This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by PlayhousePals.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

dupity dupe dupe dupe, sweetpea

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Vortex-Cannon-Blow-Things-Up-with-Air

Your title is better though, I must say.

this is why toilets should have a spinning vortex of razor blades in the trap

Agreed. American conservatives have completely bastardized the term "libertarian". Modern American right libertarianism has nothing to do with liberty, it's capitalist fundamentalism. >> ^enoch:

rusty is talking about the twisted definition of libertarian we see bantered about in political circles these days.
but his commentary is spot on with the ripping giant vortex of mangled logic these zombified "libertarians" use to promote an ideology that was spike-injected into their brains.
and any libertarian that states that ayn rand inspired their political philosophy...
is by definition..
a cunt.

rusty is talking about the twisted definition of libertarian we see bantered about in political circles these days.
but his commentary is spot on with the ripping giant vortex of mangled logic these zombified "libertarians" use to promote an ideology that was spike-injected into their brains.

and any libertarian that states that ayn rand inspired their political philosophy...
is by definition..
a cunt.

Ugh. Piers Morgan is the vortex into which all of Conan's energy is sucked.

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)

Anyone else notice this guy has the same eyes as that creepy pencil that sucked that girl into a vortex?

@spoco2:

This guy: http://videosift.com/video/How-Does-Vortex-Shedding-Occur-Also-what-is-those-things

Not the strongest accent, but certainly helps.

Spot on!

>> ^renatojj:

"It seems a small initial clockwise rotation in this body of water is being amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex, suggesting a non-inertial frame of reference."
-- Cat

"It seems a small initial clockwise rotation in this body of water is being amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex, suggesting a non-inertial frame of reference."

-- Cat

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

This guy is easily amused


He's paid to be easily amused in retrospect.

Who doesn't love modern television programming?!!?

>> ^bareboards2:

Well, it wasn't a house of bricks, be fair....

I agree... who doesn't use cement?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I really enjoyed those Wilson books too. It was a SF subject, but didn't read like SF - maybe because, like you say, he focused more on the characters' reactions than the technology itself. The first one, Spin, is a great "almost end of the world" kind of book.>> ^jonny:

I just started Robert Charles Wilson's Vortex, having recently finished the first two in the series, Spin and Axis. About 2/3 of the way through Spin, I still wasn't sure I liked it. By the end, I was hooked. Wilson presents some substantial new SF ideas (new to me anyway), but he seems to focus a lot more on individual characters' reactions to technology rather than technology itself or it's more universal effects. But there's enough scientific detail to keep this nerd interested anyway. A lot of it comes in short bursts towards the end of the novels with a lot of allusion and hints along the way.