Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mtdrake

I owned a C 310Q for many years.

Without looking in my log books, I suppose I had around 4,000 hours in it.

A 310 is a fantastic airplane, but like all airplanes there are things to be considered.

First, I have made many many takeoffs in what could best be described as zero zero conditions and if the aircraft had good instrumentation an experienced 310 pilot would have no problems.

I googled the airport. It has a tower, so no takeoff would be allowed unless it was an IFR takeoff. Not if it was really a fog.

However, although I operated off several strips shorter than 2,400 ft., I considered that to be as short as I considered comfortable.

I did operate a few times from a 2,000 ft. strip, light and that is really too short.

So what I would suspect.

Two passengers. A full fuel load? How much baggage? How big were the passengers?

I quit 10 years ago, so I don’t remember all of the numbers and my weight and balance calculator is in a different computer, but generally speaking 140 gallons plus three 170 lbs passengers plus 150 lbs or so of luggage would put them at or near gross.

With 2,400 ft. of runway and power lines, he would probably lift off and immediately rotate to a steep angle of climb. Not max rate, but probably at 120 knots.

If he lost an engine at 120K with that load, not yet on top of the fog, he would have to do everything exactly right the first time to keep from losing it.

Again, it has been 10 years and the numbers are hazy but as I recall he has to nail everything, clean up gear, feather the bad engine and do it all before speed sinks to 106K.

106K is not VMC, but below 106K you don’t climb, you just mush along.

That is, if my memory is correct.


39 posted on 02/17/2010 2:25:46 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: old curmudgeon
With 2,400 ft. of runway and power lines, he would probably lift off and immediately rotate to a steep angle of climb. Not max rate, but probably at 120 knots.

A good summary of all the issues. But, if you didn't already see my posting, I pulled up the location of the crash on Google Maps (got the address from another article), and it's just the other side of the power lines.

However, they apparently struck the power lines about 2000 feet southwest of the runway centerline -- if they took off to the northwest. They would have made a left turn very soon after takeoff.

If so, it's not clear (to me) if that left turn was intentional. If the owner was the pilot, I presume that he was familiar with the airport, and with the power lines. So, if he did have an engine failure, I wouldn't expect him to turn that direction while flying at Vmc.

The other possibility: they took off to the southeast, and were trying to make a circling approach to land again. But, I don't think that's likely, given the depicted trajectory of the wreckage (if it's accurate).

See the Google Map here:

Small plane down in East Palo Alto

I'm wondering if he had an unrecognized gyro failure.

55 posted on 02/17/2010 7:32:36 PM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson