According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to take two children for a ride as part of the Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) Young Eagles program.
The pilot stated that during takeoff on the 4,012-foot runway at the airport in Hutchinson, Kansas, the Beech 23 seemed to accelerate slowly and use a greater amount of runway than normal. He rotated the airplane at 70 mph, and after liftoff, the airplane would not accelerate beyond 75 mph and climbed very slowly.
He turned the airplane toward the right, and the airplane began to descend. The airspeed decreased, and the airplane stalled about 20 to 30 feet above the ground. The airplane then hit the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot and a passenger received minor injuries. Two other passengers were not injured.
The pilot calculated that the takeoff weight of the airplane was 2,296 pounds. According to the airplane flight manual, at a takeoff weight of 2,300 pounds, a pressure altitude of 2,000 feet, a headwind of 0 knots, and an outside air temperature of 70°F, the ground roll and total takeoff distance to attain a 50 foot height were 1,316 feet and 2,281 feet, respectively.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to abort the takeoff and his high-pitch attitude after takeoff, which resulted in an exceedance of the critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This May 2021 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Many things can contribute to this performance but the problem is pilot error as most cases. I’m still scratching my head on what the heck ham radios has to do with a airplane stall. For one a major issue today are pilots that fly by automation to the point pilots have lost the feel for the plane. Many articles on this. For the Ham radio guy I’ve lost as many high time commercial pilot friends with equipment failer as I have stupid pilots that were just stupid. I can go on but some of you are on the right track
Just what are those Model-T airplanes that you refer to; just how do they relate to a take off accident caused by innexperienc and failure to exercise basic airmanship. There is nothing magical in evaluating take off performance, it should be ingrained by the time one is licenced. The prudent pilot, especially one of low experience, is wise to have a healthy margin of safety at all times. There should be no shame attached to aborting a take off, or a landing if it appears questionable.
That’s what you get with marginally trained CFI’s, just putting in their time, (minimal), to move on to the airlines. And so goes the quality of training, and bad habits multiply.
We don’t need microchips, microprocessors or super computers, just old school instructors that can teach how to FLY the damned airplane.
Airplanes haven’t learned any new tricks, they still fly and fall for the same reasons since the Wright Brothers.
Know before you go!
I calculated the DA at about 3600’ based on the report, enough to affect performance especially if not leaned for take off. So it appears that a relatively inexperienced pilot was surprised at the poor performance at full load of a marginally powered airplane.
Meanwhile I see that Potter got a student certificate some 43 years ago and nothing more. So his comments are an insult to all pilots—real pilots. Like Sgt Shultz, he knows nothing.
Think young eagles might reconsider their pilot screening process..(if any exists)
When hotter and/or heavier, the climb angle is going to be shallower. You have to accept that and make sure you maintain no less than Vx. Higher pitch and speed lower than Vx will result in lower climb performance. Do the calculations for takeoff to assure a good safety margin. Also you may have to lean for max rpm. Check the POH.
Yeah, I totally agree. I live in Georgia and fly out of a 3000ft grass strip surrounded by trees (almost finished with my private license.) On the hot days, you just have to accept that it won’t climb well. I always watch the airspeed indicator, not attitude when climbing out. Speed is more important than angle any day!
Trouble is , handbooks for most of the older ships don’t have numbers for Vx at intermediate [ or zero ] flap settings so even if the book figure is used , it’s probably wrong since it’s a full flap number .
Of course if he did use full for takeoff it would explain partly the long takeoff run and shallow climb together with the resultant pitch changes if he tried to clean it up on the climb . Too much for someone operating at the margin of their personal envelope .
Yet another story of airplane property damage (and increased insurance rates for all) and near loss-of-life in antique Model-T airplanes. How the hobby GA community expects ordinary mortals to compute and calculate all those flying machine operating parameters at critical seconds of takeoff boggles my mind. I know I couldn’t do it. All that stuff should be fully automated using microprocessors in future designs. The comments above — to lean-out or enrich the fuel-air mixture — two different experiences and opinions points to the fact that no matter how you slice it, it’s still baloney. 2,000 lbs is a lotta weight for a Model-T airplane anyway. Reminds me of the opening scene of Beverly Hills Hillbillies with that old car loaded to the gills with people and their stuff.
In my ham radio hobby there are regular stories of guys falling off their towers, getting zapped to the Promised Land by high voltage from their home-brew amplifiers, and burning down their houses due to lighting hitting their antennas which should be disconnected and grounded pending a storm. I guess when it comes to a hobby, enthusiasm overcomes respect for safety, danger, and the limitations of mental computations. Sorry to come down like the Old Curmudgeon, but I’ve lost too many friends from airplane and ham radio ‘accidents’ resulting from ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread,’ i.e., disregard for elementary safety rules.
Safety first, fun comes later.
Regards/J
What the heck is the “ hobby GA community”?
Your perspective is a poor one that needs adjustment. Do you consider yourself a member of the “hobby ground vehicle community” because you have a private driver’s license instead of commercial? Or do you try to do everything possible to be current and proficient with driving?
Although you can’t calculate these straight forward items, I can and have been for 30 years of flying with a variety of aircraft. And that’s what it takes to be a pilot.
Obviously, you’re meant to be an amateur radio operator. I am a ham, also. And the two activities are totally different. So stop comparing them. My aircraft has many radios on board which I am also trained on using.
I am flabbergasted and taken aback by your narrow minded lowest common denominator perspective. It stinks.
Completely agree with You, Mr. RD.
Touchy, aren’t we? How many friends have you lost to GA accidents and sloppy hamming in both cases disregard for safety? Seven for me. You? Regards/J
“model T aircraft”??????
You do those calculations BEFORE TAKING OFF not while rolling down the runway.
Do you calculate the length of a 40 mtr dipole antenna BEFORE you cut it….. or afterward?
There’s an expression about stupid carpenters: “measure once, cut twice.” I measure my dipole wire first before cutting, FYI. Regards/J
Dude what are you even talking about? If you have no clue regarding the technical aspects of something, just stay in your lane. Quietly.
Thank God you’re not a pilot if following a very simple chart is too difficult for you. Please leave the flying to the rest of us who bothered to take 5 minutes to learn how to do it.
Some of the early Beech 23’s , like this 1963 model , had the gross weight reduced to 2,000 and 2,150 due to poor roc of the production aircraft with the O-320 [?]
Note, the POH in the docket is for a 1980 model.[?]
It seems to me that this low time pilot was not used to a take off at gross,
[ or possibly over gross ].
I experienced a similar situation where I had leaned out the cessna 210 I was flying during run up, upon take off I could rotate and take flight but could not gain altitude or achieve a higher rpm until I advanced the fuel mixture and the engine roared with power. Lessons learned.
I also had a similar experience flying out of Big Bear City (L35) at 6752′. I leaned for max rpm at runup. During takeoff, I lifted off halfway down the runway and it just seemed like lower than normal power. Without much thought/analysis, I pushed the mixture in and the rpm increased. I don’t know why I thought I was getting optimum power at runup.
Assuming fuel mixture adjustment played a significant factor in this incident, Lycoming and Continental powerplant manufactures should’ve been mandated from when we first saw them on Japanese/Honda street bikes from the late 60’s to early 70’s, to come with automatic altitude compensating CV/Constant Velocity type carburetors. Just like you see as standard issue on your non fuel injection Rotax 914 engines. If GA wants see prohibitive insurance premiums substantially reduced overall, thanks to virtually eliminating a cause of Pilot error/crashes, then this should’ve been mandatory retrofit on GA aircraft in general. Those CV carbs should’ve hit the sky same time they first hit the street !
Newer engines use mechanical fuel injection and there is no retrofit option for engines with an MS carb. [ originally used on the ’62 Corvette ]
Using the available 40 mm CV carbs, would require 4 of them to work with the 300 to 360 CI engines. Lycoming or Continental would have to develop a 75-80 mm CV carb to replace the MS carb…. I’m sure that they would not have considered the development and certified cost worth the effort.!
There are a number of electronic fuel injection systems available , but only for experimental aircraft. Neither Lyc or TCM has certified any of them and I don’t hear of any effort to do the work.
Depending on temperature and pressure DA. of 5000 feet is not uncommon at Wicitita or Hutchinson on a hot summer day. Failure to lean got max rpm during the run-up will reduct power 20%. Carb heat or a dragging brake will further increase ground roll