I did a little amateur investigation, a bit of reading and some numbers but you can skip to the bottom for a summary.

The plane is a Stinson 108-3, 16500 foot service ceiling, 2400 pound gross weight limit (1300 empty weight), 50 gallon fuel capacity. Thats about 1100 of useful weight (2400-1300), with full fuel that lowers it to 800 (6lbs per gallon*50 gallons=300lbs), I saw 3 men in there the 4th passenger I'm gonna assume male, so lets say 180lbs for each (200 for the pilot) that comes to 740lbs for passenger weight. That leaves 60lbs for cargo. Although I couldn't see the cargo, they were still close to the weight limit but still could have been within normal limits.

The airport Bruce Meadows (U63) has a field elevation of 6370 feet. I couldnt find the airport temperature for that day but I did find nearby Stanley Airport 23 Miles southeast of Bruce Meadows. Their METAR history shows a high of 27 Celsius/81 Fahrenheit for June 30, 2012. Definitely a hot day but was it too hot? The closest I could find on performance data shows a 675 Feet per Minute climb at 75 Fahrenheit at sea level. Thats pretty close to what many small planes of that nature can do, so I took those numbers and transposed them over what a Cessna 172N could do. The 172N has a slighty higher climb performance about 750 for sea level and 75 Fahrenheit, a difference of 75 feet ill subtract out. At 6000 feet at 27C/81F the 172N climbs at 420FPM. Taking out the 75 feet brings it to 345 FPM, now I know this isn't perfect but I'm going with what I have. The plane began its climb out at 1:13 and crashed at 2:55, that leaves 1 minute and 42 seconds in between or 1.7 minutes. 1.7*345 means about 590 feet possible gain. But the plane isn't climbing at its best the entire video, at 2:35 it is apparent something is giving it trouble, that brings it down to about 1.58 minutes climb time which is 545 feet. Theres still another factor to consider and thats how consistent the altitude at the ground was.

The runway at Bruce meadows faces at 05/23 (Northeast/Southwest) but most likely he took runway 23 (Southwest) as immediately to the north east theres a wildlife preserve (Gotta fly at least 2000 feet over it) and he flew straight for quite some time. Although the ground increases in the direction he flew, by how much is difficult using the sectional charts. That means that although he may have been able to climb to about 545 feet higher than his original ground altitude, the ground rose with him and his absolute altitude over the ground would be less than that maximum possible 545. The passenger in the rear reported the plane could only climb to about 60-70 feet above the trees. The trees looked to be around 75-100 but thats still difficult to tell. That would mean according to the passenger they might have only been about 170 feet off the ground. It could still be wildly off as we cant exactly see the altimeter.

Finally theres that disturbance at 2:35 described as a downdraft. It could have been windshear, or a wind effect from the mountains. I don't have too much hands on knowledge of mountain flying so I cant say. If it was windshear he might have suddenly lost a headwind and got a tailwind, screwing up his performance. It could have been a downdraft effect. The actual effect on the aircraft may not have been much (lets say 50 feet) but near obstacles it was definitely enough to have a negative impact.



Summary:

Yes he was flying pretty heavy but he may not have been over the weight limit

The temperature in the area was definitely hotter than standard and the altitude was high, but he still had climbing capabilities within service limits. However he didn't give himself much of a safety threshold.

He might have been able to climb about 545 feet higher than the runway elevation, but the terrain altitude rose in the direction he flew, so his actual altitude over the ground was probably smaller than that.

The disturbance at 2:35 might have been some form of windshear which has the capacity to reduce airplane performance, and with his margins of safety so low already, that could have been the final factor.

Basically he may very well have been flying within the service limits of the aircraft, but the margins of safety he left himself were very low and the decision to fly over obstacles like those trees in that mountain enviroment could be the reason this would be declared pilot error.

Other notes:

The takeoff looks pretty rough but he trying to get off the ground as quickly as he can and ride ground effect until he gets up to speed.

I cant find anything resembling a proper PoH for this aircraft but I did find some data that looks pretty close to it. However this aircraft was a model from the late 40s, so the standards of performance may not be the same as now, and the transcribing I did to the 172N could be thrown off more.

On that note, I do realize that a 172 would have different aerobatic effects with altutude and temperature than a Stinson 108, but its the closest data I could use.

I also couldnt not find balance information to get a rough idea of how the plane was balanced. The type of balance on a plane does have effects on performance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N773C.html (The aircraft)

http://www.aopa.org/airports/U63 (The airport)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1 (The NTSB link posted earlier)

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/avtext/stn-108.txt (Closest thing I could find to performance data, the actual numbers are at the bottom)

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_statlog-u.cgi?ident=KSNT&pl=none2&yy=12&mm=06&dd=30 (Weather data at nearby Stanley)

http://skyvector.com (sectional chart data, type U63 into the search at the upper left, then make sure that "Salt Lake City" is selected in the upper right for the sectional chart)

Mineral oil...about 80 gallons of the stuff.

One thing I've been wondering about for a while:

Cigarettes, while entirely loaded with chemicals, have about twenty grams of material per pack (of twenty cigarettes) that actually burns and is released to the atmosphere. Now picture a gallon of gas (sorry rest of the world, I'm American). That gallon of gas weighs about six pounds, or about two-thousand seven-hundred cigarettes. That's material that completely burns into the atmosphere or is filtered somehow by the car but still exists as waste. And don't forget, there are trace elements of everything in there, either burned as gas or taken out (still pollution) during the refining process.

I'd really like to see a comparison of the total harmful products of cigarettes versus gasoline that are produced every day, worldwide. I'm willing to bet that the difference is astronomical.

Now, I'm a smoker. I have no problem smoking outdoors and even then, if someone simply asks me to put out my cigarette, I'll do it. I understand that the burning of fuel, on some level, is a necessity but it seems to me that if the above assumption (and it's a big assumption, I know) is correct at all, that the only real reason anyone could have to avoid second hand smoke is that it stinks. I just can't picture it being as threatening as the world would have me believe, in comparison to all that other shit that's floating around everywhere, all the time that really isn't given much attention because it doesn't smell bad.

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized this has almost nothing to do with the video at all.

I started with an 80 gallon that now has 8 discus, 1 endlicheri and 1 senegal bichir, and a synodontis eupterus "featherfin squeaker" catfish.

Now I've got 2 additional 50 gallons that I set up with a Diana Walstad / NPT configuration with a layer of topsoil for substrate topped with small gravel in one tank and sand in the other. Danois and neons in the gravel and tiger barbs and corydoras in the sand. Those tanks work great for strong, heavy planting, and can go for months without any water changes or other maintenance -- quite the opposite of the picky discus!

Always fun to hear about another aquarium lover.

>> ^Auger8:

Wow just wow, greed wins again, seriously did he really have to make sure he could fit every last drop of gas in his tank. This is why topping off isn't a good idea. Those pumps stop at a certain point for a reason.
LOL and really what did he think would happen?


I think greed is the wrong term. It's not like squeezing those extra drops are free, you still pay for it. The reason topping off a gas tank is a bad idea is because gasoline expands and contracts with temperature. If you could fill your your tank up completely on a cold night and let it sit, when the temp warms up in the day the gas would expand and spill out. To prevent this, gas tanks have an expansion area in the top. When you remove the gas cap, there should be a little spring loaded thing that closes a valve to this bubble preventing you from completely filling the tank. When you put the gas cap back on, it presses the valve and re-opens the vent letting the gas expand into the bubble if needed. Some cars even have a sensor on that valve that will trigger a check engine light if you don't fully tighten your gas cap.

My car runs on diesel, but to save money on installing a different fuel tank for the diesel version it still has the same tank as the gasoline version (except it has a wider opening to fit diesel nozzles). Diesel doesn't expand like gasoline, so you can safely fill a diesel tank up to the rim. There's a little trick you can do on my car to remove the spring that leaves the vent open and fit an extra 2 gallons in the tank. People like riding with me on trips because I don't have to stop and fill up so often. Most of the places I regularly have to go I can make the round trip without a fuel stop.

>> ^conan:

I'd give my left arm for 4 USD a gallon. Right now we're at 7,57 USD a gallon (1,50 EUR per liter). And that's for diesel, which is subsidized over here. I'm happy i don't need Super (Premium you call it i think), regular isn't sold here anymore.


Yeah, I really have no time for americans complaining about gas prices. Forget a hybrid or a diesel, just buy a small car.

And OT: my main issue with hybrids is their environmental impact. Sure on road, they're a great idea, but not so much once you amortise the energy cost of the life cycle of the vehicle. You want to be environmentally friendly and save money. Buy an oldish car with a small engine.

I'd give my left arm for 4 USD a gallon. Right now we're at 7,57 USD a gallon (1,50 EUR per liter). And that's for diesel, which is subsidized over here. I'm happy i don't need Super (Premium you call it i think), regular isn't sold here anymore.

That printing money thing sounded reasonable to me so I looked up currencies for backup. Being in Ireland where the price of petrol is the equivalent of 8.33 USD per gallon which my driving friends tell me is up about 25% these past 6 months it seemed like a global thing to me. ANYWAY.

I found a cool applet for showing historical exchange rates.
Really neat exchange rate thingy
I found it informative to take base as USD and the foreign exchanges as Euro, GBP & Chinese Yuan

These websites show historical oil prices for all those currencies:

Oil_vs_USD

Oil_vs_EUR

Oil_vs_GBP

Oil_vs_CNY

I looked at 180 days history for the above graphs.


As you can see, all the oil price graphs have a similar shape and have indeed gone up about 25% for all currencies. Also, you can see that none of the currencies have moved very much with respect to the USD. So yeah, either they're all printing money (CHINA DOES NOT NEED TO, for defs, yo) or the oil prices are not cos America's printing money.

I did actually look for counter-examples in surging economies but even AUD and CAD show the same jump. If anything, that the exchange rates wrt these countries have gone down and the commodity price of oil has gone up for all of them at a similar rate is a positive for the states.


So yeah, I don't accept your hypothesis.
>> ^bobknight33:

Sounds right. Presidents don't have control of gas prices as the left blamed Bush back when he was president. But there is a big difference between Obama and other presidents.

Under this administration there have been massive amount of printing money. Remember QE1, QE2 and possible QE3 have done nothing except debase our currency which has caused inflation. Gas prices will not come down to any great extent but will only go up along with everything else.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I wonder what Bill O'Reilly would have to say about this one...


"Air - how does it work? No one knows!"

So that was, what, 300 gallons of gas?

seems reasonable to me its a common issue with batteries.

>> ^longde:

Jalopnik is a site of car enthusiasts. That said, way to attack the messenger. Has Tesla disputed this widely known and very harmful claim? Not directly.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.


Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

Jalopnik is a site of car enthusiasts. That said, way to attack the messenger. Has Tesla disputed this widely known and very harmful claim? Not directly.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^longde:
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.


Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

>> ^longde:

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.



Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.