What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Successful water landing

Wow first time I have ever heard of one that didn't flip. Very nice job to the pilot!

Canopy open but in the last pic you can see it closing. I have heard from other accounts that it will slam shut on deceleration.
 
I'm a TU canopy guy and am always dismayed by the what ifs of these scenarios. I have the jettison linkage available but not sure what if anything I could do with that in an actual ditch scenario. If time was available it might be better spent beating holes in the canopy. For example where does the canopy go once released? Does it slip back and do something unfortunate to the rudder right when alpha control becomes critical?

Having had a tip-up latch come from secure in flight, there are noticeable (but controllable) effects on pitch at higher speeds, not so much at low speed (we were able to secure the rear of the canopy by hand once slowed). Given that experience, my ditching procedure is to release the rear of the canopy below flap speed, but not jettison it. In fact, after research and thought, the jettison mechanism is stowed completely behind the panel now, as I only intend to use it for maintenance.
 
Many years ago, I delivered a new 208B to a company that was a replacement for one they had ditched in lake Michigan. It also stayed upright, which I wouldn't have expected with that honking big gear that it has. In that case the pod was full of cargo that acted like ballast.

Remembering this, it's got me wondering how much impact the CG might have on whether it flipped or not. Of the incidents that have been mentioned here, it would be interesting to know if the cg was further aft on the ones that stayed upright.
 
Saw this posted on Facebook, flipping over was brought up, someone asked if dipping a wing tip into the water would be beneficial, to cause a sort of ground loop to prevent flipping over.
 
I'm looking at a couple of OnSpeed configuration files for airplanes that have been properly calibrated. We have a 1/4 degree accuracy.

AOA is defined here as boresite AOA, as in referenced to the fuselage reference line (not wing chord).

Stall warning angles (calibrated to 1.1x Vs):

RV-10
Flaps 0: 13.5 deg
Flaps 15: 16.2 deg
Flaps 30: 19.7 deg

RV-4
Flaps 0: 16.8 deg
Flaps 20: 18.9 deg
Flaps 40: 20.0 deg

No data yet from a -9. We have data from a couple of Slings, different numbers, but same trend. Flaps down AOA goes up.
Correction: it was a 6A. Same airfoil as the -4.

The point is you can definitely fly at a higher AOA with flaps down.

Lenny

I can’t comment on the RV airfoil specifically but as a general rule trailing edge flaps decrease the stalling angle of attack while increasing the available lift. Leading edge slats increase the stalling angle of attack. That is why most high performance aircraft have both leading and trailing edge devices. If you get a chance to see a high AOA flight demo of a F18 you will note full slat extension with trailing edge flaps up.
 
Last edited:
AoA and Aircraft Longitudinal Axis

Again, the definition of AoA makes it problematic when trying to infer the relationship of the aircraft longitudinal axis to its flight path vector.

A higher AoA with trailing edge flaps down may and often does coincide with a lower aircraft pitch relative to the flight path.

Most of the time nobody cares and most people even appreciate not having to look over the nose as much when the flaps come down.

But if we are talking about getting the nose as high as possible just before touchdown, trailing edge flaps may and probably do act against that effort.

Trivia point: F-18s call their leading edge devices 'Leading Edge Flaps' they don't have slots like say the A-4 had. And they get aggressive! Around 45 degrees at full extension (maybe higher I don't recall exactly). They seriously affect high AoA flow attachment (meaning higher useful AoA) and also affect pitch control by inducing a lot more upwash ahead of the wing and moving the center of lift. A switch was installed that over-rode the normal flight control of that device and sent them into full deflection. They called it the 'spin recovery switch' and you were never meant to touch it unless you confirmed a spin and the flight control computer disagreed. In addition to the LEF position it also put the flight controls directly in the pilot's hands without the 'save yourself from yourself' filters. When things got slow and flat, savvy rule benders would go for that red shielded marvel and make the Hornet do things that the F-16 drivers really hated.
 
Last edited:
Water landing

My home airport (KFIN) is 4 miles from the Atlantic. I fly the coast at least 2 days a week . I take a look if it’s high or low tide and beach population when I get to the shoreline …. Determine then where I’m going if I have problems. I figured it’s a guarantee flip and end upside down in the ocean and always planned on deeper water outside of the breakers if the beach was ruled out . I don’t think attempting opening a slider pre ditch would be a good idea . I figured I’d set up for a slow entry with full flaps …….
 

Attachments

  • 648B0D4A-03C1-4C66-841E-3266C1B4680D.jpg
    648B0D4A-03C1-4C66-841E-3266C1B4680D.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 186
I'm guessing Cessna did alot of water ditching test with fixed gear craft, and every one I've flown (150/152/172) have the same procedure: Establish a 300 FPM decent at 55-60 knots and just belly flop it in, no flare. This makes alot of sense to me, plant that gear in the water hard and fast, don't let it act like a lever to rotate the plane upside down when it catches if you level off over the water and try to bleed off every knot of speed.
 
May or may not apply to Cessna's, but I seem to recall that some aircraft seat's are designed to take the vertical G load of a crash.......
 
From the photos, the prop appeared to be stopped. That doesn't say anything about the reason for the failure, just an observation.
 
May or may not apply to Cessna's, but I seem to recall that some aircraft seat's are designed to take the vertical G load of a crash.......

I just skimmed the last couple of pages this morning so I'm not 100% clear on why we're talking about Cessna seats, but yes. The cert basis changed somewhere along the way to require seats to hold up to 26G. Thats why if you look under there, the seat frame looks like a bridge truss now.

Cessna redesigned to that standard during the single engine restart program in 1996.
 
wishes

wishing his old friend farewell before the boat picks him up. the airframe served him well and brought him home safely. someone buy this guy a beer.

DSC_2181.jpg
 
Change the thread title

Now that we've absolutely confirmed that the aircraft that ditched was an RV6A can we please have the thread title corrected accordingly....otherwise this plane is going to be an RV9A forever. :D

Incidentally, there seems to be plenty of speculation about this accident...which is entirely appropriate in this case in my opinion. Good on the moderators and Doug for using common sense in this instance.
 
I think the caption as he is talking to his old friend would be “Why did you try to kill me?”. :eek:

Guess it’s just a matter of perspective. ;)
 
I think the caption as he is talking to his old friend would be “Why did you try to kill me?”. :eek:

Guess it’s just a matter of perspective. ;)

I'm imagining that as his old friend was sinking slowly beneath the surface to his watery grave he would have been saying to the pilot "Why didn't you look after me better".
 
maybe... but he did show us something we didn't think was possible. Now I have a hope and a plan for staying upright in a ditching.

Nice weather this evening in Cincy.

IMG_20210828_200205.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just thinking aloud with no experience in this (thank heavens!), but I don't see a huge difference in stall speed with flaps. What I *do* see is a pitch difference. So I'm thinking that no flaps will help me keep that nose up at a cost of a couple knots airspeed.

My guess is the flaps up not only allow an increase AoA but also less of a flip over moment as they would create an additional nose down moment when they start to drag in the water.

I took a water egress course last year prior to flying the Caribbean. In answer to your question, flaps up was preferred.

Additional observation. It looks to me that he landed with the waves. To me that makes sense to reduce potential to flip hitting a wave head on. But that also means you are landing with the wind and therefore "groundspeed" is higher but your "waterspeed" is less. What is the recommended procedure, land with the waves or into the wind?
 
This information is given for transport category aircraft and is from a respected document:

"Ditching
It is extremely dangerous to land into the wind without regard to swell systems.
Touchdown should be made parallel to the largest swell system, crabbing into the
wind as required until the flare. If a smaller secondary swell system is present,
attempt to touchdown on the backside of a secondary swell while remaining
parallel to the larger swell system. Avoid touching down into the “face” of a swell.
Avoid landing in areas where the seas are short and rough. This is indicated by
whitecaps and shadows appearing close together . Select an area where the shadows and whitecaps are not so numerous. Touchdown should be at the lowest speed and rate of descent, which permit safe handling and optimum nose-up attitude upon impact. Keep wings parallel with the surface, not with the horizon."
 
Looking at the photos again, it looks to me as if he was landing parallel to the shore line, without respect to the waves. Those are relatively small wind waves, and not swells.

It does appear that the landing was made downwind.

You don't always get to choose where, when, or what direction you are landing!:eek:
 
Ditching

The problem is if you have no engine power it’s hard to time your landing on the backside of a wave. Secondly it’s not that easy to determine wind direction which isn’t necessarily the direction of the waves. Next time you go flying try to determine the wind direction by the trees. Unless the wind is well over 15 knots there’s no way at 2000 feet or even a 1000 ft you’re going to determine wind direction. Thirdly, when your engine quits unexpectedly you are in shock and it’s hard for you to think about every little detail.

I think sliding the canopy back is dangerous due to it closing upon deceleration. The chances of the plane not yawing to the left or the right isn’t very likely. And if two people are on the plane which ever way the plane yaws the person in that seat will be thrown towards the opening and the canopy will guillotine them. The shoulder harness isn’t going to keep their head completely inside the plane if the plane yaws. More than likely one of the mains will hit first causing the plane to yaw. And if you use a latching system to hold the canopy open it better be pretty substantial because the deceleration times the weight of the canopy will snap that latching system unless it’s pretty substantial.

Someone mentioned it earlier I think it might be the smartest thing is to land the plane at 300 ft./min without flaring to make sure the gear sinks into the water quicker preventing the plane from flipping over. It might be hold true even on land when having to land in a very short field, the collapse of the gear will absorb some of the impact while reducing the landing distance significantly.

When I had my engine out back in Feb with my 7 I was faced with a situation. When I knew I wasn’t going to clear the fence line I banked to the left about 30 deg or so and unfortunately stalled the left-wing 15 feet above the ground causing the left wing to hit first and pivot the nose into the ground which caused the right wing pancake into the ground which pretty much stopped me from sliding. Of course I wasn’t trying to stall the plane or purposely hit the left wing first. When I hit it definitely threw me partially to the co-pilot side. My neck was immediately sore but luckily I didn’t get seriously injured. If I had banked to the right my head would have hit the side of the canopy which more than likely would’ve been better than me almost snapping my neck due to the weight of my head being thrown to the copilot side.

This information is given for transport category aircraft and is from a respected document:

"Ditching
It is extremely dangerous to land into the wind without regard to swell systems.
Touchdown should be made parallel to the largest swell system, crabbing into the
wind as required until the flare. If a smaller secondary swell system is present,
attempt to touchdown on the backside of a secondary swell while remaining
parallel to the larger swell system. Avoid touching down into the “face” of a swell.
Avoid landing in areas where the seas are short and rough. This is indicated by
whitecaps and shadows appearing close together . Select an area where the shadows and whitecaps are not so numerous. Touchdown should be at the lowest speed and rate of descent, which permit safe handling and optimum nose-up attitude upon impact. Keep wings parallel with the surface, not with the horizon."
 
Last edited:
...
When I had my engine out back in Feb with my 7 I was faced with a situation. When I knew I wasn’t going to clear the fence line I banked to the left about 30 deg or so and unfortunately stalled the left-wing 15 feet above the ground causing the left wing to hit first and pivot the nose into the ground which caused the right wing pancake into the ground which pretty much stopped me from sliding. Of course I wasn’t trying to stall the plane or purposely hit the left wing first. When I hit it definitely threw me partially to the co-pilot side. My neck was immediately sore but luckily I didn’t get seriously injured. If I had banked to the right my head would have hit the side of the canopy which more than likely would’ve been better than me almost snapping my neck due to the weight of my head being thrown to the copilot side.
I must have missed that accident report, or my memory is failing me. Glad you got on the ground safely! Did you find out why the engine failed?
 
The link to my crash

On post #21 on pg 3 is my story of the crash

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=192861

E46A2D1F-3622-4850-99F0-581029897969.jpg

7B3AFB57-9749-47D3-A3CB-E341A11087FE.jpg


The pic below is the tree line I needed to get over, about 50 yds too short to get to the long side of the field. With a windmilling prop your glide distance is reduced so keep in mind if your engine ever quits on you your glide is reduced significantly.

Is there a way to rotate the pic?

2F90C5F5-2B95-4F25-B75E-0207D01B8246.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 07357E23-8882-459E-84F2-5B858DAF124D.jpg
    07357E23-8882-459E-84F2-5B858DAF124D.jpg
    712 KB · Views: 151
Last edited:
That's where everyone has to be on the same page in terminology. AOA may be able to be higher with flaps down, but deck angle in relation to the water level may be higher with flaps up. To talk in terms of actual AOA, you'd have to know which direction you're moving in relation to relative wind, which depends on your descent rate too, in this situation. I can't make any specific claims one way or the other, because I'm just casually watching this thread, but, my gut tells me:

If you use flaps down, you'll be able to hit the water slower, but likely with less nose up deck angle to the water...more likely to hit the nosewheel first.

If you use flaps down, you'll be flying faster, but probably have a higher nose angle to the waterline, and if your airplane is able to get all the way down near stall speed before touching, you may have the opportunity to lose a little energy with a tail-strike to water, followed quickly by the mains hitting, and perhaps avoid a nose-over.

It's really tough to say. Water landings, especially in a tip-up, are one of the things that I hate thinking about as I'm flying over the ocean, because I don't know what the best way to survive it is. I know I don't particularly like the idea of being upside down, with an unbroken and fully in-place canopy. I also don't like the idea of jettisoning a canopy, and then doing a harsh faceplant as the plane noses over. I've contemplated in the past, getting near stall and dragging a wingtip, to maybe blow a little energy off with a quick spin. There are downsides to every potential choice.

The one thing that is clear though, is that this guy did an excellent job, and basically accomplished what I would most want the outcome to be, if I were in his shoes. I'm tempted to say that based on what I see here, I'd do it sans-flaps. That said, the same outcome relies a bit on luck, probably to a similar extent as skill.
 
All you have to do to find out if a quick spin in an aircraft is good for you is go drive a race car and get in a quick spin and bang into something or hit in the side to find out how heavy your head is (about 25 lbs) and see if you can still breath. It's an oh %^@ moment.
In the race cars we have seats that have high bolsters on each side of your head to stop it. Oh ya and helmets.
Spinning an airplane in the water seems like a real good way to get your neck snapped and be dead or worse, a broken neck and not dead.
I don't want to be there or go there.
Been in enough crashes from all sides and none are good, But, side is the worst.
I will say that guy did a great job of flying the plane to the crash site.
My three cents. Art
 
Last edited:
People keep stating that trailing edge flaps increase stalling AOA. I posted earlier that that is not correct. Here is a simple concise explanation.

Do flaps increase critical angle of attack?
Flaps increase lift for a given AoA, but reduce critical AoA. Deflection of leading edge devices does not result in increase of lift at an AoA, but postpone the critical AoA - in order to obtain more lift, the AoA needs to be increased.
 
Most people also think of AoA as the fuselage angle, not the wing angle (effective angle with and without flaps)
 
Not attempting to take away any skill from the pilot as he got near perfect results...however in order to skillfully put a plane down on water it requires practice and most people only get one shot at it so let's accept that luck plays a role. I'd rather be lucky in this situation than good or maybe a bit of both. Wonderful pics of the landing, lots of detail that we seldom are able to see.
 
Anybody know who the pilot is??

Anybody know who the pilot is?? Love to hear from him here---in his own words.
 
How many ping pong balls in the wings and fuselage would keep the plane from sinking?

Not gonna show my work, but my math says about 23,880 balls. You would need about 0.8m³ (cubic meters) of volume in seawater to displace 2'000 lbs (816kg) and ping pong balls are about 33.5cm³ (cubic centimeters).

Not taking into account the empty space in the fuel tanks, or any other hollow parts of the aircraft. It's almost doable.
 
Not gonna show my work, but my math says about 23,880 balls. You would need about 0.8m³ (cubic meters) of volume in seawater to displace 2'000 lbs (816kg) and ping pong balls are about 33.5cm³ (cubic centimeters).

Not taking into account the empty space in the fuel tanks, or any other hollow parts of the aircraft. It's almost doable.

Wow, the things I learn on Vans Airforce just boggle the mind!

-Marc
 
Slight thread drift ;)

SuperCubDriver, aka Hermann, filled his wings with closed cell foam for his Atlantic crossings... according to his saying, if I recall properly, the volume of said foam should permit the -8 to barely stay afloat, and only increased the ZFW by slightly more than 10kg. He showed me the foam blocks from which he cut-out rib shaped pieces, about 10cm thick, which were then inserted into the wings thru the access panels and wing tips. No easy task for sure...

Now Mikey, what would be the weight of those ping-pong balls :D
 
Congrats to the pilot!

Leaves, grass, hair and clothes of the bystanders indicate he landed into the wind..
 
yes, into the wind. he used every advantage. he is probably not an average pilot. he must be a CFI or a sailplane pilot.

and perhaps the boat didn't need to get too close to the airplane to pick him up. he probably just "walked on the water" to the boat.

not-worthy-waynes-world.gif
 
Last edited:
yes, into the wind. he used every advantage. he is probably not an average pilot. he must be a CFI or a sailplane pilot.

A sad but true statement.

On a forum of ATP types there is a thread about "Dangers of GA flying" and for sure a glaring theme is lack of preparedness or training for the unexpected amongst GA pilots. Hopefully the incident examination here puts some checklist items in the heads of a few RV pilots when it comes to ditching.

Regarding the open canopy slamming shut, while flying a slider this weekend I noticed a second slot in the rail that would allow the canopy to be locked from the outside in a cracked-open position:

4akUmx7l.jpg


Surely a small over center tab of some sort could be attached to the canopy. Or simply mount a piece of aluminum to form a canopy-side slot, and have a tab available in a side pocket to insert. Maybe attach an embroidered yellow tag to the tab, "Insert Before Ditching!" :p
 
Not gonna show my work, but my math says about 23,880 balls. You would need about 0.8m³ (cubic meters) of volume in seawater to displace 2'000 lbs (816kg) and ping pong balls are about 33.5cm³ (cubic centimeters).

Not taking into account the empty space in the fuel tanks, or any other hollow parts of the aircraft. It's almost doable.

You don't need to displace 2000 lbs. Probably only need to displace slightly less than the empty weight of the plane, assuming most items above empty-weight will be at-least neutrally buoyant (fuel, oil, luggage, etc). Remember, the submerged components of the plane itself will actually displace a little sea water, particularly the wheels and tires, gear legs, engine, etc.

Skylor
 
Ping Pong

From Air and Space magazine: In 1936 Dick Merrill flew a Vultee V1A round trip across the Atlantic. The airplane was filled with 41,000 ping pong balls with the hope that the airplane would float if ditched. The Vultee was a very large single engine airplane. The same airplane has been in two different museums in VA. I don't know where it is now.
Many decades ago Capt Merrill could frequently be found in the snack bar at Shannon Airport in Fredricksburg VA. In that era the Vultee was in a museum there, then went to Richmond which I believe has since closed.
 
Thanks emsvitil

Soooo, taking the buoyancy figure provided by Mickey's math, 23,880 balls x 2.7g equals 6.4476kg, pretty good ROI me figures...
Now remains to devise a mean of confining them and not obstructing any of the flight controls.

Next question, what altitude are they rated for? Could they be helium filled? Or Hydrogen maybe :D

Thanks for that jrs14855, wouldn't have thought it had been done before.
 
Vultee

The Shannon museum airplanes have returned to Shannon Airport. The museum is open by appointment only.
Lots of information online about the Vultee, It is the only surviving example. Dick Merrill and Shannon Airport. Great reading material if you like history.
Merrill was too old for WWII but flew the Hump as a civilian in DC3's and C46's.
 
Thanks emsvitil

Soooo, taking the buoyancy figure provided by Mickey's math, 23,880 balls x 2.7g equals 6.4476kg, pretty good ROI me figures...
Now remains to devise a mean of confining them and not obstructing any of the flight controls.

Next question, what altitude are they rated for? Could they be helium filled? Or Hydrogen maybe :D

Thanks for that jrs14855, wouldn't have thought it had been done before.

I know you mean this somewhat in jest, but the primary mass driver of the ping-pong balls is likely the shell, not the internal gas. There is .041g of air in each ping pong ball (assuming STP). That's 0.98Kg per 23,880 balls. Switch to helium, that would be .143 Kg for the full load so changing air to helium would save .84 Kg. Vacuum filled balls would save .98 Kg, assuming the shell were sufficiently strong as-is...

Skylor
 
Back
Top