BJC/KBJC)
Destination airport:Broomfield-Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, CO (BJC/KBJC)
Confidence Rating:
3.gif
Information is only available from news or social media reports
Narrative:
After squawking 7700 for an in-flight emergency, a Tecnam P2006T force landed at the Fox Hollow Golf Course, Lakewood, Jefferson County, Colorado, collapsing the nose landing gear.
No reported injuries.

1655253376288.png
 
How many yards can you add to your drive at 9500'MSL? Is it proportional to how high you are above the single engine service ceiling of a normally aspirated light twin?
 
#2 is feathered, #1 is still on pitch. That's a good indicator that it wasn't a double flameout.
 
ahw01 said:
Many a time at KDVT. -200fpm OEI. Fun times.
Click to expand...
I remember doing ATP training in a Seminole for a pointy nose pilot at IWA. The PTS required a single engine missed approach all the way to the hold. I set the simulated engine out MP, he flew the approach, tried to go missed, and we could barely hold altitude. We flew the length of the runway at 150' as I was slowly bumping MP and telling the guy to pretend it was still "inop". We finally achieved a 200 FPM climb at 16" and flew that to the hold. Shortly thereafter, the flight school came out with a new policy prohibiting us from doing simulated SE missed approaches.

I guess the old adage is true. The second engine is only good for getting you to the crash site.
 
guywhoflies said:
I remember doing ATP training in a Seminole for a pointy nose pilot at IWA. The PTS required a single engine missed approach all the way to the hold. I set the simulated engine out MP, he flew the approach, tried to go missed, and we could barely hold altitude. We flew the length of the runway at 150' as I was slowly bumping MP and telling the guy to pretend it was still "inop". We finally achieved a 200 FPM climb at 16" and flew that to the hold. Shortly thereafter, the flight school came out with a new policy prohibiting us from doing simulated SE missed approaches.

I guess the old adage is true. The second engine is only good for getting you to the crash site.
Click to expand...
Piston twins should never have been certified, same as rubber band powered airplanes. :)
 
form810 said:
Piston twins should never have been certified, same as rubber band powered airplanes. :)
Click to expand...
I knew a bunch of the people involved in The Rubber Bandit. Van Nuys used to be a much different place. I declined an invitation to join in their fun. Watching them oil and wind up the rubber bands using a tractor with a PTO and knowing how much potential energy was being stored and how uncontrollably it could suddenly become kinetic led me to evacuate the premises post haste. The fuselage was literally a repurposed flag pole. If memory serves at one point the thing did become a bit unruly during one of their tests and although no one got hurt a bunch of people stopped volunteering. I bet it would have flown fine, but those rubber bands were extremely dangerous and luckily no one got hurt.
www.latimes.com

Experimental Aircraft Expected to Stretch the Limits of Aviation

Flying: Builders hope to launch the first rubber band-powered plane to carry a passenger. But they still need an airport to host the maiden voyage.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
 
knot4u said:
I knew a bunch of the people involved in The Rubber Bandit. Van Nuys used to be a much different place. I declined an invitation to join in their fun. Watching them oil and wind up the rubber bands using a tractor with a PTO and knowing how much potential energy was being stored and how uncontrollably it could suddenly become kinetic led me to evacuate the premises post haste. The fuselage was literally a repurposed flag pole. If memory serves at one point the thing did become a bit unruly during one of their tests and although no one got hurt a bunch of people stopped volunteering. I bet it would have flown fine, but those rubber bands were extremely dangerous and luckily no one got hurt.
www.latimes.com

Experimental Aircraft Expected to Stretch the Limits of Aviation

Flying: Builders hope to launch the first rubber band-powered plane to carry a passenger. But they still need an airport to host the maiden voyage.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
Click to expand...
Pepperidge Farm 'members. Still, rubber bands -at least the kind you buy at a typical notions store- are almost like, but kinda different from corn starch or thixotropic mud. You know, non-Newtonian fluids - weird solid-in-fluid suspensions that act very strangely, in situ or in vitro.

Synthetic rubber bands act in reverse of the expected. Their entropy actually reduces as they are stretched, and is magnified as they release. I know... go figure! (and, yeah, you'll need to do a whole lot of figuring!)

So, yeah, science is weird; And we should NEVER build airplanes with rubber band engines, regardless how carbon-neutral they claim to be. :)
 
Last edited:
guywhoflies said:
I remember doing ATP training in a Seminole for a pointy nose pilot at IWA. The PTS required a single engine missed approach all the way to the hold. I set the simulated engine out MP, he flew the approach, tried to go missed, and we could barely hold altitude. We flew the length of the runway at 150' as I was slowly bumping MP and telling the guy to pretend it was still "inop". We finally achieved a 200 FPM climb at 16" and flew that to the hold. Shortly thereafter, the flight school came out with a new policy prohibiting us from doing simulated SE missed approaches.

I guess the old adage is true. The second engine is only good for getting you to the crash site.
Click to expand...
Whenever I depart DIJ or JAC in the summer at MGTOW I’ve just always figured the extra engine opened up a wider variety of potential crash (landing) sites. I think of it as expanding the engine out radius if you were in a single.
 
milleR said:
Whenever I depart DIJ or JAC in the summer at MGTOW I’ve just always figured the extra engine opened up a wider variety of potential crash (landing) sites. I think of it as expanding the engine out radius if you were in a single.
Click to expand...

But the maneuvering loss restricts your options as does a higher Vso
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top