Learjet 45 crashes in Telluride

[avbug]

Uh-oh. Now you've done it. Just when his batteries were about to wind down, too.

 

[DA50pilot]

Hardly.

You're a good pilot because you elected not to. You're not afraid of Telluride, however, and you didn't call for it's closure.

Pilots who are afraid to go there and believe it's a dangerous place=not good pilots.

Get your story straight.

I have to respectfully and professionally disagree with you AVBUG.

"Pilots who are afraid to go there and believe it's a dangerous place=not good pilots."

This is one of the dumbest comments I have heard. Because a pilot feels its a dangerous airport makes him or her a bad pilot. Being a good pilot means you are able to make good decisions. One of the most important decisions to make is your own comfort zone. If a pilot told me that they were uncomfortable flying into a specific airport, I would respect thier decisions; not call them a bad pilot.

From the sounds of it, you seem to have been flying in the TEX area for a long time, so of course your comfort zone in all of those mountainous airports out there is much higher than someone who does not operate in that area every day..... like me. Does that make me a bad pilot?

 

[Tristar]

I said no such thing. Again, your comprehension lacks.

You should re-read your own posts before you contradict them, to wit:

Clay Lacy, of course, didn't do that...he bought his own business, promoted it, did much of the aerial photography in Hollywood, and has run a very successful FBO and charter operation for many years. One of the largest and most successful on the west coast, in fact.

I did state that attacking the man's character is inappropriate, and it is. He's a respected member of the community. While you may hold over him your own agenda, I certainly don't, nor do I feel your concern regarding him, or his past. I submit that it's your problem with him, not mine; no explaination required.

BTW - given the number of people just on here who think he's a dirtbag, you might want to reconsider that respected member of the community thing. Unless of course the community you're talking about includes Bernie Madoff , Frank Lorenzo, Ken Lay, Jeff Skillings, Bill Beal, AIG executives, ect. He's probably a hero in that community.

My comprehension is just fine, you can't even remember what you posted, let alone cogently address points I raise regarding character or aircraft performance.

 

[avbug]

I contradicted nothing. I said he's a respected member of the community. I said so correctly. I did not say he is a "pillar of the community," nor did I say he is an "outstanding pilot."

Put words in your own mouth, not mine.

If a pilot told me that they were uncomfortable flying into a specific airport, I would respect thier decisions; not call them a bad pilot.

I do respect his decision not to operate there, as I would anyone. In fact, I'm glad he doesn't operate there. His calling for the airport to be closed, however, is where my contention lies with respect to the poster's decision. (read the entire thread). The poster is afraid to fly into Telluride, and therefore calls for it's closure, asserting that it's a dangerous place.

As stated before, a poor carpenter blames his tools. Poor carpenter, bad pilot.

you can't even remember what you posted, let alone cogently address points I raise regarding character or aircraft performance.

I remember with perfect clarity that which I've posted (though there's no need, of course, as it's printed, brightspark). Your understanding of performance issues is rather lacking, as you've demonstrated thus far. Cogently? Don't use all your five dollar words in one thread, you'll go linguistically broke. We can't be having that, now.

 

[Tristar]

You really are developmentally disabled aren't you?

I did not quote you, and I did not put words in your mouth. I paraphrased (oops, there's one of those darn big words again, it means a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form) the sentiments you've expressed in a number of posts. If you don't like the sentiments you are conveying, perhaps you should try a different line of reasoning - maybe even one that actually addresses the issue raised (I know, I know, crazy talk - actually answering a direct question? Unheard of).

I remember with perfect clarity that which I've posted (though there's no need, of course, as it's printed, brightspark).

Yes Forrest, I'm aware it's printed. Perhaps you should review your own posts instead of just listening to the voices in your head.

Your understanding of performance issues is rather lacking, as you've demonstrated thus far.

Really now - again go re-read this thread (as you challenged someone else to do).

You start by attempting to make a comparison between a C-150 and a corporate jet. Then you claim that a 50% increase in power in a piston aircraft is "quite irrelevant" to it's climb performance.

No, it doesn't have a stock powerplant. It's a 150 hp O-320, if I recall...which is really quite irrelevant.

Go dig out the PHAK, Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, or any of a variety of other texts and review what it is that causes an aircraft to climb - EXCESS POWER.

You then continue to place you ignorance on display by claiming that the engine modification is pointless, because the propeller transmit the power:

With a fixed pitch propeller, addtional engine displacement doesn't provide the net gain in performance which equates to the same increase in rated horsepower. If one swings a propeller at 2,500 RPM, for example, swinging it with a 100 hp motor vs. a 200 hp motor at the same RPM doesn't change anything.

As I previously addressed, there is more than type of propeller available for the C-150, which most certainly alters the efficiency with which the prop is able to transmit power. Also, a single engine, fixed pitch prop aircraft is not typically RPM limited in climb (you don't have to pull the throttle back to avoid overspeeding the engine) - so if you are turning the prop faster (up to redline), you are in fact developing more power from the engine and transmitting more of it via the propeller. An engine producing higher power output will inherently turn the same (fixed pitch) propeller faster. Add to that a more efficient prop (if installed) and you get an additional gain in performance. Again, you seem to be unable to compare apples to apples - and you have the audacity to question my comprehension of performance?

I obviously confused you when I mentioned the C-182 as well - I'm sorry, clearly you don't deal well with too many facts. I only put that in to provide a reference for the power loading of the respective aircraft (back to that excess power causing an aircraft to climb - you really need to review that before you post anything else). Given that the C-182 is generally considered a good performer, I was merely comparing the relative power loading of the C-182 to the both versions of the C-150. The bottom line is, the modified C-150 has a significant weight to power ratio advantage.

Also, for fun I looked up a few comments on modified C-150's. All agree they are good performers. A couple of quotes for your benefit:

"I have flown a 150 with a 180HP (towing gliders) and it was indeed a rocket with only one aboard."

"It is however, a real hot rod and a gas to fly."

Now, I will once again reiterate (that means to repeat) that I DO NOT think a C-150, even modified as above is a sprightly performer out of TEX. I'm sure you will ignore this statement, as well as the facts I have presented just like you have to pretty much every post I've made to you.

Cogently? Don't use all your five dollar words in one thread, you'll go linguistically broke. We can't be having that, now.

Well, pardon me for having a command of English exceeding a fifth grade level (misspellings not withstanding). What level of intercourse should I dumb it down to for your benefit?

 

[Tristar]

Hey.... Isn't Clay Lacy a Scab?

Yes, and possibly Avbug's dad or lover.

 

[avbug]

My, how intelligent. Is that your best, then? This is hardly a surprise.

I did not quote you, and I did not put words in your mouth. I paraphrased (oops, there's one of those darn big words again, it means a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form) the sentiments you've expressed in a number of posts.

Actually, you did quote me. However, when you parapharased and mis-stated, then yes, you did put words in my mouth. You'd be best served doing that for yourself, only. As you're unable to do this, clearly you're not well served by your own assertions.

As I previously addressed, there is more than type of propeller available for the C-150, which most certainly alters the efficiency with which the prop is able to transmit power.

The propeller is not available to the airplane, but to the engine. Whereas the airplane uses a different engine under STC, it also uses a different propeller and has available to it a different propeller than that which is applicable under the Cessna 150 type certificate.

This is largely irrelevant, however, as the engine, despite being a larger displacement than stock, still is normally aspirated, and at the elevation where operated in at TEX, has substantially less power than at sea level.

You attempted to compare the weight of the Cessna 150 (without consideration for the glider it's towing) and it's attendant rated power to that of a typical corporate turbojet airplane. It's a nonsensical comparison, of course.

When you consider that the little Cessna is departing that field at a smaller percentage of it's rated power, due to density altitude, even at full throttle, the matter becomes more to the point. Despite having a small motor, despite being pulled by a small propeller, and despite hauling another aircraft aloft in tow...that little airplane manages to fly out of KTEX while a previous poster is afraid to fly there and calls for the shutting down of the field.

Whether the cessna has a climb or cruise propeller is really quite irrelevant.

Given your vast research into the flight performance and handling properties of a modified Cessna 150, did you make an effort to enquire regarding that performace above 9,000'? A "rocket" it is not.

You're proud of your perceived intellect. Neither Sarcasm, nor your effort at a five dollar vocabulary, is a measure of intellectual prowness on any level, despite what you may think.

 

[Tristar]

I've read your other posts, and you really don't appear to be as pointlessly stupid as you come across here - what gives?

Of course as a normally aspirated powerplant it produces less horsepower than at sea level. No #### Sherlock! The point being, it has performance, at that DA which in fact much better than a stock 150. A rule of thumb is normally aspirated engines lose power at a rate of approximately 3% per thousand feet of density altitude. Given this, the modified aircraft would produce slightly over 100 HP, in other words, a bit more power than a stock C-150 at sea level on a standard day (obviously the performance suffers more than that due to other aerodynamic considerations). The point being in your original post you made it sound like a poor underpowerd little stock C-150 can tow a glider out of TEX, what's your problem, when in fact it is far from a stock C-150.

Whereas the airplane uses a different engine under STC, it also uses a different propeller and has available to it a different propeller than that which is applicable under the Cessna 150 type certificate.

Which I had to point out to you.

You attempted to compare the weight of the Cessna 150 (without consideration for the glider it's towing) and it's attendant rated power to that of a typical corporate turbojet airplane. It's a nonsensical comparison, of course.

Actually, you were the one who opened that line of discussion. I actually pulled out numbers out of the books and which pointed out how nonsensical comparing the two is!

Whether the cessna has a climb or cruise propeller is really quite irrelevant.

I used crude terms for someone who cannot grasp simple concepts. Tell me this - if the prop makes no difference, why change it? Why not use the stock prop with the new engine?

Given your vast research into the flight performance and handling properties of a modified Cessna 150, did you make an effort to enquire regarding that performace above 9,000'? A "rocket" it is not.

I already acknowledged that dingbat! I even said that you'd choose to ignore the fact that I acknowledged it! I'll paste my previous statement for you to read again SLOWLY so you actually get it:

Now, I will once again reiterate (that means to repeat) that I DO NOT think a C-150, even modified as above is a sprightly performer out of TEX. I'm sure you will ignore this statement, as well as the facts I have presented just like you have to pretty much every post I've made to you.

I'm able to actually cite numbers and facts. So far all I've seen you do is obfuscate the discussion with statements based more on feelings and impressions than reason, which again is rather out of character from your other posts.

 

[bizjet800]

OK people, this is just way too much talk about what a Cessna 150 can or can not do! I am sure you could send one to the moon if you strapped it to a Saturn 5 rocket and lit a match!

 

[avbug]

I'm able to actually cite numbers and facts.

Ah...you mean numbers like these. Too bad they're wrong. At least you provide numbers.

The point being, it has performance, at that DA which in fact much better than a stock 150. A rule of thumb is normally aspirated engines lose power at a rate of approximately 3% per thousand feet of density altitude. Given this, the modified aircraft would produce slightly over 100 HP, in other words, a bit more power than a stock C-150 at sea level on a standard day (obviously the performance suffers more than that due to other aerodynamic considerations). The point being in your original post you made it sound like a poor underpowerd little stock C-150 can tow a glider out of TEX, what's your problem, when in fact it is far from a stock C-150.

A Cessna 150 with a Lycoming O-320 powerplant produces 62% BHP at 9,000', with 93 hp available...less than a stock Cessna 150 at sea level.

However, perhaps while you've never towed a glider with a Cessna 150, I have...and the fact that a "poor underpowered" cessna 150, stock or not, is pulling a glider out of KTEX at 9,078' field elevation...from a runway that's hardly too short, and that's hardly unsafe.

As you're a numbers guy, KTEX manages 8,380 transiet general aviation operations a year, with 931 local GA operations. 14,232 annual air taxi operations fly in and out of there, and 3,166 commercial operations are reported at KTEX annually. So far, I've heard ONE pathetic, poor corporate pilot (bizjet800) call for shutting down the airport because he feels it's unsafe. That would be a grand total of ONE poor carpenter that blames the tools.

Numbers-guy, you stated the following:

In this instance, you have increased the thrust of this aircraft by 50% over the stock engine, hardly insignificant. In fact, the power to weight ratio of this re-engined C-150 exceeds that of a stock C-182 (Stock C-150 15 lb/hp; Stock C-182 13.48 lb/hp; Modified C-150 10 lb/hp), in turn giving this aircraft a marked advantage in climb performance - which is obviously at a premium in said operation.

First, increasting engine displacement doesn't increase thrust, particularly on a fixed pitch installation. Thrust is a function of RPM, and increasing engine displacement (eg, 0-200 to an 0-320) does not directly equate to a linear increase in thrust. 50 hp additional rating does not mean 50% more thrust, as you asserted...particularly given that it's not a 50% increase in power over the stock 100 hp engine. Again, you're wrong.

Additionally, numbers-guy, your assertion that the re-engined aircraft has a weight to horsepower ratio of 10, is wrong. It's 17.2 lbs per horsepower at KTEX (remembering your incorrect assertion that the re-engined airplane has more available power at KTEX than a stock CE150 at sea level). Again, you're wrong.

Your assertion regarding the weight to power ratio of the Cessna 150, of course, is also in error...seeing as it has a gross weight of 2,550 lbs and a rated hp of 230...for a weight to power ratio of 11.1. You stated 14.48...good guess, but of course, wrong again, numbers-guy.

If you wish to compare the numbers of the sea level 182 to the Cessna 150-150 (Lord only knows why you choose to do this), then the little Cessna has a ratio of 10.7...scarcely enough difference to be significant. We're not talking about the little Cessna 150 at sea level, however...remembering it has only 62% of it's rated power available at KTEX.

Let's not forget the little Cessna is also towing a glider. Add the extra drag of the glider into the equation, and despite the significant difficulty of the little Cessna and minimal power available, it still does it's job.

It was bizjet800 who suggested that KTEX is too dangerous,that it should be closed. What kind of weight to power ratio is it that a business jet might have, compared to that diminuitive little Cessna 150? Forget the nonensical Cessna 182 comparison. Look to a business jet...look at a 18,300 lb Learjet 35A with 7,000 lbs of thrust...at a weight to thrust ratio of 2.6. Dangerous for an aircraft with an aircraft with such excellent thrust to weight...yet somehow the little Cessna 150 with that gargantuan 0-320 motor manages to operate safely, year-round. Imagine that.

Again, a poor carpenter blames his tools.

The point being in your original post you made it sound like a poor underpowerd little stock C-150 can tow a glider out of TEX, what's your problem, when in fact it is far from a stock C-150.

That is my point; yes, a poor little underpowered Cessna 150 can do it's job at KTEX...and yes, what's your problem?

As far as stock and far from stock...far from stock isn't that far after all...especially at KTEX in a Cessna 150. But you're a numbers guy. You probably already knew that, but were too busy skewing numbers and comparing them pointlessly to a Cessna 182, to say. Not very "cogent," that 182, as you might say. In fact, it's use would be rather inane.

Yes, compared to most business turbojet corporate aircraft, it's rather telling that a Cessna 150, absolutely stock or otherwise, manages to operate safely, while bizjet800 feels it's unsafe for aircraft with many times the power to weight ratio operate there safetly, and without difficulty. Thousands of times a year. Again, of course, a poor carpenter blames the tools.