Light aircraft crash at Heck Field 27/01/26

[KRviator]

7 minutes ago, PapaFox said:

Having seen the latest sale ad before, it lists 250hp supposedly, which is pushing pretty hard on that motor. That said, the cruise speed listed, and shown by recent flight tracks doesn't suggest any more than 180

Or a pilot who has actually read The Mothership's newsletter and understands the Vne limitations of the RV series...which is based on the flutter margin, in turn which is primarily concerned with TAS not IAS and so is dynamic based on environmental conditions. 250HP in any of the single-digit RV's is not smart. Turbo'ing to 250 is even worse. Doable, certainly, but not smart.

[Bexx]

3 hours ago, KRviator said:

Or a pilot who has actually read The Mothership's newsletter and understands the Vne limitations of the RV series...which is based on the flutter margin, in turn which is primarily concerned with TAS not IAS and so is dynamic based on environmental conditions. 250HP in any of the single-digit RV's is not smart. Turbo'ing to 250 is even worse. Doable, certainly, but not smart.

I doubt there’s any VNE issues with any sube conversion I’ve ever seen. 
MKX looks to never have gone any quicker than 130Kts. As someone once said. They’re small horses…
The stats don’t lie. If you have an auto conversion - esp a sube in a RV- not only are the odds are against you, you’ll be slow. 
for all those who say the EJ is awesome, jump in you STI and do 100kph in 2nd gear only and see how long it lasts. It won’t be 200,000k. 
 

[rodgerc]

I wonder, is it the Subaru engine that typically fails or the PSRU bolted to it? 

[onetrack]

There is a constant and recurring furphy and urban legend, that Subaru built an aircraft engine, and couldn't sell enough of them, so Subaru put it into their cars. It is a line of total BS and bar talk, that hasn't a skerrick of truth in it.

 

The urban legend is always "backed up" by producing photos of Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru aircraft, which were manufactured by Fuji Heavy Industries, owner of the Subaru brand and manufacturer of the Subaru cars.

 

The true story is - the Fuji Sangyo company was formed in 1946, amidst the wreckage of Japanese industry, by managers and engineers from the Nakajima Aircraft company, which had built radial aircraft engines for the Mitsubishi Zero.

 

In the takeover of control of Japans direction by the U.S. after WW2, the Japanese were banned from producing any aircraft or aviation equipment. So the managers and engineers from Nakajima Aircraft Co formed Fuji Sangyo, and started producing the Fuji Rabbit scooter.

In 1950, the Japanese Govt, under "anti-zaibatsu" legislation, broke Fuji Sangyo up into 12 smaller companies. The "anti-zaibatsu" legislation was anti-monopoly legislation, designed to stop major vertical integration of industries, to prevent major industrial power blocs.

 

In 1953, the managers and engineers from Fuji Sangyo amalgamated 5 of the smaller subsidiaries of the company into Fuji Heavy Industries, registered Subaru as a brand name, and FHI started down the path of manufacturing Subaru cars.

The major lineup of early Subaru car production was small cars, that used in-line engines. 

The managers and engineers selected the flat four Boxer engine design for the Subaru cars (starting in the early 1960's), simply because they liked the engine layout. The flat four has lower vibration levels than upright inline engines.

 

In 1968, FHI decided to manufacture the Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru light aircraft, in the hope of cracking into another potential source of income.

Around 275 Fuji FA-200's were built, before Piper and Cessna went on a major sales and production drive, to ensure that the Fuji FA-200 would fail to get a start in the light aircraft market.

 

It is a regularly ignored fact, by the urban legend spreaders, that the Fuji FA-200 used a LYCOMING engine as its power plant - not a Subaru engine. There was no "Subaru aircraft engine" to put into the Fuji FA-200.

 

The Subaru flat four Boxer engine is a car engine, and has always been designed as a car engine. Anyone who claims that it has "aviation heritage" or was designed as an aviation engine, is simply spreading a major lie.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:11 PM by onetrack
added link...

[jackc]

1 minute ago, onetrack said:

There is a constant and recurring furphy and urban legend, that Subaru built an aircraft engine, and couldn't sell enough of them, so Subaru put it into their cars. It is a line of total BS and bar talk, that hasn't a skerrick of truth in it.

 

The urban legend is always "backed up" by producing photos of Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru aircraft, which were manufactured by Fuji Heavy Industries, owner of the Subaru brand and manufacturer of the Subaru cars.

 

The true story is - the Fuji Sangyo company was formed in 1946, amidst the wreckage of Japanese industry, by managers and engineers from the Nakajima Aircraft company, which had built radial aircraft engines for the Mitsubishi Zero.

 

In the takeover of control of Japans direction by the U.S. after WW2, the Japanese were banned from producing any aircraft or aviation equipment. So the managers and engineers from Nakajima Aircraft Co formed Fuji Sangyo, and started producing the Fuji Rabbit scooter.

In 1950, the Japanese Govt, under "anti-zaibatsu" legislation, broke Fuji Sangyo up into 12 smaller companies. The "anti-zaibatsu" legislation was anti-monopoly legislation, designed to stop major vertical integration of industries, to prevent major industrial power blocs.

 

In 1953, the managers and engineers from Fuji Sangyo amalgamated 5 of the smaller subsidiaries of the company into Fuji Heavy Industries, registered Subaru as a brand name, and FHI started down the path of manufacturing Subaru cars.

The major lineup of early Subaru car production was small cars, that used in-line engines. 

The managers and engineers selected the flat four Boxer engine design for the Subaru cars (starting in the early 1960's), simply because they liked the engine layout. The flat four has lower vibration levels than upright inline engines.

 

In 1968, FHI decided to manufacture the Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru light aircraft, in the hope of cracking into another potential source of income.

Around 275 Fuji FA-200's were built, before Piper and Cessna went on a major sales and production drive, to ensure that the Fuji FA-200 would fail to get a start in the light aircraft market.

 

It is a regularly ignored fact, by the urban legend spreaders, that the Fuji FA-200 used a LYCOMING engine as its power plant - not a Subaru engine. There was no "Subaru aircraft engine" to put into the Fuji FA-200.

 

The Subaru flat four Boxer engine is a car engine, and has always been designed as a car engine. Anyone who claims that it has "aviation heritage" or was designed as an aviation engine, is simply spreading a major lie.

There are two words that summarise the reason for the crash of Greg’s aircraft,

They are ‘ ignition failure’ there is some history there but I will not go into it here.

 

[Blueadventures]

23 minutes ago, jackc said:

There are two words that summarise the reason for the crash of Greg’s aircraft,

They are ‘ ignition failure’ there is some history there but I will not go into it here.

 

When do you expect SAAA will issue a preliminary public update?

[jackc]

10 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

When do you expect SAAA will issue a preliminary public update?

Based on what I know, and a pending ATSB investigation finding, there will be something published. 

[onetrack]

Blueadventures - The aircraft in this crash was VH-registered and the ATSB have commenced an investigation. According to Angus Mitchell, there is good video available of the aircraft takeoff, and it is obvious the engine was not producing full power on takeoff and in the early stages of flight.

[KRviator]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Blueadventures - The aircraft in this crash was VH-registered and the ATSB have commenced an investigation. According to Angus Mitchell, there is good video available of the aircraft takeoff, and it is obvious the engine was not producing full power on takeoff and in the early stages of flight.

It must have been significantly below full power. Most RV's leap off the ground to the extent there's a specific caution in the build manual about doing high-speed taxi runs before your first flight because they can easily and inadvertently become first flights due to pilots thinking 'it's not a full-power run, she'll be right'. and before you know it, you're accelerating through 50KIAS and capable of flight.

160HP is the lowest recommended for the -8 (because any less won't achieve the RV Grin) but it will fly with 120 and probably get even airborne and achieve a positive climb rate with just 80HP, they're not an overly heavy aircraft, even at gross.

I had a partial power loss on takeoff in the -9 a few years ago, got to about 30' when she started carrying on and pig-rootin' around. I still had enough runway (1100m long) to react, decide whether to continue or abort, and land straight ahead. 250-300m is my heavy-weight takeoff roll in the -9 in no wind - and she only has 165HP. That -8, with 200HP, yet alone the claimed max of 250, should be going like a raped ape on a normal takeoff. I'd have to feel the difference between "normal" and "What's goin' on here?" should have been evident enough, early enough, to give it away, even at Heck Field. 

Whatever the failure was, I hope other Subawoo fliers can learn from it and maybe put mitigation measures in place. 3 in a year isn't great odds...

[Bexx]

Power may well not be the only issue. 
I’m led to believe it had an BEW north of 600kg and a MTOW of 950kg with capacity for 250L of fuel.
2 reasonable sized guys and bags plus that much fuel - even with 200hp (which seems optimistic) I can see that performance being very anaemic by RV standards. 
Hopefully the report sheds more light. 

[BurnieM]

Heck Field 28/10 is only 700M (2300ft).

 

[FlyBoy1960]

800 now, there were extensions

 

[facthunter]

Car engines don't often use full throttle for very long. Built for a different Purpose. There's also many different redrives for Subaru Engines.  Nev

[cscotthendry]

No matter how you look at it, automobile engines and aircraft engines are designed for different purposes. Aircraft engines are designed from the ground up, to operate at 75% throttle (or more) for most of their operational life. Auto engines are designed for 30% throttle (or less) for most of their life. IMO, modifying car engines for flying is painting lipstick on a pig. And comparing the miles done with an engine in a car, to the potential reliability in an aircraft is misguided at best.

 

Additionally, low wing aircraft with bubble canopies are death traps. If you have to put an aircraft down on rough ground, there's a good likelihood it's going to end up on its back. There have been many outlandings where the occupants of these types of planes survived the crash and died in the post-crash fire because the plane was upside down and they couldn't get out.

I'm not claiming that's what happened here, but I've never liked that configuration, on safety grounds.

 

Flying is totally unforgiving of failures and mistakes. Why increase your chances of dying, just to save some $$$.

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

800 now, there were extensions

Yeah, nah.

 

AIP says 700M and there is not a lot of room for extensions unless they bought a cane farm.

 

 

[facthunter]

Depends on whether you want to play with Engines OR Fly your Plane. IF you like PLAYING with engines do it with engines in some object that doesn't fly, preferably OR fly where an engine failure doesn't mean you would be lucky to survive. Engine failures can also CAUSE a FIRE which when airborne really becomes a life and death issue very Rapidly..  An aero engine HAS to theoretically Meet  Original Performance Parameters till  it's removed to be Overhauled..  Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

16 hours ago, BurnieM said:

Yeah, nah.

 

AIP says 700M and there is not a lot of room for extensions unless they bought a cane farm.

 

 

We extended all the way to the river several years ago and gained 100 meters extra, check the Google Maps and you will see what was gained.  Just a little bit more for safety.  They were also going to clear the tress that they crashed into several years ago but the committee changed and it was forgotten. If they did clear then we might have had a different outcome.  The Gold Coast council agreed to use the area for chainsaw instruction for their parks people and we would have got the trees removed for free, shame it didnt happen. 

[facthunter]

You need the Stumps removed as well.  Aero clubs are another Club where Wannabees rise to fame if you let them.  Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

The idea was the GSCC (council) would cut the trees over a 2-6 month period for training, the club would remove the stumps.

 

Just a shame it didnt happen when the committee changed a few years back, i will bring it up again in the next meeting.

Edited Thursday at 11:43 PM by FlyBoy1960

[facthunter]

The stumps are the hard Part Leaving holes and root ends making it hard to level off and Mow. . Newly cleared land will have a great crop of weeds and rubbish seeding.  Nev

[Thruster88]

RV would takeoff in less then 300m, a very slight left turn,  started early, looks like it would keep any aircraft departing 28 at Heck Field in a position to make a forced landing in the open cane fields south of the river. That would be my pre takeoff safety briefing to self. I do this to the right at my farm strip to avoid flying over a small scrub covered hill off the end of my strip. 

[facthunter]

Parallelling the strip Make a Turnback more likely to be Possible as  well. Pre plan any of this BEFORE you start your take off roll to avoid the " Startle Factor". and loss of time reacting. Nev

[BurnieM]

My understanding is he did not get more than 30 feet off the ground.

Does anybody have any better information ?

 

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

We extended all the way to the river several years ago and gained 100 meters extra, check the Google Maps and you will see what was gained.  Just a little bit more for safety.  They were also going to clear the tress that they crashed into several years ago but the committee changed and it was forgotten. If they did clear then we might have had a different outcome.  The Gold Coast council agreed to use the area for chainsaw instruction for their parks people and we would have got the trees removed for free, shame it didnt happen. 

Google maps measuring tool shows a distance of 830 M (from the eastern end of runway 28/10 to the western end creek bank).

Hard to know what the accuracy is.

 

Edited Friday at 02:14 AM by BurnieM

[FlyBoy1960]

Measured with a surveyors wheel, meant to be accurate.  Seen the video and hard to tell height, but very low and didnt climb.