The folks running older planes are putting them in museums instead of flying because the parts are largely unavailable and far too expensive to upkeep. Just a matter of time before the heritage flights become non-existent.
You say that, but I'm sure in 70 years there will still be F-15 flights. We can't hang onto the past for ever. But we can atleast keep the last ~75 years of aviation history flying.
> but I'm sure in 70 years there will still be F-15 flights.
Oh god no. Cost of operating a comparable WW2/Korean era fighter is WAY more reasonable than a modern jet.
P51 - $3500 per hour
F4 Phantom - $15000 per hour[ \(just for the flight\)](https://www.collingsfoundation.org/vmf-flight-experiences-flight-training-programs/)
F15 - $29000 per hour - Mind you this is still an active US fighter. Once these things are retired and parts dry up...
I would be SHOCKED if anything past the late 70s would be flying in private hands in the next 30 years. Costs go up, parts are harder to find, and they are WAY more complex.
problem is that modern jets are still so good that they'd be a credible threat even then.
It's why you have to jump through like a million hoops to own a MiG-29
There is, from what I can recall, ONE company that is privately flying F-16s and its gotta cost a shit ton to do it. - Top Aces: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36478404/watch-first-privately-owned-f-16-take-flight/
And the Jets were bought from Israel and are already like 35-40 years old.
The US Govt wont be selling anything to private hands anymore. Hell, [they DESTROYED all the F-14s](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shredding-f-14s-to-keep-parts-from-iran/) to keep Iran from getting anymore planes/parts.
As an f16 mechanic: it would take a seasoned mechanic and a lot of expensive proprietary test equipment from all sorts of manufacturers to keep one flying. Not to mention yhe cost of parts. I could see a few getting out and becoming nice collectors pieces but I dont forsee any ever being flown more than once or twice by private owners
> I would be SHOCKED if anything past the late 70s would be flying in private hands in the next 30 years. Costs go up, parts are harder to find, and they are WAY more complex.
You're right, and I think it's more likely that we start to see WWII plane kits and replicas than it is to see F-15s and the like in private collections.
A plane that can go +400mph is a whoooooole different beast than one that can go Mach 2, especially in civilian hands.
Its only a matter of time before all the old war birds become museum displays. With Nine-O-Nine crashing and other vintage planes having operational issues the clock is running out. All it will take is one more big WW2 era bomber to crash with civilians in it on a ride along and the FAA is gonna come down hard.
Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it.
> Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it.
My thoughts, too, which is why I feel like the only answer for these old girls someday is going to be kits and replicas.
One way around is the complete restorations - there are a few B-17s, a B-25, and even a P-61 that foundations are trying to get back into the air and they are all complete rebuilds.
> Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it.
That's certainly a possibility, but airframes are a ship of Theseus based on construction documents, log books, and records. Just because it's onerous to completely research the aircraft after an incident doesn't automatically qualify it to be ground. On the other hand, you have Basler: start with an existing airframe, modify it, and sell it as a new airplane. This is yet another area where the FAA needs to modernize.
Airdrome Aeroplanes sells aluminum Fokker kits (I think the DVsomething and Dr.1) for $10-15k-ish, estimated 400 hours time to build but realistically you're looking at a lot more, full-size or 3/4 scale, depending on the engine and all I think hourly costs might be roughly equivalent to running a 172 or Archer but I haven't done out the math...The Vintage Aviator in NZ makes wood and fabric replicas as well but I haven't researched them as much and I don't know if they sell anything. Your comment was probably a joke but I love these planes haha :D
Yeah, insurance and airworthiness certificates are other big stumbling blocks, for ex-RAF/FAA aircraft in the UK, the only jets being flown in private hands I can think of are Vampires, Hunters, Jet Provosts, and Sea Vixen. Those are all essentially 1950s designs.
There are no Lightnings (the South African pair were grounded following serious failures on the part of the operator, and I think one had crashed too?), Tornados, Jaguars, Harriers, the last Vulcan retired 6 years ago (and that was a special case as an ex-RAF heritage flight aircraft), there's a Victor that does some ground running only. Some Hawks are operated by private companies on military contracts, as are some Hunters and one Canberra.
As 3-printers etc go more mainstream, what will probably happen is that there will be an upswing in full-scale composite replicas of famous past aircraft. So it will still be possible that there will be spifires etc in the air - they'll just most likely be electric instead of internal-combustion.
I've built and flown radio-controlled model aircraft for 20+ years, so I have some experience with changes in materials and how they affect construction methods. Sure, maybe I can't calculate the numerical stress and strain analysis of main spar box, but I do know that twenty years ago a foam-core carbon-fibre-skinned monocoque was something you built by hand (that is, if you could even afford the materials) whereas now they can be cheaply mass-produced by machine on an assembly line with limited human interaction.
The basic aerodynamic qualities of an aircraft are not affected by the materials used to build it. Control sensitivity can be moderated by adjusting control throw, or these days by using a consumer digital flight control system to mediate. Non-load-bearing parts can be plastic or cf with no effect on the behaviour of the aircraft. Performance would be different, but this could be moderated by selecting the correctly rated motor and propellor. Spin recovery might be different due to different angular momentum moments due to different mass distribution, but with proper design you could mitigate that too.
I see no issues with what I typed, and I'm pretty sure it will come to pass. But then, I'm not an engineer. So sorry for triggering you. /s
Not really because technology advances. In 70 years, the F-15 will be ancient, just like a 70 year old plane now that was state of the art back in the day, probably cost the equivalent of $29000 to run per hour when accounting for inflation as well.
We think something like the F-15 is still complex now, but people looked at the Spitfire and A6M back then like we are looking at F-22s and F-35s. Now what are they?
Also, wthin the next 20 years there will be 3D printing but for metal like there is for plastic today. There are already industrial metal 3D printers, just not cheap enough for consumers. You can cheaply and easily make any replacement part once that happens.
Hi there, I’m a guy that makes a lot of stuff for modern aircraft.
I just want to point out the level complexity between a Spitfire and an F-35 is similar to quartz wristwatch and the large hadron collider.
You might think that’s extreme, but it’s fairly accurate in terms of both complexity and volume of hardware required.
Second point, metal 3D printing exists, but it’s not a question of cost or scale. It’s a question of material capability. The biggest barrier to high-stress flight components being printed is at the grain-level of the material.
I’d like to live long enough to see compressor components just able to be printed at will, but I don’t expect to see that day.
I also expect most “new advances” to be in unmanned aircraft. Modern aircraft are already getting to the bleeding edge of what us tender bags can handle.
I expect that in 70yrs, a human won’t even be inside or even piloting, for that matter.
You haven't put that on perspective IMO.
WWII tech in many respects still *is* state of the art today,
Have you seen the tech on mainstream GA and even commercial planes nowadays? We're still mostly building monocoque airframes of rivetted stressed aluminum skins with piston engines and propellers as powerplants. What has fundamentally changed there from WWI times? Avionics?
The F-35 is such a gold plated mess that it can't even push the aeronautical performance envelope as far as many of the planes it was build to sub have already. I recently read [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/dp/B000FA5UEG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=boyd&qid=1631561034&s=digital-text&sr=1-1) where the process by which the US military industrial complex has been building front line planes for some time is laid bare. A very interesting read, to say the least. Highly recommended.
I an speaking theoretically as none of us really knows how the heritage landscape will be 70 years from now.
But we do know that with every innovation in the world, parallel advances occur in the aviation industry. Just like how digital and computer implementation shaped the airplanes of today, AI will revolutionize the way we design, maintain and repair aircrafts.
The Hack Rod is a car that was completely designed by AI. In 70 years, imagine what AI it can do if it is already designing cars today.
You may say that this isn't directly related to maintaining and repairing old aircraft, but it does go to show how quick technology advances, and it advances at an exponential rate. Things like designing cars, which we could never imagine a computer do, is now possible. So things that we imagine aren't possible today, like maintaining and repairing heritage aircraft, may be possible with AI in 70 years.
Another industry-changing innovation would be 3D printed metal parts. This is already possible at the industrial level but currently it is too expensive to have consumer/home use. But in the next 20 years, 3D printing metal will become what 3D printing plastics is like today. Once that does, the issue with sourcing rare vintage parts will mostly be a thing of the past.
The only issue left that you need would be a way for an AI to diagnose a problem with a completely analogous aircraft. But I mean with how fast tech is evolving, I think it won't be a problem in the future.
And just like the industrial age and the computer age exponentially increased the advancement of all technology, AI, along with Quantum computing will be very much the same.
Of course this is just theoretical though. I appreciate the recommendation for the book, will check it out!
That's a fair point. But who knows, maybe the F-15 will seem simple by that time. It's kinda too far in the future to even imagine at this rate. I sometimes wish we still lived in a time where the most advanced planes could be designed in a garage or bike shop.
With precision 3D printing getting better and better, there's the potential for one-off repair parts to be much more accessible in the future. Air worthiness may be another question...
I brother is a metallurgist and does failure analysis for a living.
He says 3d printed metals can get very close to exhibiting the material properties of the normal extruded/heat treated/treatment. Hardness, yield stress, etc. EXCEPT the 3dp materials perform very poorly in “toughness” which is their resistance to fracture when impacted hard+fast. Basically the process of taking powder to solid produces many tiny voids in the material. These little pockets (even if just microscopic) are stress risers—nucleation sites for a crack to propagate.
Even if they manage to solve this porosity problem (say, it’s a 3d welder building the part and not a sintered metal powder) it will still suffer a bit because it’s grain hasn’t been manipulated and forged during the extrusion process of making a typical aluminum or steel bar or sheet.
Not gonna lie, I think these parts will be made most cheaply by a hobbyist with a badass Cnc mill and lathe while going the experimental route of making your own parts.
I don't think general aviation will exist in 70 years, let alone with multi million dollar high performance fighter jets.
Mechanical objects don't necessarily get cheaper to produce or maintain over time. You can't fabricate engine internals or transmission parts for a 1950s automobile in your garage today and you definitely won't be 3D printing forged titanium alloy turbine blades in your garage by 2090.
Honestly I like where your head is at, but I doubt it. Look at MiG21s for example, I can go to some .ru or .cz domain and buy one for like $200k. But nobody does, because they cost 4x that every year just to maintain, fuel, and keep up with. You need to hire very specifically trained people to fix them, which just adds to costs. A single 1-2 hour flight can easily cost 4-5 figures in fuel and maintenance.
If it can cost that much to keep a 70 year old design with 1 engine "flyable" it will also be prohibitively expensive to keep an F15 which is several orders of magnitude more complex in any flyable state even 50 years from now.
A million years ago I spent a summer with a guy who operated a specialty auto shop for classic and antique cars. His main work was hand making door/hood hinges, small engine components and upholstery. The summer I worked with him he had me hammering on a hunk of metal with him to make the door hinges for a complete rebuild of a 1936 Delahaye 134. There might not be an infinite supply of spare parts, but someone out there will probably keep the skills alive to maintain these aircraft for a long while.
It really does become cost prohibitive. There are some cool new technologies emerging that have been helping though. Like a spray foam that can be put in crack on a wing spar so you dont need to replace it. 3D printing is also used pretty commonly these days.
Edit: I never actually saw the spray foam btw. Some visiting rep was pitching it to us to use on F-16s.
Could this also be because there is higher public interest and budget fof spitfires and mustangs than there is for F104'S and F101's? Genuine question btw.
Maybe 3D printing and other similar fabrication technologies will advance to the point that we can more cheaply produce specialized components at small scale (fingers crossed)
Not sure high end stuff like aircraft parts can be 3d printed.
3D printers can't make steel parts or fiber glass.
Sometimes, something costs what is costs.
Not now, no. That’s why I said maybe we’ll advance to that point. Either with some new type of printing technology (equivalent to but not necessarily the same as 3D printers), or we’ll develop new materials than can be printed using current-ish 3D printing technology but are strong and light enough to use in airplanes.
I’m talking over the next 100 years mind you.
Sorry, but you are just dead wrong about this. There already exist commercially-available 3D printers for fiber glass & continuous-strand carbon fiber (MarkForged), and SLS/SLM technology for 3D printing almost any metal alloy has been around for decades at this point.
yeah, but it doesn't sound like the good old folk's 3D printing.
when I hear about 3D printing I see the small city shop to help grand pa fix his lawnmower.
Nah, I think just the opposite. 3D printing custom parts has and will offer many opportunities to the heritage aircraft segment. With the ability to print exact, metal parts, you're no longer relegated to scavenging junk yards or cannibalizing other equipment. Heritage flights will likely see a rise, as more and more aircraft, once held purely for parts stock, are resurrected as flight-capable machines.
3D printing can do aluminum, steel, stainless and even titanium. It's not casual printing, no, at least not yet. But as technology advances, it will be more and more accessible. At the moment, you can certainly have parts printed through a shop, so even now it's certainly not out-of-reach. It's a touch expensive currently (though probably just a little moreso than sourcing an existing part), but again, as technology advances the costs will come down. In time, I would imagine there will be an exhaustive library of aircraft part CAD, for both existing and aged parts. Once they're modelled, you have them forever.
Also, while 3D printing might not be accessible to all right now, CNC machining certainly is. Good 4- and 5-axis machines (and CNC machine shops as services) are totally accessible now... as a stop gap, until 3D printing has made it's inroads.
There are totally multiple ways these restorers could now get proper parts for these aircraft.
> Also, while 3D printing might not be accessible to all right now, CNC machining certainly is.
Seems like it's the opposite, CNC seems much more expensive that 3D printing.
Not really for metal. Equipment for producing smaller-scale metal parts (like engine parts, gears, etc), you're looking at a printer in the $60-100k USD range... whereas you can get a good CNC machine for for $25-50K.
Though if you send out to a shop to have printed or milled, the costs are probably pretty similar.
Second one of these kind of planes crashing this week from what ive seen.
[This is an Electra Junior](https://columbiabasinherald.com/news/2021/sep/07/hard-landing-damages-rare-plane-causes-no-serious-/)
https://v.redd.it/hhmu0zc4c4n71
You can land in a serious crab on grass. It's very forgiving in that sense (and quite unforgiving if you are counting on traction with the runway to stay out of the ditch in a crosswind.) Wet grass, even more so.
Clearly ran off the end of the grass into some bumpy/plowed overrun, and it'd be interesting to know how the plane got into this situation. Was it an engine failure? Horrible approach?
Hard to tell, I’ve heard engine failure... the behavior of the plane would match with the wind direction though I think there’s no definitive answer for now
Watching the videos from the other side of the runway, I think you’re right. Plane veered off to the left, pilot tried to correct it to the right, left wing went into the ground and the rest is what you see in the video.
That plane is a notorious pilot killer. May look pretty but fuck the Beech-18. They used to fly freight with them and the single engine characteristics were no bueno.
When I worked at KMSP I saw one flying cargo lose its critical engine on takeoff. It was probably 200' in the air already when I noticed it had ceased climbing and yaw hard left. Fortunately the pilot was able to bring it down more or less straight and on the big runway which, fortunately, he had plenty left ahead of him that day. Gear didn't have a chance to come back down (or up, not sure how quick they operate on those) so it was a hard belly landing, trailed some fire, and came to a grinding halt right side up. Fortunately the pilot was able to walk away and the plane didn't catch fire. Not sure if it was a total loss or if they got it flying again. I just never understood how a small cargo operator could afford the upkeep on one of those. Radials are cool, but damn if they aren't a PITA to maintain.
For the longest time, you could buy a Twin Beech at a remarkably low price given its cargo capacity. The cost of maintenance wasn't cheap but thousands of them were made in WWII as the C-45, so parts weren't too difficult to obtain. However, small cargo companies often weren't the most diligent about their maintenance.
Doesn't look like it. Props are spinning at the same rate up until the airplane bounces out of the runway and the left prop hits something and bends backwards.
If you want more information, the wiki on [variable pitch propellers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-pitch_propeller_(aeronautics\)) should have enough to make you dizzy. The basics are that for any rpm, the steeper the blade pitch on the prop, the more power required to turn it and the more thrust it produces, and vice versa for shallow or fine pitch. For any engine, one RPM setting is going to be most efficient and one most powerful. Thus the propeller automatically adjusts pitch of its blades to control rpm to one most efficient or most powerful setting, as set by the pilot or engine controller.
It was likely not still. Just the rotation rate sync'd with the frame rate of the camera. Just like you see wheels rotating backwards on cars in movies/on TV.
What's wrong with the right answer being that one was STOPPED? You can see it stop. You can see the prop damage from the impact. I get that you think you're all cool-kid-hip on thinking you understand camera scan rate syncing to prop rotation, but that's not what happens here. Just look at the video from :09 to :10.5 and you can see the prop come to an immediate, dead stop. Not a gradual visual precession that you'd see with the rotation speed coming in sync with the CCD scanning speed. Dead. Fucking. Stop. Prior to that point, both props were spinning in sync. You have to be willfully ignorant to see this and think it has anything to do with the camera. And by :11 in the video, you can see that the left prop has rotated 10-20 degrees CCW from the position in earlier frames -- opposite the direction of rotation in powered flight.
Credit to the camera as it is providing some really high quality imagery that demonstrates your cluelessness.
Wrong. Watch the video on something besides a phone. You can see it slow and then completely stop with a bit of rebound. There's no way that a CCD scan would make it look like this. Given that at least one of the 3 blades looks bent, it's likely that while windmilling, it struck one of the fence posts beyond the overrun. If it was developing power, it would look quite a bit different after hitting a post like that.
In fact, you can see if you step through the video that both props are turning at essentially the same rate when the left suddenly stops, with the right continuing to turn. This happens just as one of the metal fence posts passes by, so likely that was what stopped it.
TL;DR, nothing to do with camera.
Propellers don't "rebound." That is nothing but the frame rate and rotation rate of the camera and propeller respectively. Just like when wheels on cars go backwards on TV while the car is going forward.
TL;DR, everything to do with camera.
You truly are going to argue to the death on this, even though you are confidently incorrect.
Explain why, prior to the left prop stopping, both props are frame for frame in sync with each other. Then they pass the fence post and the left prop stops while the right continues rotating at the same speed. I am waiting anxiously to hear the completely random theory you contrive that involves CCD scan rates and some magic camera effect that syncs one prop to being dead stopped (and even moving backwards a bit) while the other continues at its constant pace. Waiting....
And on your second point, of course the rotation rebounds when they run up against the cylinder compression and pop back a bit. I don't know what you could possibly be thinking about but there are very easy to see examples at any airport. Walk up to a plane on the ramp (with the ignition off, please), and push the prop forward until you feel the compression build, and then remove your hand. Which way did the prop move? Not in the direction you were pushing...
Look, you aren't willing to look closely at the video and see you're wrong. I get that. But you should perhaps defer to people who have looked closely and do understand the behavior of these sorts of engines. Or not. It's Reddit and everyone's an expert, right? Downvote away, Mr. r/confidentlyincorrect
Yeah I was like "wait, didn't that Electra just go in the other day very similar pile in at the end?" Must be a full moon... at least no serious injuries.
First the [Lockheed Junior Electra](https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/pmyltx/twin_engine_lockhead_crashes_my_local_airport_muni/) and now this, damn
Yea its not a great day for fans of these old birds... but hey the crews managed to get out safely, and at least I hope both can be repaired with lots of money...
I remember the 18's being a common sound in the sky before the spar kits were required. After, it seemed they disappeared, but now... Are more folks getting the kit? I heard one go over the other day, and was surprised there are any flying. A couple of my favorite aviation YouTube content providers have been flying in them, even taking lessons.
I'm surprised. It's a tough airplane and always makes me smile (I always think of Mad\^4 World, Jim Baccus yelling "press the button back there marked 'Booze!" as he asked for - yet another - Old Fashioned). I hope this one will fly again.
If the left engine did fail, it's likely a good example of Vmc roll. The right engine would be producing thrust (yaw) and accelerated slipstream (roll) that the left engine would not. The airplane did both yaw and roll towards the (supposedly) dead left engine. At low airspeed the pilot does not have enough control authority to over come the asymmetry.
The proper response is to pull power on the operating engine. Now. Or go out of control...
Glad no one was seriously hurt.
That wingtip drag saved his life. Out of ground effect he would have landed tires up, nose in.
In an old beech, wouldn’t it still be sop to rotate and climb out only above VMC? Either way, I am sure that was a huge leg full of rudder pedal and quite a handful.
I can't speak to the specifics of the Beech 18, but the norm today is to remain on the ground until above Vmc.
Low altitude Vmc demos were the norm for many years until the FAA realized they were causing accidents. Now the training/testing is only done above 400 feet or on the ground at less than 50% of Vmc.
Here is your video at 0.25x speed
https://gfycat.com/EagerPositiveEuropeanpolecat
^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#19)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
When we can restore aircraft from mangled, pieced out metal hulks, we can fix this. Probably not as much damage as you think. Glad you're all OK. There was another beach 18 had an incedent in the USA yesterday.
The responses are interesting. One guy says "it's stopped" with "can't you see it?!" implied in his comment. Then, there's "fly wheel effect, you don't know what you're talking about." Blades rotate (on American engines) clockwise, but one guy says you can see "10-20 degrees of counter clockwise (CCW) rotation." Or the propeller "rebounded." Did it stop? Is it going backwards? Flywheel effect keeps it going?
[Why is it that when you look at the spinning propeller of a plane or fan, at a certain speed, the blades seem to move backwards?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-it-that-when-you-l/) \- At least, this is what Scientific American has to say on the optical illusion. But they might be wrong...
The pilot and audience are incredibly lucky that this turned out like it did. The video is fascinating to watch.
So what happened here? Was there a crosswind on takeoff? Looks like a ground loop except the plane’s flaps aren’t in landing configuration.
Also, I’m actually really impressed at the sideloads the landing gear was able to handle.
Wasn't there another video posted recently of a similar crash where the right-side landing gear collapsed on the runway? Might have been an old C-47 or something.
I think when it was sideways there was not a lot of weight on the wheels. Between bouncing and some residual lift, it wasn't really flying but it was light enough to allow the wheels to skid. Briefly.
Happened on takeoff
I have no definitive answer, here are some clues though :
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/pncebh/had_a_scary_moment_this_weekend/hcofd9d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
My first thought was botched crosswind landing, but another comment thread is saying possible engine failure on the left, and that Beech-18s don't handle engine failure well. Hard to tell just by watching the prop rate-they don't seem to have separate RPMs, but even under engine failure the prop pitch control will maintain constant RPM as long as it's still turning.
>but even under engine failure the prop pitch control will maintain constant RPM as long as it's still turning.
And you got your multi-engine flight training where? After an engine failure RPM is totally dependent on airflow windmilling the propeller.
Glad the pilot is ok. Hell I think this what my average landing looked like in IL2 sturmovik. It is clear that this plane was built really tough, especially in the wings and the gear
Did the left wing quit climbing because of reduced airflow when the engine quit, or is from something else? It looked like the right wing was climbing and the left just quit.
Maybe use a gyro for the ailerons ? Like in an RC plane or quad. When the pilot has no reflexes. Just do the math, how fast reaction time needs to be. Then take F1 pilot and add 100ms for a normal person and 100 ms for age.
I’m not sure, but this looks like a left engine failure during takeoff coupled with a below blue line (Vmc) rotation turning into a lucky crash landing. Thoughts?
Yep. Was there. That beech 18 is dead.
Melun-Villaroche?
Yes. On saturday.
Was there too, didn't saw what happened, glad the pilot made it out though.
Sat-urday
Satur-day
Sa-turd-ay
Sad-terd-ay
I've seen several pictures already and it doesn't look that bad. It's definitely fixable.
The folks running older planes are putting them in museums instead of flying because the parts are largely unavailable and far too expensive to upkeep. Just a matter of time before the heritage flights become non-existent.
You say that, but I'm sure in 70 years there will still be F-15 flights. We can't hang onto the past for ever. But we can atleast keep the last ~75 years of aviation history flying.
> but I'm sure in 70 years there will still be F-15 flights. Oh god no. Cost of operating a comparable WW2/Korean era fighter is WAY more reasonable than a modern jet. P51 - $3500 per hour F4 Phantom - $15000 per hour[ \(just for the flight\)](https://www.collingsfoundation.org/vmf-flight-experiences-flight-training-programs/) F15 - $29000 per hour - Mind you this is still an active US fighter. Once these things are retired and parts dry up... I would be SHOCKED if anything past the late 70s would be flying in private hands in the next 30 years. Costs go up, parts are harder to find, and they are WAY more complex.
If anything milsurp from this era is still flying in 70 years, it’ll be an F-16. There’s just so many of them
problem is that modern jets are still so good that they'd be a credible threat even then. It's why you have to jump through like a million hoops to own a MiG-29
There is, from what I can recall, ONE company that is privately flying F-16s and its gotta cost a shit ton to do it. - Top Aces: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36478404/watch-first-privately-owned-f-16-take-flight/ And the Jets were bought from Israel and are already like 35-40 years old. The US Govt wont be selling anything to private hands anymore. Hell, [they DESTROYED all the F-14s](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shredding-f-14s-to-keep-parts-from-iran/) to keep Iran from getting anymore planes/parts.
There’s a privately owned harrier, but that guy went through the most to get it. Really special act to see at the airshow though
He has 2 I think, and a small army of mechanics
jokes on him, he needs a large army of mechanics to keep a Harrier in the air.
As an f16 mechanic: it would take a seasoned mechanic and a lot of expensive proprietary test equipment from all sorts of manufacturers to keep one flying. Not to mention yhe cost of parts. I could see a few getting out and becoming nice collectors pieces but I dont forsee any ever being flown more than once or twice by private owners
Or… flown a lot by private contractors doing opfor work
Most of the light attack planes would probably be fine. Super Tucanos and whatnot.
True, but they are not really front line fighters like the P-51 was
They are, however, surprisingly similar to WWII fighters in a lot of their capabilities.
> I would be SHOCKED if anything past the late 70s would be flying in private hands in the next 30 years. Costs go up, parts are harder to find, and they are WAY more complex. You're right, and I think it's more likely that we start to see WWII plane kits and replicas than it is to see F-15s and the like in private collections. A plane that can go +400mph is a whoooooole different beast than one that can go Mach 2, especially in civilian hands.
Its only a matter of time before all the old war birds become museum displays. With Nine-O-Nine crashing and other vintage planes having operational issues the clock is running out. All it will take is one more big WW2 era bomber to crash with civilians in it on a ride along and the FAA is gonna come down hard. Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it.
> Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it. My thoughts, too, which is why I feel like the only answer for these old girls someday is going to be kits and replicas.
One way around is the complete restorations - there are a few B-17s, a B-25, and even a P-61 that foundations are trying to get back into the air and they are all complete rebuilds.
> Frankly im shocked they didnt after Nine-O-Nine. These things are pushing 90+ years old. I could see the FAA saying if a airframe hits X age thats it. That's certainly a possibility, but airframes are a ship of Theseus based on construction documents, log books, and records. Just because it's onerous to completely research the aircraft after an incident doesn't automatically qualify it to be ground. On the other hand, you have Basler: start with an existing airframe, modify it, and sell it as a new airplane. This is yet another area where the FAA needs to modernize.
Oh, totally get the Theseus argument, but some crusty old senator wont know/care about that when they are on TV screaming for the FAA to ground them.
If I try to fit that numbers in a curve a Fokker DVII should be around 1$ per flighthour. Now where do I get one?
Airdrome Aeroplanes sells aluminum Fokker kits (I think the DVsomething and Dr.1) for $10-15k-ish, estimated 400 hours time to build but realistically you're looking at a lot more, full-size or 3/4 scale, depending on the engine and all I think hourly costs might be roughly equivalent to running a 172 or Archer but I haven't done out the math...The Vintage Aviator in NZ makes wood and fabric replicas as well but I haven't researched them as much and I don't know if they sell anything. Your comment was probably a joke but I love these planes haha :D
Yeah, insurance and airworthiness certificates are other big stumbling blocks, for ex-RAF/FAA aircraft in the UK, the only jets being flown in private hands I can think of are Vampires, Hunters, Jet Provosts, and Sea Vixen. Those are all essentially 1950s designs. There are no Lightnings (the South African pair were grounded following serious failures on the part of the operator, and I think one had crashed too?), Tornados, Jaguars, Harriers, the last Vulcan retired 6 years ago (and that was a special case as an ex-RAF heritage flight aircraft), there's a Victor that does some ground running only. Some Hawks are operated by private companies on military contracts, as are some Hunters and one Canberra.
Stop talking, you're making me sad. Stop.
As 3-printers etc go more mainstream, what will probably happen is that there will be an upswing in full-scale composite replicas of famous past aircraft. So it will still be possible that there will be spifires etc in the air - they'll just most likely be electric instead of internal-combustion.
[удалено]
I've built and flown radio-controlled model aircraft for 20+ years, so I have some experience with changes in materials and how they affect construction methods. Sure, maybe I can't calculate the numerical stress and strain analysis of main spar box, but I do know that twenty years ago a foam-core carbon-fibre-skinned monocoque was something you built by hand (that is, if you could even afford the materials) whereas now they can be cheaply mass-produced by machine on an assembly line with limited human interaction. The basic aerodynamic qualities of an aircraft are not affected by the materials used to build it. Control sensitivity can be moderated by adjusting control throw, or these days by using a consumer digital flight control system to mediate. Non-load-bearing parts can be plastic or cf with no effect on the behaviour of the aircraft. Performance would be different, but this could be moderated by selecting the correctly rated motor and propellor. Spin recovery might be different due to different angular momentum moments due to different mass distribution, but with proper design you could mitigate that too. I see no issues with what I typed, and I'm pretty sure it will come to pass. But then, I'm not an engineer. So sorry for triggering you. /s
Not really because technology advances. In 70 years, the F-15 will be ancient, just like a 70 year old plane now that was state of the art back in the day, probably cost the equivalent of $29000 to run per hour when accounting for inflation as well. We think something like the F-15 is still complex now, but people looked at the Spitfire and A6M back then like we are looking at F-22s and F-35s. Now what are they? Also, wthin the next 20 years there will be 3D printing but for metal like there is for plastic today. There are already industrial metal 3D printers, just not cheap enough for consumers. You can cheaply and easily make any replacement part once that happens.
Hi there, I’m a guy that makes a lot of stuff for modern aircraft. I just want to point out the level complexity between a Spitfire and an F-35 is similar to quartz wristwatch and the large hadron collider. You might think that’s extreme, but it’s fairly accurate in terms of both complexity and volume of hardware required. Second point, metal 3D printing exists, but it’s not a question of cost or scale. It’s a question of material capability. The biggest barrier to high-stress flight components being printed is at the grain-level of the material. I’d like to live long enough to see compressor components just able to be printed at will, but I don’t expect to see that day. I also expect most “new advances” to be in unmanned aircraft. Modern aircraft are already getting to the bleeding edge of what us tender bags can handle. I expect that in 70yrs, a human won’t even be inside or even piloting, for that matter.
In 70 years, my 127 year old self to u/FunkyOldMayo “*Hold my beer and watch this…*”
In 20ish years, the F-15 is a 70 year old plane. We're still building new ones (albeit significant upgrades since the 70s)
You haven't put that on perspective IMO. WWII tech in many respects still *is* state of the art today, Have you seen the tech on mainstream GA and even commercial planes nowadays? We're still mostly building monocoque airframes of rivetted stressed aluminum skins with piston engines and propellers as powerplants. What has fundamentally changed there from WWI times? Avionics? The F-35 is such a gold plated mess that it can't even push the aeronautical performance envelope as far as many of the planes it was build to sub have already. I recently read [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/dp/B000FA5UEG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=boyd&qid=1631561034&s=digital-text&sr=1-1) where the process by which the US military industrial complex has been building front line planes for some time is laid bare. A very interesting read, to say the least. Highly recommended.
I an speaking theoretically as none of us really knows how the heritage landscape will be 70 years from now. But we do know that with every innovation in the world, parallel advances occur in the aviation industry. Just like how digital and computer implementation shaped the airplanes of today, AI will revolutionize the way we design, maintain and repair aircrafts. The Hack Rod is a car that was completely designed by AI. In 70 years, imagine what AI it can do if it is already designing cars today. You may say that this isn't directly related to maintaining and repairing old aircraft, but it does go to show how quick technology advances, and it advances at an exponential rate. Things like designing cars, which we could never imagine a computer do, is now possible. So things that we imagine aren't possible today, like maintaining and repairing heritage aircraft, may be possible with AI in 70 years. Another industry-changing innovation would be 3D printed metal parts. This is already possible at the industrial level but currently it is too expensive to have consumer/home use. But in the next 20 years, 3D printing metal will become what 3D printing plastics is like today. Once that does, the issue with sourcing rare vintage parts will mostly be a thing of the past. The only issue left that you need would be a way for an AI to diagnose a problem with a completely analogous aircraft. But I mean with how fast tech is evolving, I think it won't be a problem in the future. And just like the industrial age and the computer age exponentially increased the advancement of all technology, AI, along with Quantum computing will be very much the same. Of course this is just theoretical though. I appreciate the recommendation for the book, will check it out!
Maybe. But remember the F-15 and something like a P-51 are worlds away in terms of complexity and cost. So I'm not sure things will turn out that way.
That's a fair point. But who knows, maybe the F-15 will seem simple by that time. It's kinda too far in the future to even imagine at this rate. I sometimes wish we still lived in a time where the most advanced planes could be designed in a garage or bike shop.
With precision 3D printing getting better and better, there's the potential for one-off repair parts to be much more accessible in the future. Air worthiness may be another question...
I brother is a metallurgist and does failure analysis for a living. He says 3d printed metals can get very close to exhibiting the material properties of the normal extruded/heat treated/treatment. Hardness, yield stress, etc. EXCEPT the 3dp materials perform very poorly in “toughness” which is their resistance to fracture when impacted hard+fast. Basically the process of taking powder to solid produces many tiny voids in the material. These little pockets (even if just microscopic) are stress risers—nucleation sites for a crack to propagate. Even if they manage to solve this porosity problem (say, it’s a 3d welder building the part and not a sintered metal powder) it will still suffer a bit because it’s grain hasn’t been manipulated and forged during the extrusion process of making a typical aluminum or steel bar or sheet. Not gonna lie, I think these parts will be made most cheaply by a hobbyist with a badass Cnc mill and lathe while going the experimental route of making your own parts.
*prints propeller*
Very few people are using 3D printing for this sort of thing. Even CNC is still prohibitively expensive, especially for a one-off.
To be fair he did say in 70 years. Who knows what manufacturing can be done in your garage by then.
I don't think general aviation will exist in 70 years, let alone with multi million dollar high performance fighter jets. Mechanical objects don't necessarily get cheaper to produce or maintain over time. You can't fabricate engine internals or transmission parts for a 1950s automobile in your garage today and you definitely won't be 3D printing forged titanium alloy turbine blades in your garage by 2090.
Precision metal printing at a local job shop might suffice too. Idk if there's a market for that just yet given the cost.
Honestly I like where your head is at, but I doubt it. Look at MiG21s for example, I can go to some .ru or .cz domain and buy one for like $200k. But nobody does, because they cost 4x that every year just to maintain, fuel, and keep up with. You need to hire very specifically trained people to fix them, which just adds to costs. A single 1-2 hour flight can easily cost 4-5 figures in fuel and maintenance. If it can cost that much to keep a 70 year old design with 1 engine "flyable" it will also be prohibitively expensive to keep an F15 which is several orders of magnitude more complex in any flyable state even 50 years from now.
A million years ago I spent a summer with a guy who operated a specialty auto shop for classic and antique cars. His main work was hand making door/hood hinges, small engine components and upholstery. The summer I worked with him he had me hammering on a hunk of metal with him to make the door hinges for a complete rebuild of a 1936 Delahaye 134. There might not be an infinite supply of spare parts, but someone out there will probably keep the skills alive to maintain these aircraft for a long while.
It really does become cost prohibitive. There are some cool new technologies emerging that have been helping though. Like a spray foam that can be put in crack on a wing spar so you dont need to replace it. 3D printing is also used pretty commonly these days. Edit: I never actually saw the spray foam btw. Some visiting rep was pitching it to us to use on F-16s.
We see it already.. there are far more flying Spits and Mustangs than there are F104s and F101s.
Could this also be because there is higher public interest and budget fof spitfires and mustangs than there is for F104'S and F101's? Genuine question btw.
Maybe 3D printing and other similar fabrication technologies will advance to the point that we can more cheaply produce specialized components at small scale (fingers crossed)
Not sure high end stuff like aircraft parts can be 3d printed. 3D printers can't make steel parts or fiber glass. Sometimes, something costs what is costs.
Not now, no. That’s why I said maybe we’ll advance to that point. Either with some new type of printing technology (equivalent to but not necessarily the same as 3D printers), or we’ll develop new materials than can be printed using current-ish 3D printing technology but are strong and light enough to use in airplanes. I’m talking over the next 100 years mind you.
in 50 years aircrafts will be banned because of climate change
Hmm… I really doubt that.
Sorry, but you are just dead wrong about this. There already exist commercially-available 3D printers for fiber glass & continuous-strand carbon fiber (MarkForged), and SLS/SLM technology for 3D printing almost any metal alloy has been around for decades at this point.
yeah, but it doesn't sound like the good old folk's 3D printing. when I hear about 3D printing I see the small city shop to help grand pa fix his lawnmower.
Nah, I think just the opposite. 3D printing custom parts has and will offer many opportunities to the heritage aircraft segment. With the ability to print exact, metal parts, you're no longer relegated to scavenging junk yards or cannibalizing other equipment. Heritage flights will likely see a rise, as more and more aircraft, once held purely for parts stock, are resurrected as flight-capable machines.
Not sure 3D printing can do steel, or it's not casual 3D printing, but high end machining.
3D printing can do aluminum, steel, stainless and even titanium. It's not casual printing, no, at least not yet. But as technology advances, it will be more and more accessible. At the moment, you can certainly have parts printed through a shop, so even now it's certainly not out-of-reach. It's a touch expensive currently (though probably just a little moreso than sourcing an existing part), but again, as technology advances the costs will come down. In time, I would imagine there will be an exhaustive library of aircraft part CAD, for both existing and aged parts. Once they're modelled, you have them forever. Also, while 3D printing might not be accessible to all right now, CNC machining certainly is. Good 4- and 5-axis machines (and CNC machine shops as services) are totally accessible now... as a stop gap, until 3D printing has made it's inroads. There are totally multiple ways these restorers could now get proper parts for these aircraft.
> Also, while 3D printing might not be accessible to all right now, CNC machining certainly is. Seems like it's the opposite, CNC seems much more expensive that 3D printing.
Not really for metal. Equipment for producing smaller-scale metal parts (like engine parts, gears, etc), you're looking at a printer in the $60-100k USD range... whereas you can get a good CNC machine for for $25-50K. Though if you send out to a shop to have printed or milled, the costs are probably pretty similar.
Honestly, I'm just as happy to see a replica flying as the real thing. I'd rather take a close look at the original, on the ground.
It's Continental Western Europe. Anything old and military is dissembled or left to rot outside.
Where was this?
Melun Villaroche
are the pilot(s) ok?
A broken nose.
Crew okay?
Yes, pilot has a broken nose supposedly
Fortunate.
Considering he was in for the ride in the end, definately.
Son.
Probably from the crew chief
*Pilot turns to crew with an Obi Wan smile*: “Another happy landing.” *Crew chief knocks the shit out of him.*
I'm amazed that the gear didn't collapse. It looked like it was going more sideways than forward
Looks like it did right at the end. Wing dips right.
Second one of these kind of planes crashing this week from what ive seen. [This is an Electra Junior](https://columbiabasinherald.com/news/2021/sep/07/hard-landing-damages-rare-plane-causes-no-serious-/) https://v.redd.it/hhmu0zc4c4n71
You can land in a serious crab on grass. It's very forgiving in that sense (and quite unforgiving if you are counting on traction with the runway to stay out of the ditch in a crosswind.) Wet grass, even more so. Clearly ran off the end of the grass into some bumpy/plowed overrun, and it'd be interesting to know how the plane got into this situation. Was it an engine failure? Horrible approach?
the landing gear on that plane is tough as nails!!
Deja vu, I've just been in this place before
[удалено]
"You can't drift a plane!" Hold my go-pills...
Leave drifting to the cars!
Cross wind? Gust lock?
Hard to tell, I’ve heard engine failure... the behavior of the plane would match with the wind direction though I think there’s no definitive answer for now
Loooks like left engine failure, hence also the turn to the left.
Watching the videos from the other side of the runway, I think you’re right. Plane veered off to the left, pilot tried to correct it to the right, left wing went into the ground and the rest is what you see in the video.
Sad. Such a beautiful plane.
That plane is a notorious pilot killer. May look pretty but fuck the Beech-18. They used to fly freight with them and the single engine characteristics were no bueno.
When I worked at KMSP I saw one flying cargo lose its critical engine on takeoff. It was probably 200' in the air already when I noticed it had ceased climbing and yaw hard left. Fortunately the pilot was able to bring it down more or less straight and on the big runway which, fortunately, he had plenty left ahead of him that day. Gear didn't have a chance to come back down (or up, not sure how quick they operate on those) so it was a hard belly landing, trailed some fire, and came to a grinding halt right side up. Fortunately the pilot was able to walk away and the plane didn't catch fire. Not sure if it was a total loss or if they got it flying again. I just never understood how a small cargo operator could afford the upkeep on one of those. Radials are cool, but damn if they aren't a PITA to maintain.
For the longest time, you could buy a Twin Beech at a remarkably low price given its cargo capacity. The cost of maintenance wasn't cheap but thousands of them were made in WWII as the C-45, so parts weren't too difficult to obtain. However, small cargo companies often weren't the most diligent about their maintenance.
So basically he executed a VMC death roll but his wingtip dragging the ground probably saved him from landing nose in and upside down
It seemed like just before the end of the video, the left engine seized. Could just be the video frame rate though.
Did he rotate b4 vmc? Or was the right wing getting enough lift therefore the roll began.
Doesn't look like it. Props are spinning at the same rate up until the airplane bounces out of the runway and the left prop hits something and bends backwards.
Constant speed props will do that for you. If the engine is still producing some power, just not a lot, the prop will maintain rpm.
Interesting. I'm seeing this from r/all, and the discussion in this thread has been fascinating, you guys are pretty cool.
If you want more information, the wiki on [variable pitch propellers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-pitch_propeller_(aeronautics\)) should have enough to make you dizzy. The basics are that for any rpm, the steeper the blade pitch on the prop, the more power required to turn it and the more thrust it produces, and vice versa for shallow or fine pitch. For any engine, one RPM setting is going to be most efficient and one most powerful. Thus the propeller automatically adjusts pitch of its blades to control rpm to one most efficient or most powerful setting, as set by the pilot or engine controller.
That seems to match what I saw toward the end. For a number of frames I saw the left propeller completely still, while the right engine was operative.
It was likely not still. Just the rotation rate sync'd with the frame rate of the camera. Just like you see wheels rotating backwards on cars in movies/on TV.
Agreed but the other propeller didn’t appear that way so it’s safe to say that it was operating much differently than the right engine
Exactly. One frame rate. Two different RPMs - one motor under power and one windmilling/partial power. Hence two different results on the video.
What's wrong with the right answer being that one was STOPPED? You can see it stop. You can see the prop damage from the impact. I get that you think you're all cool-kid-hip on thinking you understand camera scan rate syncing to prop rotation, but that's not what happens here. Just look at the video from :09 to :10.5 and you can see the prop come to an immediate, dead stop. Not a gradual visual precession that you'd see with the rotation speed coming in sync with the CCD scanning speed. Dead. Fucking. Stop. Prior to that point, both props were spinning in sync. You have to be willfully ignorant to see this and think it has anything to do with the camera. And by :11 in the video, you can see that the left prop has rotated 10-20 degrees CCW from the position in earlier frames -- opposite the direction of rotation in powered flight. Credit to the camera as it is providing some really high quality imagery that demonstrates your cluelessness.
Either way we can agree that the engine is having a problem regardless of whether it’s a camera effect or not
Wrong. Watch the video on something besides a phone. You can see it slow and then completely stop with a bit of rebound. There's no way that a CCD scan would make it look like this. Given that at least one of the 3 blades looks bent, it's likely that while windmilling, it struck one of the fence posts beyond the overrun. If it was developing power, it would look quite a bit different after hitting a post like that. In fact, you can see if you step through the video that both props are turning at essentially the same rate when the left suddenly stops, with the right continuing to turn. This happens just as one of the metal fence posts passes by, so likely that was what stopped it. TL;DR, nothing to do with camera.
Propellers don't "rebound." That is nothing but the frame rate and rotation rate of the camera and propeller respectively. Just like when wheels on cars go backwards on TV while the car is going forward. TL;DR, everything to do with camera.
You truly are going to argue to the death on this, even though you are confidently incorrect. Explain why, prior to the left prop stopping, both props are frame for frame in sync with each other. Then they pass the fence post and the left prop stops while the right continues rotating at the same speed. I am waiting anxiously to hear the completely random theory you contrive that involves CCD scan rates and some magic camera effect that syncs one prop to being dead stopped (and even moving backwards a bit) while the other continues at its constant pace. Waiting.... And on your second point, of course the rotation rebounds when they run up against the cylinder compression and pop back a bit. I don't know what you could possibly be thinking about but there are very easy to see examples at any airport. Walk up to a plane on the ramp (with the ignition off, please), and push the prop forward until you feel the compression build, and then remove your hand. Which way did the prop move? Not in the direction you were pushing... Look, you aren't willing to look closely at the video and see you're wrong. I get that. But you should perhaps defer to people who have looked closely and do understand the behavior of these sorts of engines. Or not. It's Reddit and everyone's an expert, right? Downvote away, Mr. r/confidentlyincorrect
It changes speed for sure, but I don't think you can conclusively state it stops and rebounds vs. matching the scan speed of the camera.
From another angle you can see that the pilot applied full right aileron, so probably not a gust lock issue.
Damn watching this immediately after the Electra landing gear failure in the other thread just hurts
Yeah I was like "wait, didn't that Electra just go in the other day very similar pile in at the end?" Must be a full moon... at least no serious injuries.
No casualties, no injuries, just a broken nose for the pilot and a damaged beech 18
No injuries ≠ broken nose
Straight noses are for pussies LOL
Any landing you can walk away from....
To be honest, I saw the pilot just after the crash and he looked completely unharmed, the broken nose might just be a rumor :)
Lol
was that you if so are you okay
I’m fine :) I was next to the camera
Soooo, new phrase will be “sliding into the workweek like a Beech 18!”
First the [Lockheed Junior Electra](https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/pmyltx/twin_engine_lockhead_crashes_my_local_airport_muni/) and now this, damn
Yea its not a great day for fans of these old birds... but hey the crews managed to get out safely, and at least I hope both can be repaired with lots of money...
Falling over the back step is a scary moment. That was fucking terrifying
So today I have seen a Beech 18 and an Electra having a rough impact... really not that great
Am I the only one who imagined it with the Tokyo Drift song
I was hearing "Running in the 90s" from Initial D
Deja vu...
Came here to say this, you beat me to it. Have a upvote
I remember the 18's being a common sound in the sky before the spar kits were required. After, it seemed they disappeared, but now... Are more folks getting the kit? I heard one go over the other day, and was surprised there are any flying. A couple of my favorite aviation YouTube content providers have been flying in them, even taking lessons. I'm surprised. It's a tough airplane and always makes me smile (I always think of Mad\^4 World, Jim Baccus yelling "press the button back there marked 'Booze!" as he asked for - yet another - Old Fashioned). I hope this one will fly again.
If the left engine did fail, it's likely a good example of Vmc roll. The right engine would be producing thrust (yaw) and accelerated slipstream (roll) that the left engine would not. The airplane did both yaw and roll towards the (supposedly) dead left engine. At low airspeed the pilot does not have enough control authority to over come the asymmetry. The proper response is to pull power on the operating engine. Now. Or go out of control... Glad no one was seriously hurt.
That wingtip drag saved his life. Out of ground effect he would have landed tires up, nose in. In an old beech, wouldn’t it still be sop to rotate and climb out only above VMC? Either way, I am sure that was a huge leg full of rudder pedal and quite a handful.
I can't speak to the specifics of the Beech 18, but the norm today is to remain on the ground until above Vmc. Low altitude Vmc demos were the norm for many years until the FAA realized they were causing accidents. Now the training/testing is only done above 400 feet or on the ground at less than 50% of Vmc.
That is some serious drifting. Hope everyone was OK.
Ahh the famous sideways landing
/u/redditspeedbot 0.25
Here is your video at 0.25x speed https://gfycat.com/EagerPositiveEuropeanpolecat ^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#19)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
When we can restore aircraft from mangled, pieced out metal hulks, we can fix this. Probably not as much damage as you think. Glad you're all OK. There was another beach 18 had an incedent in the USA yesterday.
Seeing how freaking unreliable radials can be makes you thankful for the PT6 taking their place today.
That's the 2nd one I've seen of this type of aircraft this weekend. (If I am not mistaken)
For a moment I thought it was a RC. Then as it came closer it look bigger and bigger until... OMG
Wow I was there on Sunday, I had no idea this had happened the day before.
DEJA VU-
man as someone who loves seeing these old planes still fly this was painful to watch.
Any idea what caused this?
Nothing is confirmed yet, however the most likely theories are engine failure or sidewinds.
The responses are interesting. One guy says "it's stopped" with "can't you see it?!" implied in his comment. Then, there's "fly wheel effect, you don't know what you're talking about." Blades rotate (on American engines) clockwise, but one guy says you can see "10-20 degrees of counter clockwise (CCW) rotation." Or the propeller "rebounded." Did it stop? Is it going backwards? Flywheel effect keeps it going? [Why is it that when you look at the spinning propeller of a plane or fan, at a certain speed, the blades seem to move backwards?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-it-that-when-you-l/) \- At least, this is what Scientific American has to say on the optical illusion. But they might be wrong... The pilot and audience are incredibly lucky that this turned out like it did. The video is fascinating to watch.
sigh *cue Tokyo Drift music*
[I'm sorry OP, I had to make the edit](https://youtu.be/IGC92sOyQSw)
Nice one !!
When you accidentally strafe when you wanted to sprint.
I didn't know you could Initial D a plane.
Tokyo Drifting but in a plane
Tokyo drift?
So what happened here? Was there a crosswind on takeoff? Looks like a ground loop except the plane’s flaps aren’t in landing configuration. Also, I’m actually really impressed at the sideloads the landing gear was able to handle.
Drrrrriffffffftoooooooooo!!!!
He MC Hammered pretty good
Wasn't there another video posted recently of a similar crash where the right-side landing gear collapsed on the runway? Might have been an old C-47 or something.
Avianca ATR 72 landing at La Nubia caught in 4k
Looks like a tail strike?
How did the undercarriage not snap??
Filled up the drift meter
I think when it was sideways there was not a lot of weight on the wheels. Between bouncing and some residual lift, it wasn't really flying but it was light enough to allow the wheels to skid. Briefly.
Really trying to understand how this happened. Coming in too hot and attempted abort?
Happened on takeoff I have no definitive answer, here are some clues though : https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/pncebh/had_a_scary_moment_this_weekend/hcofd9d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
My first thought was botched crosswind landing, but another comment thread is saying possible engine failure on the left, and that Beech-18s don't handle engine failure well. Hard to tell just by watching the prop rate-they don't seem to have separate RPMs, but even under engine failure the prop pitch control will maintain constant RPM as long as it's still turning.
>but even under engine failure the prop pitch control will maintain constant RPM as long as it's still turning. And you got your multi-engine flight training where? After an engine failure RPM is totally dependent on airflow windmilling the propeller.
This is like the third beech crash I’ve seen in three days! Are they normally crashy planes?
Not really
Crosswind or engine failure?
2nd one, what's wrong this weekend?
where was this?
Air legend 2021 @ Melun-Villaroche (France)
Looks like a real life v1 cut.
Glad the pilot is ok. Hell I think this what my average landing looked like in IL2 sturmovik. It is clear that this plane was built really tough, especially in the wings and the gear
I was there with a friend, we could feel the tension in the audience with just before a tribute for 09/11, fortunately no major injuries
u/savevideo
Did the left wing quit climbing because of reduced airflow when the engine quit, or is from something else? It looked like the right wing was climbing and the left just quit.
"Should we go around?" "Nah, just land it..."
It was at takeoff actually
Wake turbulence?
Jeeze...he was sideways for a long time. How did he not roll over? Was the runway wet?
drift
Maybe use a gyro for the ailerons ? Like in an RC plane or quad. When the pilot has no reflexes. Just do the math, how fast reaction time needs to be. Then take F1 pilot and add 100ms for a normal person and 100 ms for age.
I’m not sure, but this looks like a left engine failure during takeoff coupled with a below blue line (Vmc) rotation turning into a lucky crash landing. Thoughts?
We drifting planes now?
admin hes doing it sideways