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)

>> ^ReverendTed:

Pause at about 4s, then summon your best southern drawl for: "Well it looks like the Duke boys got themselves in a real mess this time."


pause and press 3

>> ^nach0s:

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111


Then hit the ground about 45-70ft later.

* doublepromote this comment!>> ^ReverendTed:

Pause at about 4s, then summon your best southern drawl for: "Well it looks like the Duke boys got themselves in a real mess this time."

Oh, in that case I stand corrected.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^EMPIRE:
no eia ?

there was a small tree almost on the path of the truck. Not that difficult to steer off course after leaving the ground completely.

I wouldn't say so, obviously was Chuck Norris's truck.

>> ^EMPIRE:

no eia ?

there was a small tree almost on the path of the truck. Not that difficult to steer off course after leaving the ground completely.


I wouldn't say so, obviously was Chuck Norris's truck.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

As I'm seeing it, from the point the rear wheels left the ground to where they touched the ground again was easily 70 feet.


The specified length of a Chevy K5 Blazer is 184.8 inches--or 15.4 ft.

He clears a little over 3 lengths (I think--shit I'm no CSI expert).

As I'm seeing it, from the point the rear wheels left the ground to where they touched the ground again was easily 70 feet.

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Not enough dudes jumping trucks over stuff on Vs.
*promote

>> ^carneval:

Cool, but was that really 70 feet? I'd guess closer to 45-50.


I had to watch it again. I was all set to laugh at you for being wrong.
Crap! 45 ft is probably generous.

I guess I saw what I wanted to see.

Cool, but was that really 70 feet? I'd guess closer to 45-50.

Here is one translation I found:

-(Crazy Jumping Guy) I levitated, there are witnesses, while going to Kayseri by bus, I have witnesses.
-(Doc)Gentleman, look, what was the name of the patient?
-(Doc)You know, a man said "I could jump 70 feets in Halab"..
-(Crazy Jumping Guy) Allaaaahhhh!!!
-(Hostess) Yes, yes.. Sabri Bey, what are you doing?
-(Doc) This..
-(Doc) Take this man out.
-(Hostess) Let's take him.
-(Hostess) Let's take you out. Tarik, come here darling, Omer bey, please come here.
-(Hostess)Yes, you see, this is clearly a "show-off", this is not about the claims, this or that...

Funny, I was very bored at the warehouse I work at yesterday and took a paper airplane about 30 feet up in a forklift to see how far it would go. Mine flew about 70 feet.

Looks like a plane to me. The lens on the camera and distance from the object of interest give the illusion that it's very small. The building is five stories tall or about 70 feet above ground level, while a 757 fuselage is only a little over 13 feet in diameter, vertically. Even if you could see the whole tail of the plane in the frame it is only 44 feet tall, which would still be dwarfed by the building.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec2.pdf

Quit being part of an uninformed conspiracy theory.