C421 down near CA/NV border

The backside of the Sierras is know for extreme turbulence especially in the spring. On that day the winds aloft were stronger than normal at lower altitudes too. Strong winds across 14,000'+ terrain = the worst turbulence I've ever experienced and it lasted 20 minutes, I've been a pilot since 1972. ATC was complaining that I was 700' off my VFR altitude. Heck, I felt lucky to still have two wings.

I can't help but wonder if he had a structure failure.


Good point because mountains create weather systems of their own regardless what the surrounding weather appears to be all year long!
 
I also fly out of RHV and have seen this airplane. That area can have some rough turbulence this time of year. RIP to the pilot.
 
Yeah really. I fail to see how this was negative networking? I think it's cool that he is an actual DER. But I also think he made a mistake about what he said, and would like an explaination. Something wrong with that? (And I'm being dead serious)

I wonder who the bigger dick is? The guy that does it for a living who tried to set the record straight, or the guy that tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

That's great that you can read a book and become an expert on things that you've never done. I'll listen to the guy thats actually done it in practice.
 
I wonder who the bigger dick is? The guy that does it for a living who tried to set the record straight, or the guy that tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

That's great that you can read a book and become an expert on things that you've never done. I'll listen to the guy thats actually done it in practice.


That's great. Listen. I would like an explanation from the guy that says it goes against everything I've ever learned, and I gave him the sources from which I've learned them. I refuse to just take what someone says as gospel who just jumps in and says so with no real explanation. After all, isn't that what's gotten people banned in the past? The difference here is it's not happening in the lav. We usually call them "trolls" and everyone jumps on the hate band wagon. All I want is some discussion. I may have been a dick, but I didn't "qualify" being a dick, and have people accept it just because I qualified it by saying "I'm not trying to be a dick, bit I'm going to be one anyways" and then just bounce out of the thread.
 
So... yeah, back to the accident and such. FTA that was posted a few pages ago:

Witnesses say they saw a fireball in the sky before the plane went down.

That doesn't sound too good. Between that and the cycling sounds of the engines in the radio transmissions, what a terrifying way to go.
 
That's great. Listen. I would like an explanation from the guy that says it goes against everything I've ever learned, and I gave him the sources from which I've learned them. I refuse to just take what someone says as gospel who just jumps in and says so with no real explanation. After all, isn't that what's gotten people banned in the past? The difference here is it's not happening in the lav. We usually call them "trolls" and everyone jumps on the hate band wagon. All I want is some discussion. I may have been a dick, but I didn't "qualify" being a dick, and have people accept it just because I qualified it by saying "I'm not trying to be a dick, bit I'm going to be one anyways" and then just bounce out of the thread.
I have been very busy, and am off flight testing most of today, but I will rejoin the discussion in a day or two.

So you know my background, what is yours? Do you have an engineering degree? Extensive twin engine time?
 
WacoFan said:
I don't know about him, but please note that I've spun a Luscombe and once washed a 421 - so I'm not exactly a noob. Watch yourself around me.

I want to be you Jim!
 
I have been very busy, and am off flight testing most of today, but I will rejoin the discussion in a day or two.

So you know my background, what is yours? Do you have an engineering degree? Extensive twin engine time?


Thanks for coming back. No engineering degree.
 
I have been very busy, and am off flight testing most of today, but I will rejoin the discussion in a day or two.

So you know my background, what is yours? Do you have an engineering degree? Extensive twin engine time?

Thanks for coming back. No engineering degree.

No degree or "extensive twin" time required for this discussion. Maybe a discussion with references might be of assistance though
 
Yes it will. It plays a HUGE role. In a fully developed spin, it can mean the difference.

Well, the weight of an extra engine is not what concerns me. Sure, the more weight, the more inertia, the harder it will be to stop an auto-rotation. But my point was comparing a single engine airplane to a twin, the extra weight of 1 more engine, especially when you consider how that weight is evenly distributed on either side of the airplane, that in its self wouldn't cause an airplane to necessarily be unrecoverable in a spin.
 
Well, the weight of an extra engine is not what concerns me. Sure, the more weight, the more inertia, the harder it will be to stop an auto-rotation. But my point was comparing a single engine airplane to a twin, the extra weight of 1 more engine, especially when you consider how that weight is evenly distributed on either side of the airplane, that in its self wouldn't cause an airplane to necessarily be unrecoverable in a spin.
I don't think it's the distribution of weight (and whether it is even or not), but rather the placement. The weight of the engines while not far from the centerline of the aircraft, is still far enough away that the inertia of a plane rotating about that axis is more challenging to overcome than would be an aircraft without that extra weight out there.

This is speaking strictly from a physics, and not an aerodynamic, perspective.
 
Well, the weight of an extra engine is not what concerns me. Sure, the more weight, the more inertia, the harder it will be to stop an auto-rotation. But my point was comparing a single engine airplane to a twin, the extra weight of 1 more engine, especially when you consider how that weight is evenly distributed on either side of the airplane, that in its self wouldn't cause an airplane to necessarily be unrecoverable in a spin.

I agree that it won't make it unrecoverable. But it certainly isn't going to help any either.
 
I don't think it's the distribution of weight (and whether it is even or not), but rather the placement. The weight of the engines while not far from the centerline of the aircraft, is still far enough away that the inertia of a plane rotating about that axis is more challenging to overcome than would be an aircraft without that extra weight out there.

This is speaking strictly from a physics, and not an aerodynamic, perspective.

Well keep in mind you have an equal weight on the other side of the airplane.
 
That just makes it so that it is not out of balance as it rotates about that axis. The two weights being in balance does not negate the inertia of the moving mass. Both masses are moving at the same rate in the same axis of rotation... since they are a certain distance from that axis of rotation, their moment sustains the momentum they have, thus requiring either more energy (through either force or time) to slow the rotation around that specific axis. I will readily admit to not knowing about all of the different possible rotational movements in a spin, but one of them... a major one of them... is about the longitudinal axis, around which the not-insignificant masses of the two engines are rotating in the same direction. Just because they are balanced changes nothing. Just means that the rotation around that axis is balanced.
 
Back
Top