As a former Naval Aviator during carrier training we got extensive training about the back side of the power curve, because when we are on the glide slope for landing we are in that area. Those familiar with the power curve as published for most aircraft, the more power you apply, the faster you go. In the back side, your angle of attack is greater than in normal flight, so it take more power to go slower. There is an excellent video of a C-2 Greyhound that got a cold cat shot (insufficient power on the stroke) so as the passed the end of the deck he did not have sufficient power and speed to climb out. He disappeared below the flight deck until you could see him slowly climbing out with an almost flat attitude. There is an old adage that you can convert speed to altitude or altitude to speed, but what if you have neither altitude or speed? You are on the cusp of a stall. In fact the aircraft I flew off carriers had a landing speed of 95 knots and by the way that was also the stall speed. One advantage we had that the float plane did not have was the fact that as we crossed the end of the deck, we immediately raised our gear. That eliminated a lot of the drag on our aircraft.
I enjoyed your opinion on Back of the Power Curve, very well done. It’s nice to have an opinion from someone like yourself that has experienced aircraft attitudes more than myself and others. I will give you my story on Back of the Power Curve and how I was continuously cognizant of it during any slow flight that I did. I took my Private Pilots Licence in 1954, age 17, at the Edmonton AB Flying Club, (CYXD). Of my 7 instructors, 2 flew Spits in WW2 Battle of Britain. 2 were WW2 Bomber Pilots. 2 were WW2 Instructors. And one was a WW2 Lady Ferry Pilot from Canada - Alaska to Russia. I had the same Instructors when I continued on to get my Commercial Pilots Licence and my Instructors Rating. I was fortunate. They took a liking to me and and taught me additional attitudes that were not part of the flying curriculum. One was back of the Power Curve, which they demonstrated at a higher altitude for a safe recovery. That knowledge came in handy when I got my first flying job flying in the bush on skis, for oil exploration in Canada’s north during the winter. Not many places to land that had the length to take off from, so my approaches close to the clearing to land were a slight nose high attitude, slow, with power. Because of my knowledge on the Power Curve, thankfully I was able to keep, attitude, speed up, with a trickle of power to avoid it. A couple years later I got into ATC and continued flying for the next 50 years as a part time job, after shift from the tower. One of my stories in my book, is the night I had a West Coast Airlines F-27 out of LAX making an approach on runway 28 at Calgary (CYYC). I cleared him to land after his report at the ILS Outer Marker, (about a 3 mile Final approach). That was the last I heard from him. They crashed 1 mile from the runway. All 30 plus on board lived. Because it was a USA registered aircraft the FAA, and a Fairchild Rep, Department of Transport (DOT) Canada accident investigation all attended the Hearing. I as a witness also attended. When the 2 pilots gave their in-depth statement of the approach on why he crashed, all the examiners turned to one another and they all agreed that the cause was back of the power curve. Another story in my book was, a few months later I cleared a T33 for takeoff R25. There were two on board, 1 RCAF and 1 USAF exchange pilot on board. As soon as the T33 rotated and cleared the runway, he raised the gear. The left nose cowling door opened and spoiled the left intake air into the engine compartment. The T33 could not climb and remained at a nose high attitude, in ground-affect the full length of the runway and due to uneven high and low terrain at the end of the runway the T33 crashed and exploded. 2 fatal. Again the USAF, RCAF, DOT and I as a witness that gave my in-depth story on what I viewed. The board immediately came to the conclusion that the T33 was in the back of the power curve and couldn’t climb. So I am quite familiar with recognizing Back of the Power Curve. Now to my youtube video. I couldn’t come up with a name for it that was short, so I thought, ah what the hell, I will name it Back of the Power Curve. I put it on RUclips just for my friends to watch. Who knew it was going to attract so many hits :-) Have a great day. Cheers, Jim.
I agree with those saying it didn't have anything to do with being behind the power curve. It was simply decending too fast and its decent rate wasn't arrested in time to prevent a "hard landing". All you need do is compare the decent rates of the previous successful landings with the last one and you will see the difference. Given the extreme damage to the front section of the aeroplane, I think that the pilot is luck to come out of it alive. Thanks for posting. It give a good lesson in the importance of decent rate in landing, especially on water.
This accident didn't have anything to do with the back of the power curve. If he were flying on the back of the power curve he would have been slow, full power or nearly so, and pitched up. He was just slow and descending way too fast with no (or little) power, and didn't arrest his descent with power until the very last second, when it was too late. The problem with back of the power curve slow flight is that if you get too slow and run out of power, you must pitch down and descend to get your speed up. So in an aircraft without a lot of reserve power you can get yourself into trouble if you are at low altitude or flying around steep terrain.
Exactly. The pilot simply failed to add power in enough time to correct for an excessively high rate of descent. Too bad....really beautiful airplane and he certainly flew it quite well prior to the accident. Glad to hear he is okay.
Back of the power curve (slow flight) is not to be feared but understood and used to great benefit when appropriate. Remember when we all as students learned slow flight? Sadly the value wasn’t well explained - at least not by instructors I knew. I fly amphibs and stol aircraft. There is no better landing technique than slow flight (behind the curve) at touch down. As the previous commenter said you’ll have power in/coming in as needed and pitched up, all that is needed to “flair” is a slight increase in pitch = sweet landing every time. I see pilots all the time carrying way too much speed on final, nose pitched down then a fight in the flair, a float, a ballooning, a bounce , an arrival , a landing i guess. 😁
Marlin Weekley I’ll admit I’ve only flown ultralights and R/C aircraft but as you and many others have already pointed out you can see he’s NOT behind the power curve. Look at his elevator for starters. It’s a long way nose up. And you can see the massive angle of attack relative to the actual glide path! I can’t believe it hadn’t dropped a wing or pitched nose down already. The stall warning horn must have been screaming! By the time he adds power to arrest the rate of decent it’s all over. Very fortunate that the pilot was able to walk away from that one. And also regarding flaps not sure if he was planning to land or just do another touch and go where the pilot would probably want a “cleaner” aircraft to continue on.
Watching this guy make those touch and goes with the abrupt pull ups clued me that he was a crash waiting to happen. He flies like a doctor with a new Bonanza.
For those not familiar with the term, google “high sink rate” and “miscalculation”. Definitely not on the backside of the power curve, if the engine is at idle.
For those not familiar with the terminology, do an internet search for "the engine and cowling broke off". As any pilot can tell you, when your engine breaks off, you are in for a bad day. While the impact with the water was harder than it should be, for the engine to literally break off seems far too extreme. I have to question whether the engine mounts were properly secured (or as strong as they should be).
Is the same thing that i was asking to myself. I Have little experience (but i am Class Rated) with SeaPlanes, of course the impact was not properly smoothed adding power too late, but it seems unproportioned to the damage occured to the aircraft. Also the pilot handling showed nice and soft touch&go before of the crash.
@@loganreuter6072.my ultra lite hummel is rated for a 42 hp 1/2 vw engine, but I will be putting a 400 hp turbo 4 cylinder in it.The CG will be way forward so I will have to add 20 pounds to the tail.Now the gross weight is 200 pounds too much.I will have to fill the wings full of hydrogen to offset the weight gain.
Good lesson learned there, glad she got rebuilt with strengthened engine mount structure, nice to have more power available but only if the airframe can handle it. Thumbs up to the owner/pilot/mechanic.
Great video - very instructive and helpful for seaplane pilots - thanks for sharing . It does not look like the back of the power curve which is low speed high power and high pitch. In this situation it looks like the perfect glassy water landing technique of the earlier touch and goes was changed and the power was reduced with a high descent rate in continued glassy water conditions. He was low power, nearly neutral pitch, and high descent rate. His speed looked good not near a stall but low power and high descent with glassy water is not a good combo.
3:40 I recall those lines from the Battlestar Galactica mini series: Apollo. "Don't you think we're coming in a little hot?" Starbuck. "No...not really..."
When I saw the engine tipping forward, what came to mind immediately was the glass falling out of Inspector Clouseau's magnifying glass in the Pink Panther movies. The next moment, I was hoping the pilot wasn't hurt, and fortunately, as it says in the description, he wasn't.
I would like to add some facts to this. The installation of the A2A 320 Lycoming was approved by Daryl Murphy and his engineer at Murphy Aircraft B.C. The owner had the approval of the installation for this engine and has documentation to prove it. The reason for this engine separating from the firewall was lack of strength in the front left corner. The fire wall has since been strengthened with the same rebuilt Lycoming in the aircraft. C-FREP has flown for over a thousand more hours without any more issues and now has ridgid floats with lots of more flying to come.
Jim, This isn't an example of "back of the power curve" The plane had plenty of energy. They simply lost control and slapped the water hard enough to break the engine mounts where the engine is bolted to the fuselage. The flaps weren't even down. "Back of Power Curve" usually occurs when a plane is "Slow & Dirty", meaning it's just above stall speed and configured with flaps full down for max lift but also max drag. This is a situation where the plane has lost so much speed / momentum that rapid power application can't quickly speed the plane up when max throttle is applied. There will be a significant lag from max throttle and the plane positively responding to that full power.
There are a lot of comments about power curve, and other things, completely missing the fact that the "engine fell off" on what was otherwise just a very rough landing. He's lucky it didn't fall off at altitude during a bit of turbulence. You can bet that firewall was deforming with every stress put on it. He's a very luck man that he didn't hit a bit of turbulence on a breezy day at 2500ft. He'd have a long time to think about his mistake as he fell to earth. This gives new meaning to the old phrase, "Pride goes before the fall."
With respect, Daniel, is the engine mounting bolted to the firewall or and extension of the fuselage framing? I would have thought - the framing. Still, it did fall off!!!
@@mikewhite4628 Well I have some pic's of the Fire wall during construction and There's not a lot of heavy metals holding the engine on. The engine mounts attach at each corner of the firewall. there is some reinforcing at each mount. The size or "heft" of the reinforcement is based on the engine weight and torque specs. The upper mounts simply attach through the firewall, and attach to the fuselage skin with a stiffener and about 15 or so rivets. By the looks of how the engine rolled around the lower mounts, I suspect the uppers were the weak link in this equation. The attach point needed to be re-engineered to account for the additional weight and torque of the larger and heavier engine and prop. I googled "Murphy Rebel Firewall Construction" There are some nice pic's in there showing it during construction.
It seems to me, that to compare "very rought landing stress" with "a bit turbulence stress" on a aircraft engine mount is just tooooo easy an unprecise for getting an explanation for that what happened. In addition, I also do not agree with people, who blamed "the back of the power curve" solely responsible for that accident. Pushing the throttle to full power only 3/10 of a seccond before impact on the water tells me another story.......... (ex-owner of JAR-ATPL)
@@danizweifler6061 I have to agree, this incident had nothing to do with the "power curve". It had everything to do with over stressing an engine mount, due to excessive weight and torque for the existing motor mounting system. I haven't even begun to discuss the gyroscopic torque the propeller places on the engine mounts as it spins twists and changes angles and directions during flight. Having been involved in aviation for 45 years, I have seen my share of over-stressed attach points, Popped Rivets, and stretched, bent and twisted skins due to over loading either by "G" force or torque twist. Since the engine mounting went with the engine, I suspect it was the attach points which were weakened over time due to excessive torque from the larger engine, and from repeated high G loadings during landings, high-speed taxi, turbulence, and any number of other factors.
I read that the owner put a bigger engine in the plane even though the manufacturer told him no. Engine mount couldn’t handle the stress of such a crap landing
Almost looked like it was gonna break off sooner or later. I mean that was a hard impact but had the engine not dropped then the propeller wouldn't have sliced open the front of the pontoons open causing the next impact to dig in and force an endover crash..it would have landed the second impact had the engine not broke. Either way the pilot shouldn't have been flying with what appears to be a lack of common sense
The engine compartment broke off at 3:41. Never saw something like that before. Maybe there were a couple of hard landings before this one and the airframe already had some cracks?
He hit hard enough to delaminate his full-lotus inflata-floats. But i'd agree that a lot of experimental designs aren't nearly as durable. Had that been a Pacer, the engine mount wouldn't have collapsed.
I think that almost glassy water had a bit to do with it. The first 2 landings were great so he was capable. Just misjudged his height and added power a bit late on the last attempt. If the motor hadn't been so heavy maybe just a bad bounce, add power and go around. Might wrinkle the fuselage a bit but keep it shiny side up.
As the aircraft clears the trees the elevator is up but the aircraft does not level out. It is clearly in a stall. No flaps are deployed. The Rebel stall without flaps is in the mid 40's. The aircraft is descending at approximately 45 degrees. At 45 degrees the descent rate will equal the forward speed. A minimum forward speed of 40 mph is 3520 ft/min or 59 ft/sec. No aircraft on floats is going to survive that without serious damage. The almost flat bottom floats do not help the situation. Floats with some dead rise angle would reduce the impact load.
Incorrect. This seaplane is descending at around 30 degrees, not 45. Not in a stall. At least not until after impact with water, bounce, nose up, forward speed is reduced quickly, nose down, possibly then in a stall. Elevator was trying ineffectively to raise the nose, but wing was not stalled.
yep and it did not look like that hard of an impact! He got luck... that engine would have probably fallen off in flight somewhere just from vibration :)
Nope. He allowed an excessive rate of descent to develop and failed to add power to arrest it. The engine was idling. Not back of the power curve. (float plane rated).
Conclusion is - NEVER ignore designer's recommendations. Also, maybe will be useful for someone: i used to think, that aircraft can withstand bigger g-s, if its not fully loaded. And recently realized this is only true for parts, which loaded aerodynamically. If a part (like engine mount) mainly loaded by inertial load, it will carry this load independently of how much your plane weight is.
Hey Jim. While an interesting video and one that can learn a lesson from, I think it's less of a "Power Curve" incident, and is clearly structural failure. While a very firm arrival and water isn't forgiving like some think it is, it should never have broken the airframe like that. Many "Spot Landing" competitions are MUCH harder than that. I say this with about 750 hours and 250 PA-31 time plus 2 years toward my A&P. I had a friend who had a Cherokee that threw an entire prop blade, but even with the MASSIVE unbalance situation and the airframe tweaked as a result, the engine didn't part company with the airplane.(Just my opinion, I could be wrong.)
Thanks for your opinion Peter. If you email me at jimrhall1@gmail.com I will return your email with a full writeup of why the accident happened and the reason for the terminology. Cheers, Jim.
I'm not sure it was stalled (I don't think so-he wasn't falling out of the sky), but he was definitely at a pretty high angle of attack. My question is, if he had pulled back enough to arrest his descent, would he have gone past critical angle of attack? Quite possibly.
I think few people posting in these comments notice that the engine tearing off the firewall is what caused the wreck. Yes it was a "postive" landing but wouldn't have been anything worth filming if the engine had strong enough mounts.
The fronts of the pontoons folded on the second surface contact. But I'm guessing that if the prop didn't chew into the pontoons and damage them, he might have just squeaked by without it flipping. If you watch in slow motion, the nose of the pontoons wasn't exactly drilling into the water.
Murphy's Law at work on a Murphy airplane. Tell me the pilot name is Murphy. The power curve was evidently the engine curving for the water without benefit of company of rest of aircraft.
What is "lift"? If you classify "lift" as the total upward force produced by the wing then lift can only exist up until a point when the wing can no longer produce it. A glider for example is a perfect example of an aircraft which gets its lift from the wing alone. But an airplane is different. It has another lifting source and that is the engine with a propeller. When the engine is producing thrust in a straight and level attitude, the engine's thrust is almost straight forward. But when the airplane is pointing at a very high nose up attitude the thrust of the engine working with the propeller is also producing a form of lift. This "lifting force" is known as the "vertical component of thrust". In other words, not only is the wing producing an upward lifting force, but so too is the engine and propeller. So, added together the engine and the wing can allow a greater lifting force to help the aircraft climb relative to a glider alone. The extra vertical thrust component is an additional force that helps the airplane keep a nose high attitude. If it were not for the engine and the propeller acting as an additional lifting force, the airplane would not be able to support its own weight and quit flying ( a stalled wing). Have you ever been to an airshow where the super powerful small Extra 300 is able to climb straight up and up and up until the airplane stops flying? That is so because the Extra 300 has so much power that it doesn't really need the wings to help it climb. Think of a torque roll. (Ask your local sushi chef for a "torque roll"). So, in reality, "getting behind the power curve" requires more than just a wing. It requires "power". The more power the airplane has, the more it can rely on the power to help it fly slower. Just think how slow in a horizontal direction an Extra 300 can fly straight up. Its horizontal velocity is zero but yet it still can fly straight up. Remember and airplane is a three dimensional flying machine and can operate in an extra dimension moreso than a car.
@R Diaz I also read what Ryan posted above. It was a larger(heavier) engine and the mount and/or attach points were not up to the task. The manufacture told him the airframe couldn't support the engine he wanted. That's just what I heard anyway. Though I think you are both right... floats are unforgiving, he hit hard! Still though... that sucks for that guy... "airshow front and center" as they say... rough day
Nice video. He was somewhat slower on the last attempt. The nose was high and he was holding quite a bit of up elevator, but the plane was still coming down. I think he was trying to touch down sooner than his previous two landings and let it get too slow..
It looks like to me that the hard landing just broke off the engine from its mounts. This could be caused by years of stress on the engine mounts and landings.
It looked to me like he had too little power coming in (hence the steep approach angle), and he never rounded out. Hitting the water as hard as he did and porpoising, his airspeed went to nothing, both wings stalled and he nosed over. He was behind the power curve in the sense that after he hit the water and lost almost all of his energy, even immediate full throttle and leveling the wings wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome. Glad he wasn't hurt
what really cracks me up about this is the uncoordinated rescue attempt, people swimming in the water fully clothed, the old man on the inflatable with an outboard but uses the oars and has a guy pushing it by the lower unit.
Look at 3:40, doesn't it look as if the engine is already tilting forward just 3 or 4 feet above the water just before the throttle is advanced? I don't know this plane well enough to know, but the cowling looks tilted a couple degrees forward. That engine could have fallen out with one more pass? He may be lucky it happened just as it did? I also am left wondering, did he have any elevator authority before he advanced the throttle? It would be nice to hear his side of the story.
I just can’t get enough of watching that engine tear off the front!! Yeah it was stalling all the way to the water! Oh well... probably won’t ever do that again
It hit hard but not hard enough to break a motor mount if it was big enough for the motor. Adding power a bit sooner would have helped but it was a bit glassy and hard to judge I'd say.
I agree with many posts that his sink rate was far beyond excessive, he was very slow, the AC stalled and plopped onto the water ripping the engine mounts out of the firewall, glad he was OK.
The first two landings were powered approaches that maintained airspeed and decent. You can hear the engine. The latter I would say was pilot error caused by poor judgement. I can’t hear the engine and it appears to be an uncontrolled approach. Power applied in hast far too late resulting in a heavy landing.
Had the engine not fallen from the impact and the propeller not dug into the pontoons it might have landed but since the pontoons are now sliced open and create drag as soon as he hits the second time, they dug in causing the endo
That's what in aviation is called a, Ah mother ---,:', holy s-'-. crash. His approach angle was to steep and he did what many others have or will do as well.The I'll land you and show you who's boss landing. Forcing the plane down when it's not ready to land you get this kind of fun. I've never experienced it in water but I've had the pleasure on land. It's expensive to say the least. The engine may have been heavier but I've left a few behind on stock planes.
Huge sink rate caused maybe by wind change landing too close to edge of lake. Should have kept full power on and flown away. I built a Murphy Renegade 2.
Great video and explanation. Thanks for sharing. Mike Patey is using it on an intro video for his "Scrappy" plane build. Strong engine mounts are very important. Curious on how the pilot has two buttery smooth touch and go landings and then when he goes to land drives it into the lake?
Not enough is known to determine where he was flying relative to the power curve. He was obviously coming in much slower with no/very low power on the last approach, but this says nothing about the power curve for the aircraft.
He might have been "behind the power curve" if he'd had any power in at all. He emerges from behind the trees at +3:38 already in a rapid descent, and doesn't add power until less than a second before impact...without raising the nose at all. Compare the previous descent at +3:16.
People obviously don't read anything. Yes I agreed and said multiple times that the pilot initiated a flare. That doesn't constitute being behind the power curve. He was also idling as he glided in on the final approach then he added power. To be "Behind Power Curve" means you already have used all the power you have available and you are at a high angle of attack and many times have flaps deployed and if you need to increase altitude you have nothing to give you more altitude except to push the nose over. And if you're already to low then even that isn't an option.
I doubt even a lighter engine/airframe could have coped with such a massive sink rate, not recognised soon enough. He virtually stalled it in. At that sink rate water might as well be concrete. I amazed the whole aircraft didn't destruct.
I wouldn't classify this incident as a classic BPC problem more just idyll power, high sink rate and nothing going over the wing to arrest the decent "power application, not enough and to late on round out and flair" then high G impact and structural failure.
That's what we call a "full stall" landing. She quit flying and dropped about twenty feet into the water. Engine mounts broke and the heavy motor fell to the length of the fuel and accessory lines pulling the nose over . Like a lead weight. He's lucky he didn't smack his head on something.
There is a point where "landing" and "crash" coincide. To be behind the power curve means you are deep into stall and thrust is providing part of the lift such that to go slower you have to use more power. Here, there was not much power on at the point of impact. There was no rounding out and the impact caused the faliure of the engine attachment. On the other hand, this *is* behind the power curve, for real: www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/aviation-accidents/fatal-crash-of-f-100-at-edwards-afb/2536575087001
As a former Naval Aviator during carrier training we got extensive training about the back side of the power curve, because when we are on the glide slope for landing we are in that area. Those familiar with the power curve as published for most aircraft, the more power you apply, the faster you go. In the back side, your angle of attack is greater than in normal flight, so it take more power to go slower.
There is an excellent video of a C-2 Greyhound that got a cold cat shot (insufficient power on the stroke) so as the passed the end of the deck he did not have sufficient power and speed to climb out. He disappeared below the flight deck until you could see him slowly climbing out with an almost flat attitude. There is an old adage that you can convert speed to altitude or altitude to speed, but what if you have neither altitude or speed? You are on the cusp of a stall. In fact the aircraft I flew off carriers had a landing speed of 95 knots and by the way that was also the stall speed.
One advantage we had that the float plane did not have was the fact that as we crossed the end of the deck, we immediately raised our gear. That eliminated a lot of the drag on our aircraft.
I enjoyed your opinion on Back of the Power Curve, very well done. It’s nice to have an opinion from someone like yourself that has experienced aircraft attitudes more than myself and others.
I will give you my story on Back of the Power Curve and how I was continuously cognizant of it during any slow flight that I did.
I took my Private Pilots Licence in 1954, age 17, at the Edmonton AB Flying Club, (CYXD). Of my 7 instructors, 2 flew Spits in WW2 Battle of Britain. 2 were WW2 Bomber Pilots. 2 were WW2 Instructors. And one was a WW2 Lady Ferry Pilot from Canada - Alaska to Russia.
I had the same Instructors when I continued on to get my Commercial Pilots Licence and my Instructors Rating.
I was fortunate. They took a liking to me and and taught me additional attitudes that were not part of the flying curriculum. One was back of the Power Curve, which they demonstrated at a higher altitude for a safe recovery.
That knowledge came in handy when I got my first flying job flying in the bush on skis, for oil exploration in Canada’s north during the winter. Not many places to land that had the length to take off from, so my approaches close to the clearing to land were a slight nose high attitude, slow, with power. Because of my knowledge on the Power Curve, thankfully I was able to keep, attitude, speed up, with a trickle of power to avoid it.
A couple years later I got into ATC and continued flying for the next 50 years as a part time job, after shift from the tower.
One of my stories in my book, is the night I had a West Coast Airlines F-27 out of LAX making an approach on runway 28 at Calgary (CYYC).
I cleared him to land after his report at the ILS Outer Marker, (about a 3 mile Final approach). That was the last I heard from him.
They crashed 1 mile from the runway. All 30 plus on board lived.
Because it was a USA registered aircraft the FAA, and a Fairchild Rep, Department of Transport (DOT) Canada accident investigation all attended the Hearing. I as a witness also attended.
When the 2 pilots gave their in-depth statement of the approach on why he crashed, all the examiners turned to one another and they all agreed that the cause was back of the power curve.
Another story in my book was, a few months later I cleared a T33 for takeoff R25. There were two on board, 1 RCAF and 1 USAF exchange pilot on board.
As soon as the T33 rotated and cleared the runway, he raised the gear. The left nose cowling door opened and spoiled the left intake air into the engine compartment. The T33 could not climb and remained at a nose high attitude, in ground-affect the full length of the runway and due to uneven high and low terrain at the end of the runway the T33 crashed and exploded. 2 fatal.
Again the USAF, RCAF, DOT and I as a witness that gave my in-depth story on what I viewed. The board immediately came to the conclusion that the T33 was in the back of the power curve and couldn’t climb.
So I am quite familiar with recognizing Back of the Power Curve.
Now to my youtube video. I couldn’t come up with a name for it that was short, so I thought, ah what the hell, I will name it Back of the Power Curve.
I put it on RUclips just for my friends to watch. Who knew it was going to attract so many hits :-)
Have a great day.
Cheers, Jim.
Seems to be a concorde. Can also move the nose during landing.
I agree with those saying it didn't have anything to do with being behind the power curve. It was simply decending too fast and its decent rate wasn't arrested in time to prevent a "hard landing". All you need do is compare the decent rates of the previous successful landings with the last one and you will see the difference. Given the extreme damage to the front section of the aeroplane, I think that the pilot is luck to come out of it alive. Thanks for posting. It give a good lesson in the importance of decent rate in landing, especially on water.
This accident didn't have anything to do with the back of the power curve. If he were flying on the back of the power curve he would have been slow, full power or nearly so, and pitched up. He was just slow and descending way too fast with no (or little) power, and didn't arrest his descent with power until the very last second, when it was too late. The problem with back of the power curve slow flight is that if you get too slow and run out of power, you must pitch down and descend to get your speed up. So in an aircraft without a lot of reserve power you can get yourself into trouble if you are at low altitude or flying around steep terrain.
Exactly. The pilot simply failed to add power in enough time to correct for an excessively high rate of descent. Too bad....really beautiful airplane and he certainly flew it quite well prior to the accident. Glad to hear he is okay.
@dirt flyer: You are complete right! Bullshit about backside of the power curve in this case.
Anyone notice there was no flaps in this landing? Bad idea.
Back of the power curve (slow flight) is not to be feared but understood and used to great benefit when appropriate. Remember when we all as students learned slow flight? Sadly the value wasn’t well explained - at least not by instructors I knew. I fly amphibs and stol aircraft. There is no better landing technique than slow flight (behind the curve) at touch down. As the previous commenter said you’ll have power in/coming in as needed and pitched up, all that is needed to “flair” is a slight increase in pitch = sweet landing every time. I see pilots all the time carrying way too much speed on final, nose pitched down then a fight in the flair, a float, a ballooning, a bounce , an arrival , a landing i guess. 😁
Marlin Weekley I’ll admit I’ve only flown ultralights and R/C aircraft but as you and many others have already pointed out you can see he’s NOT behind the power curve. Look at his elevator for starters. It’s a long way nose up. And you can see the massive angle of attack relative to the actual glide path! I can’t believe it hadn’t dropped a wing or pitched nose down already. The stall warning horn must have been screaming! By the time he adds power to arrest the rate of decent it’s all over. Very fortunate that the pilot was able to walk away from that one.
And also regarding flaps not sure if he was planning to land or just do another touch and go where the pilot would probably want a “cleaner” aircraft to continue on.
It's tough to keep a crowd's attention. They're so fickle. You gotta keep taking it to the next level.
Funny comment
Yann Galtski you
Mike Michaels you
Are you not entertained?
That’s what humans will be eradicated by: always in the need of growth and expansion....
The next demonstration: stalling at 50' then calling your insurance agent.
Watching this guy make those touch and goes with the abrupt pull ups clued me that he was a crash waiting to happen. He flies like a doctor with a new Bonanza.
i guess he didn't take the heavier engine into consideration as much as he should've done
Ah, the old "fork-tail doctor killer".
@@k9er233 Actually it's know it all Bonanza killers.
@@nw6769 Good one!
For those not familiar with the term, google “high sink rate” and “miscalculation”. Definitely not on the backside of the power curve, if the engine is at idle.
For those not familiar with the terminology, do an internet search for "the engine and cowling broke off". As any pilot can tell you, when your engine breaks off, you are in for a bad day. While the impact with the water was harder than it should be, for the engine to literally break off seems far too extreme. I have to question whether the engine mounts were properly secured (or as strong as they should be).
Yes, the pilots next demonstration was the "motor mount g-test" demo.
Is the same thing that i was asking to myself. I Have little experience (but i am Class Rated) with SeaPlanes, of course the impact was not properly smoothed adding power too late, but it seems unproportioned to the damage occured to the aircraft. Also the pilot handling showed nice and soft touch&go before of the crash.
read the description, he said that the owner put a bigger engine into the plane and didn't strengthen the engine mount
did you even read the description? no. why?
@@loganreuter6072.my ultra lite hummel is rated for a 42 hp 1/2 vw engine, but I will be putting a 400 hp turbo 4 cylinder in it.The CG will be way forward so I will have to add 20 pounds to the tail.Now the gross weight is 200 pounds too much.I will have to fill the wings full of hydrogen to offset the weight gain.
Wow that was an awesome airshow with a really impressive finale.
Airshow flyin. Sure to see something exciting.
Good lesson learned there, glad she got rebuilt with strengthened engine mount structure, nice to have more power available but only if the airframe can handle it.
Thumbs up to the owner/pilot/mechanic.
Great video - very instructive and helpful for seaplane pilots - thanks for sharing . It does not look like the back of the power curve which is low speed high power and high pitch. In this situation it looks like the perfect glassy water landing technique of the earlier touch and goes was changed and the power was reduced with a high descent rate in continued glassy water conditions. He was low power, nearly neutral pitch, and high descent rate. His speed looked good not near a stall but low power and high descent with glassy water is not a good combo.
Yes!
3:40 I recall those lines from the Battlestar Galactica mini series:
Apollo. "Don't you think we're coming in a little hot?"
Starbuck. "No...not really..."
When I saw the engine tipping forward, what came to mind immediately was the glass falling out of Inspector Clouseau's magnifying glass in the Pink Panther movies.
The next moment, I was hoping the pilot wasn't hurt, and fortunately, as it says in the description, he wasn't.
That will buff right out
WoW! Thanks for posting!
power had nothing to do with it; he had a huge sink rate and the bottom and never stopped it
Agree. Behind the power curve would be a high engine setting and angle of attack; this had neither.
The way he smacked in to the water and the plane kinda folded in half didn't help either.
And contact with water, at high speed, il like contact of concrete.
Well, since pitch controls airspeed and power controls altitude...you tell me what he could have used more of there?
@@bluehornet6752 judgment
He did a good job On showing off. Gave The crowd some good entertainment!
I would like to add some facts to this. The installation of the A2A 320 Lycoming was approved by Daryl Murphy and his engineer at Murphy Aircraft B.C. The owner had the approval of the installation for this engine and has documentation to prove it. The reason for this engine separating from the firewall was lack of strength in the front left corner. The fire wall has since been strengthened with the same rebuilt Lycoming in the aircraft. C-FREP has flown for over a thousand more hours without any more issues and now has ridgid floats with lots of more flying to come.
Pinegrove Campground The reason for the engine separating was the plane falling from the sky... sink rate way to high...poor piloting
The anxious crowd gathered to see what the next demonstration would be. Well there you have it.
Jim, This isn't an example of "back of the power curve" The plane had plenty of energy. They simply lost control and slapped the water hard enough to break the engine mounts where the engine is bolted to the fuselage.
The flaps weren't even down. "Back of Power Curve" usually occurs when a plane is "Slow & Dirty", meaning it's just above stall speed and configured with flaps full down for max lift but also max drag.
This is a situation where the plane has lost so much speed / momentum that rapid power application can't quickly speed the plane up when max throttle is applied.
There will be a significant lag from max throttle and the plane positively responding to that full power.
There are a lot of comments about power curve, and other things, completely missing the fact that the "engine fell off" on what was otherwise just a very rough landing. He's lucky it didn't fall off at altitude during a bit of turbulence. You can bet that firewall was deforming with every stress put on it. He's a very luck man that he didn't hit a bit of turbulence on a breezy day at 2500ft. He'd have a long time to think about his mistake as he fell to earth. This gives new meaning to the old phrase, "Pride goes before the fall."
With respect, Daniel, is the engine mounting bolted to the firewall or and extension of the fuselage framing? I would have thought - the framing. Still, it did fall off!!!
@@mikewhite4628 Well I have some pic's of the Fire wall during construction and There's not a lot of heavy metals holding the engine on. The engine mounts attach at each corner of the firewall. there is some reinforcing at each mount. The size or "heft" of the reinforcement is based on the engine weight and torque specs. The upper mounts simply attach through the firewall, and attach to the fuselage skin with a stiffener and about 15 or so rivets. By the looks of how the engine rolled around the lower mounts, I suspect the uppers were the weak link in this equation. The attach point needed to be re-engineered to account for the additional weight and torque of the larger and heavier engine and prop.
I googled "Murphy Rebel Firewall Construction" There are some nice pic's in there showing it during construction.
I didn't even think about that while watching this. Very good point. Thanks!
It seems to me, that to compare "very rought landing stress" with "a bit turbulence stress" on a aircraft engine mount is just tooooo easy an unprecise for getting an explanation for that what happened. In addition, I also do not agree with people, who blamed "the back of the power curve" solely responsible for that accident. Pushing the throttle to full power only 3/10 of a seccond before impact on the water tells me another story.......... (ex-owner of JAR-ATPL)
@@danizweifler6061 I have to agree, this incident had nothing to do with the "power curve". It had everything to do with over stressing an engine mount, due to excessive weight and torque for the existing motor mounting system. I haven't even begun to discuss the gyroscopic torque the propeller places on the engine mounts as it spins twists and changes angles and directions during flight. Having been involved in aviation for 45 years, I have seen my share of over-stressed attach points, Popped Rivets, and stretched, bent and twisted skins due to over loading either by "G" force or torque twist. Since the engine mounting went with the engine, I suspect it was the attach points which were weakened over time due to excessive torque from the larger engine, and from repeated high G loadings during landings, high-speed taxi, turbulence, and any number of other factors.
I read that the owner put a bigger engine in the plane even though the manufacturer told him no. Engine mount couldn’t handle the stress of such a crap landing
Almost looked like it was gonna break off sooner or later. I mean that was a hard impact but had the engine not dropped then the propeller wouldn't have sliced open the front of the pontoons open causing the next impact to dig in and force an endover crash..it would have landed the second impact had the engine not broke. Either way the pilot shouldn't have been flying with what appears to be a lack of common sense
It was a gliding failure,. There is a technique of gliding smoothly to land without engine,
stole the show with that one..
Lol
I am surprised. The previous landings were smooth like butter, and on the third attempt, we get a freak show. What happened?
You know what I absolutely love? That it took only seconds between the crash and people just jumping into the water and swimming to help.
That's one good thing about crashing into a lake - you aren't concerned about the fire, and the bystanders aren't afraid to get burned.
Was the next year's airplane fly-by even more exciting?
The engine compartment broke off at 3:41. Never saw something like that before. Maybe there were a couple of hard landings before this one and the airframe already had some cracks?
He hit hard enough to delaminate his full-lotus inflata-floats. But i'd agree that a lot of experimental designs aren't nearly as durable. Had that been a Pacer, the engine mount wouldn't have collapsed.
I think that almost glassy water had a bit to do with it. The first 2 landings were great so he was capable. Just misjudged his height and added power a bit late on the last attempt. If the motor hadn't been so heavy maybe just a bad bounce, add power and go around. Might wrinkle the fuselage a bit but keep it shiny side up.
As the aircraft clears the trees the elevator is up but the aircraft does not level out. It is clearly in a stall. No flaps are deployed. The Rebel stall without flaps is in the mid 40's. The aircraft is descending at approximately 45 degrees. At 45 degrees the descent rate will equal the forward speed. A minimum forward speed of 40 mph is 3520 ft/min or 59 ft/sec. No aircraft on floats is going to survive that without serious damage. The almost flat bottom floats do not help the situation. Floats with some dead rise angle would reduce the impact load.
Incorrect. This seaplane is descending at around 30 degrees, not 45. Not in a stall. At least not until after impact with water, bounce, nose up, forward speed is reduced quickly, nose down, possibly then in a stall. Elevator was trying ineffectively to raise the nose, but wing was not stalled.
That's one hell of a demonstration
Wow, I'm actually surprised the pilot was uninjured, it looked like a pretty scary experience if you ask me.
Always is the case.
When you get cocky and show off you get F'ed everytime.!
3:41 well there's the problem right there: the front fell off
it happens to ships, too:
ruclips.net/video/3m5qxZm_JqM/видео.html
yep and it did not look like that hard of an impact! He got luck... that engine would have probably fallen off in flight somewhere just from vibration :)
THAT'S funny!!!
Awsome
What the hell you talking about..then I see it
Better here than Antigonosh
Nope. He allowed an excessive rate of descent to develop and failed to add power to arrest it. The engine was idling. Not back of the power curve. (float plane rated).
Pelican1984 make you sure you also tell people you have your ppl to even more validate your ego
With over 600 non event float landings it was easy to see the approach was too steep and this kind of landing would break almost any float plane.
Whats your 600 landings got to do with anything? Those are rookie figures
@@bEEBO178 Said some random punter on the internet.
I agree. That last demonstration you only get to do it one time only, so you better do it right.
an internet search for “aircraft behind the power curve” returns this video as the first result.
Hold my beer! here comes a kingfisher maneuver 3:40
Conclusion is - NEVER ignore designer's recommendations.
Also, maybe will be useful for someone: i used to think, that aircraft can withstand bigger g-s, if its not fully loaded. And recently realized this is only true for parts, which loaded aerodynamically. If a part (like engine mount) mainly loaded by inertial load, it will carry this load independently of how much your plane weight is.
Hey Jim. While an interesting video and one that can learn a lesson from, I think it's less of a "Power Curve" incident, and is clearly structural failure. While a very firm arrival and water isn't forgiving like some think it is, it should never have broken the airframe like that. Many "Spot Landing" competitions are MUCH harder than that. I say this with about 750 hours and 250 PA-31 time plus 2 years toward my A&P. I had a friend who had a Cherokee that threw an entire prop blade, but even with the MASSIVE unbalance situation and the airframe tweaked as a result, the engine didn't part company with the airplane.(Just my opinion, I could be wrong.)
Thanks for your opinion Peter.
If you email me at jimrhall1@gmail.com I will return your email with a full writeup of why the accident happened and the reason for the terminology.
Cheers, Jim.
When your firewall becomes a skylight... might want to check some motor mount welds / hardware 😬
That airplane was stalled when it hit the water. Power was never an issue.
I'm not sure it was stalled (I don't think so-he wasn't falling out of the sky), but he was definitely at a pretty high angle of attack. My question is, if he had pulled back enough to arrest his descent, would he have gone past critical angle of attack? Quite possibly.
What a maroon....
Wassa "maroon"? Do you mean he got fired@@DrNo-jn4fv
@@mikewhite4628 Alternative to a moron?
Wassamattaforyouseguys! Nobody ever see Bugs Bunny? ruclips.net/video/Y8GGpYFmkYI/видео.html
I think few people posting in these comments notice that the engine tearing off the firewall is what caused the wreck.
Yes it was a "postive" landing but wouldn't have been anything worth filming if the engine had strong enough mounts.
Awesome display of skill by Noddy and Big Ears.
The firewall and engine mount design might need to be re-evaluated.
to allow for what? 5G landings?
"Air speed is flying speed"
This is the engine saying "I wish I was liquid cooled"
The fronts of the pontoons folded on the second surface contact. But I'm guessing that if the prop didn't chew into the pontoons and damage them, he might have just squeaked by without it flipping. If you watch in slow motion, the nose of the pontoons wasn't exactly drilling into the water.
Murphy's Law at work on a Murphy airplane. Tell me the pilot name is Murphy.
The power curve was evidently the engine curving for the water without benefit of company of rest of aircraft.
What is "lift"? If you classify "lift" as the total upward force produced by the wing then lift can only exist up until a point when the wing can no longer produce it. A glider for example is a perfect example of an aircraft which gets its lift from the wing alone. But an airplane is different. It has another lifting source and that is the engine with a propeller. When the engine is producing thrust in a straight and level attitude, the engine's thrust is almost straight forward. But when the airplane is pointing at a very high nose up attitude the thrust of the engine working with the propeller is also producing a form of lift. This "lifting force" is known as the "vertical component of thrust". In other words, not only is the wing producing an upward lifting force, but so too is the engine and propeller. So, added together the engine and the wing can allow a greater lifting force to help the aircraft climb relative to a glider alone. The extra vertical thrust component is an additional force that helps the airplane keep a nose high attitude.
If it were not for the engine and the propeller acting as an additional lifting force, the airplane would not be able to support its own weight and quit flying ( a stalled wing). Have you ever been to an airshow where the super powerful small Extra 300 is able to climb straight up and up and up until the airplane stops flying? That is so because the Extra 300 has so much power that it doesn't really need the wings to help it climb. Think of a torque roll. (Ask your local sushi chef for a "torque roll").
So, in reality, "getting behind the power curve" requires more than just a wing. It requires "power". The more power the airplane has, the more it can rely on the power to help it fly slower. Just think how slow in a horizontal direction an Extra 300 can fly straight up. Its horizontal velocity is zero but yet it still can fly straight up. Remember and airplane is a three dimensional flying machine and can operate in an extra dimension moreso than a car.
Legend has it this pilot was very happy in the end.... (that it fell off at 0' AGL instead of 5,000')
"SINK RATE! SINK RATE! SINK RATE!"
Apparently he installed a larger motor without the required reinforcements, contradictory to what the manufacturer said
was going to say, unreal the engine broke off with a bounce like that.
@R Diaz I also read what Ryan posted above. It was a larger(heavier) engine and the mount and/or attach points were not up to the task. The manufacture told him the airframe couldn't support the engine he wanted. That's just what I heard anyway. Though I think you are both right... floats are unforgiving, he hit hard! Still though... that sucks for that guy... "airshow front and center" as they say... rough day
You know you are in back of the power curve when it takes more power to go slower.
Nice video. He was somewhat slower on the last attempt. The nose was high and he was holding quite a bit of up elevator, but the plane was still coming down. I think he was trying to touch down sooner than his previous two landings and let it get too slow..
the nose-up attitude, up elevator, and rate of descent are telling indeed
“Sink rate, Sink rate”
“Pull up, pull up”
“Don’t sink”
Baaahm 😂
Duuuude 😂😂
"Dive, dive, dive!"
It looks like to me that the hard landing just broke off the engine from its mounts. This could be caused by years of stress on the engine mounts and landings.
It looked to me like he had too little power coming in (hence the steep approach angle), and he never rounded out. Hitting the water as hard as he did and porpoising, his airspeed went to nothing, both wings stalled and he nosed over. He was behind the power curve in the sense that after he hit the water and lost almost all of his energy, even immediate full throttle and leveling the wings wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome. Glad he wasn't hurt
This should be titled "Piss, Poor Piloting" or "I effed up, sorry"
what really cracks me up about this is the uncoordinated rescue attempt, people swimming in the water fully clothed, the old man on the inflatable with an outboard but uses the oars and has a guy pushing it by the lower unit.
RCMP - What happened here?
Spectator - "the Front Fell Off".
Somebody didn't build a very good motor mount / firewall. At 3:41 the entire engine and cowling clearly break loose when the pontoons hit the water.
I've seen harder landings, but never seen the engine and complete cowling break off like that.
That water landing was his Lucky Day. Like you said.. Engine and Cowling Broke Off with Little Force.
@@markgomez9922 :Very lucky indeed. Thank GOD no one got hurt in the water either. Hate to have that clean up OR repair bill, if it's even repairable.
@@markgomez9922 :I should have read the remarks under the video before saying anything about the repair. Must have been on the expansive side though.
@@markgomez9922 because he put in an engine that was too big!!
Look at 3:40, doesn't it look as if the engine is already tilting forward just 3 or 4 feet above the water just before the throttle is advanced? I don't know this plane well enough to know, but the cowling looks tilted a couple degrees forward. That engine could have fallen out with one more pass? He may be lucky it happened just as it did? I also am left wondering, did he have any elevator authority before he advanced the throttle? It would be nice to hear his side of the story.
now thats the way to land a float plane
I just can’t get enough of watching that engine tear off the front!! Yeah it was stalling all the way to the water! Oh well... probably won’t ever do that again
It hit hard but not hard enough to break a motor mount if it was big enough for the motor. Adding power a bit sooner would have helped but it was a bit glassy and hard to judge I'd say.
When showing off, backfires
Man, that sink rate was immense! Hope the pilot was okay!
I agree with many posts that his sink rate was far beyond excessive, he was very slow, the AC stalled and plopped onto the water ripping the engine mounts out of the firewall, glad he was OK.
The first two landings were powered approaches that maintained airspeed and decent. You can hear the engine. The latter I would say was pilot error caused by poor judgement. I can’t hear the engine and it appears to be an uncontrolled approach. Power applied in hast far too late resulting in a heavy landing.
That dude sure stacked that sucker up😎👹💀💀💀💀😁😀😊😃😄😉😆🙂
Had the engine not fallen from the impact and the propeller not dug into the pontoons it might have landed but since the pontoons are now sliced open and create drag as soon as he hits the second time, they dug in causing the endo
That's what in aviation is called a, Ah mother ---,:', holy s-'-. crash. His approach angle was to steep and he did what many others have or will do as well.The I'll land you and show you who's boss landing. Forcing the plane down when it's not ready to land you get this kind of fun. I've never experienced it in water but I've had the pleasure on land. It's expensive to say the least. The engine may have been heavier but I've left a few behind on stock planes.
Good landing
Back of the drag curve more like
= back of the power curve. High drag = high power needed to maintain altitude (or you lower the nose to accelerate to minimum drag speed)
That was a stall landing, he flew to slow and stalled the plane. After that hard landing the engine broke off. Impressive, luckily no one got hurt!
Looks like a hard landing to me, and the cause was the power was not increased early enough.
3.36: You're welcome. Impressive stunt!
That was dumb 😂😂. He hit so hard his engine said I’m done.
Huge sink rate caused maybe by wind change landing too close to edge of lake. Should have kept full power on and flown away. I built a Murphy Renegade 2.
Good camera work.
Is this a Geico commercial?
Great video and explanation. Thanks for sharing. Mike Patey is using it on an intro video for his "Scrappy" plane build. Strong engine mounts are very important. Curious on how the pilot has two buttery smooth touch and go landings and then when he goes to land drives it into the lake?
I agree with "dirt flyer"s comment ... he explained quite acuretly
The full lotus floats held up. Would have made it had the engine not fall off
Neato!
that was a Murphy Rebel without a cause . . .
He wasn't paying attention to his vertical speed. He was definitely sinking like a rock!
Not enough is known to determine where he was flying relative to the power curve. He was obviously coming in much slower with no/very low power on the last approach, but this says nothing about the power curve for the aircraft.
he was descending to fast and the reacted to late
He might have been "behind the power curve" if he'd had any power in at all. He emerges from behind the trees at +3:38 already in a rapid descent, and doesn't add power until less than a second before impact...without raising the nose at all. Compare the previous descent at +3:16.
Part of my homework for ASES is watching videos of stuff like this. Looks like he came in with too much force on the front part of the floats.
People obviously don't read anything. Yes I agreed and said multiple times that the pilot initiated a flare. That doesn't constitute being behind the power curve. He was also idling as he glided in on the final approach then he added power. To be "Behind Power Curve" means you already have used all the power you have available and you are at a high angle of attack and many times have flaps deployed and if you need to increase altitude you have nothing to give you more altitude except to push the nose over. And if you're already to low then even that isn't an option.
Well damn.
He’s just lucky his engine didn’t fall off at a higher altitude without the audience there to rescue him.
I doubt even a lighter engine/airframe could have coped with such a massive sink rate, not recognised soon enough. He virtually stalled it in. At that sink rate water might as well be concrete. I amazed the whole aircraft didn't destruct.
What was he trying to do?
I wouldn't classify this incident as a classic BPC problem more just idyll power, high sink rate and nothing going over the wing to arrest the decent "power application, not enough and to late on round out and flair" then high G impact and structural failure.
That's what we call a "full stall" landing. She quit flying and dropped about twenty feet into the water. Engine mounts broke and the heavy motor fell to the length of the fuel and accessory lines pulling the nose over . Like a lead weight. He's lucky he didn't smack his head on something.
There is a point where "landing" and "crash" coincide. To be behind the power curve means you are deep into stall and thrust is providing part of the lift such that to go slower you have to use more power. Here, there was not much power on at the point of impact. There was no rounding out and the impact caused the faliure of the engine attachment.
On the other hand, this *is* behind the power curve, for real:
www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/aviation-accidents/fatal-crash-of-f-100-at-edwards-afb/2536575087001