Jump to content
=69.GIAP=VLADI

Sad day for Ju-52 fans

Recommended Posts

Today a Ju-52 of Ju-Air crashed while beeing on a scenic flight trough the south eastern part of switzerland. So far it is not clear if someone survived...

The plane belongs to Ju-Air, www.ju-air.ch, it is said to be the plane with the registration number HB-HOT.

 

Here are some pics:

all from www.20min.ch

IMG_3993.jpg

IMG_3994.jpg

IMG_3996.jpg

All pics from www.20min.ch

 

Today it was extremly hot with temperatures up to 37 degrees celsius. That resulted in a very high density altitude and makes flying in the swiss alps a real challenge. I can tell this as I am a swiss PPL(A)  holder and fly regularly in these areas...

 

Salute! =69.GIAP=VLADI

Edited by =69.GIAP=VLADI
  • Like 1
  • Sad 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrific. Doesn't look at all hopeful for passenger/crew survivability in any condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's so saddening. 😥

 

RIP to all involved.

Edited by P51DMatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh this is terrible

Terrible in many aspects.

I am speechless.

rip 😢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw this on the news . All was lost :( Sad News.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All 20 people on board died - 17 passengers (4 from one family), 2 pilots and 1 cabin person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching "Where Eagles Dare". Evidently it was the aircraft used in that film (1968)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Just finished watching "Where Eagles Dare". Evidently it was the aircraft used in that film (1968)

Yes. It was still an Air Force plane at that time. They were phased out in 1981(!!!). But ever since the filming, it retained its camouflage pattern applied for the filming, until Ju-Air gave all three aircraft a similar livery.

 

So they had their own sense of humor in the Swiss Air Force. Only recently, they all started to change their liveries frequently, depending on sponsors. It also git a repaint for Tom Cruises „Operation Valkyrie“, but it didn‘t keep that post filming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 10:29 PM, =69.GIAP=VLADI said:

Today it was extremly hot with temperatures up to 37 degrees celsius. That resulted in a very high density altitude and makes flying in the swiss alps a real challenge. I can tell this as I am a swiss PPL(A)  holder and fly regularly in these areas...

 

 

I am sorry if it's inappropriate to latch onto these sad news. But I have a question.

 

I have now repeatedly read that the hot weather and dense air contributed to the crash. I would like to know why. I was under the impression that thick air was good for flying, since it meant that your lift-generating surfaces could generate a lot of lift with all that air pressure. Conversely, as altitude increases and air pressure decreases, lift decreases. You can fly faster through the thinner air, but require more (true) speed in order to not stall (resulting in the inverse relationship between indicated and true airspeed). 

 

If this relationship is viewed in isolation (!), the unusually thick air should have made it easier for the JU52 to climb. Especially since it's a slow plane, and for slow planes drag and lift are more correlated than in faster planes.

 

So obviously I must be missing something. Was the hot, humid air bad for the engines? Did it create turbulence? Did it prevent the JU from flying fast enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1./KG4_ArthurMimo said:

So obviously I must be missing something. Was the hot, humid air bad for the engines? Did it create turbulence? Did it prevent the JU from flying fast enough? 

 

They key here is DENSITY ALTITUDE

 

The hotter air gets, the more it expands. Expanded, it has less air in the same volume, you have less, „thinner“ air.

 

This means that compared to standard altitude, hot air makes the athmosphere of your current flight altitude such that it corresponds to a higher altitude. Increase in humidity also increases density altitude.

 

This effect makes for instance airports varying their altitude all the time, as experienced by your aircraft.

 

For instance the airport Samedan not too far from the accident is located at 5600 ft. msl. Very high indeed. But on a hit summer day, density altitude of the airport can well increase beyond 8000 ft.!

 

If you look up the take off charts of your aircraft you can see that especially with some baggage and fuel, this is *very* high. Non turbocharged aircraft struggle getting altitude, making the take off to west over the pass a harrowing experience (should you be stupid or intrepid enough to not care for hot weather).

 

In short, heat and humidity can take easily away what was a 3000 ft. safety margin.

 

If you are to cross a mountain pass and you notice that you are approaching max. altitude of your aircraft (when your climb drops to about 500 ft./min, that climb is not worth the dirt under your fingernails in the mountains), then you must get a good altitude reserve first before approaching the mountain, 1000 ft. is a good start. 

 

Then you fly along the pass, getting closer while making sure that you have plenty space to turn away from the mountain. In case of the HB-HOT, that would be from the south east. From south west it would expose itself to the sometimes rather vicious downwash of the neat mountain peaks while also flying up a valley that gets narrower, forcing an early abort if you still not have a good safety margin over the pass.

 

Personally, I tend to go faster than usual when ground starts to get up near me, just to ensure maximum maneuvrabiltity and increase abort options, this at the cost of spending altitude.

 

Looking at the pictures and reading some eyewitness report, the pilots did otherwise.

 

Generally, I find it useful having glider experience even when flying motor planes. Especially in the mountains, you get used to what weather can do to you and you learn how to use weather to your advantage. If you are just sitting behind your engine, you‘re at risk.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

They key here is DENSITY ALTITUDE

 

The hotter air gets, the more it expands. Expanded, it has less air in the same volume, you have less, „thinner“ air...

 

🤦‍♂️ Okay that is obvious. Of course hot gas expands! For some reason my brain insisted that it was the other way around (i.e. get thicker instead of thinner). Had I just taken a moment read my post I would have noticed and not feel embarrassed now! I guess the heat wave here fried my head.

 

 

Quote

Generally, I find it useful having glider experience even when flying motor planes. Especially in the mountains, you get used to what weather can do to you and you learn how to use weather to your advantage. If you are just sitting behind your engine, you‘re at risk

 

I used to fly glider planes a few years back. It's tremendously satisfying. But it's also terribly time-consuming. I hope I can pick that up again at some point in the future.

 

Edited by 1./KG4_ArthurMimo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1./KG4_ArthurMimo said:

For some reason my brain insisted that it was the other way around (i.e. get thicker instead of thinner).

 

That's probably because you have a confined vessel in mind, where the pressure of the gas increases with increased temperature.

 

High density-altitudes also lead to higher TAS (compared to IAS), increasing turn-radii.

This could lead to a wider than used-to turn, which a pilot might try to tighten up, flying into a stall. Another reason might be a strong gust when flying close to stall-speeds.

All this is speculation, of course. With the lack of data-recorders, we'll probably not get much closer to the cause of the accident anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:54 PM, ZachariasX said:

If you are to cross a mountain pass and you notice that you are approaching max. altitude of your aircraft (when your climb drops to about 500 ft./min, that climb is not worth the dirt under your fingernails in the mountains), then you must get a good altitude reserve first before approaching the mountain, 1000 ft. is a good start. 

 

Personally, I tend to go faster than usual when ground starts to get up near me, just to ensure maximum maneuvrabiltity and increase abort options, this at the cost of spending altitude.

Personally, I use height and speed to get a safe margin... As an expample I tend to use 2000 feet and I try to be well above minimum speed and when approaching the highest point of the pass I do that never straight, but in a 45 degree approach to give me an easy turn back when experiencing a downwind.

That was once very important when I was in train to fly arround the Matterhorn when downwinds caught my plane with 15m/s downwards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =69.GIAP=VLADI said:

Personally, I use height and speed to get a safe margin... As an expample I tend to use 2000 feet and I try to be well above minimum speed and when approaching the highest point of the pass I do that never straight, but in a 45 degree approach to give me an easy turn back when experiencing a downwind.

That was once very important when I was in train to fly arround the Matterhorn when downwinds caught my plane with 15m/s downwards...

In gliders one tends to have different margins, but I agree that it is the good way to always maintain this margin.

 

In prop planes, I‘m even more relaxed, when things seem fishy, I find it advisable to venture to a different place. As a kid I remember helping to wipe of the „green“ from the wing of a glider. People were more like shaking their head and laughing. Today, I don‘t think it‘s so funny anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZachariasX Even Pilots with Thousands upon Thousands of Hours can lack or unlearn basic Airmanship Skills, I know this First Hand. Experience means nothing if combined with a Lackluster Theoretical Basis and Wishful Thinking. They get worse the moree they fly.

What shocks me most is exactly the Chapter of Engines, in which most Pilots pretty much only know how to read the Dipstick and maybe a Power Figure, but often not even that. Flying by the Book tends to get them through Life just fine, and they don't stay in touch with their own and their Machines Limits, because they never need to know them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 12:52 AM, LukeFF said:

Looks like it went in straight vertically. 

Yes, still spiraling left when impacting after trying to separate from the mountain to late, in too tight of a turn.

 

What can be said is that for the Ju-52 the engine ratings used (they are less than what is specified originally and less of what you have in the game), mountain passes around 2600 meters  above sea level are about borderline of what it can do.

 

Listening to the people who flew the aircraft (there are few of those and those people know each other well), there must have been an unhealthy routine been developing over time. ("This always worked that way so far.") It also depends on the crew if you have a mix of two pilots that "know that it always worked" or if you have just one of that type and one who spends more consideration in a safe return home.

 

AFAIK according their flight plan, at the time they were supposed to cross  the Segnas, they were hoplelessly behind schedule. This is not a good starting point in a bad situation. The Segnas is dangerous and for naturally asprirated engines about borderline if weather is not entirely your friend.

 

What is really bad are the now the following up articles written by idiots who mistake an ancient warplane that was never meant to last very long with an airliner of today. Then they come up with articles finding out that antique planes are not new and make a fuss about that. Also they are not considering that when you break metal out there and after some time you see corrosion on the cracks and make a fuss about it before the report is out. It clearly shows an agenda.

 

That agenda is also plainly visible when they "find out" that the Ju-52 had engine parts from a glacier find and with those parts they could refurbish their engines. The accusations are such that the SUST (the authorities investigating the accident) lie plainly in the microphones and cameras "that we didn't know anything, never, ever, honestly!!" when in fact it was a huge thing that the Ju-52 could be made flyable again. Just to dodge the flak.

 

Bottom line is this, those old planes will all be grounded rather sooner than later beacuse we start lacking people understanding them. It requires more than a pilot for that. It requires authorities that know "new rules" are not suitable at time for the old crates. Some moron from the BAZL (federal office of civil aviation) almost destroyed the Breitling Super Constellation by imposing a full power on brake test on the ramp for certification, causing the bakes to burn through, setting tires alight and bending the gear. The poor Conny sits on jacks now, needing another million $ for repair.

 

 

 

 

Edited by ZachariasX
typos
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Bottom line is this, those old planes will all be grounded rather sooner than later beacuse we start lacking people understanding them. It requires more than a pilot for that. It requires authorities that know "new rules" are not suitable at time for the old crates. Some moron from the BAZL (federal office of civil aviation) almost destroyed the Breitling Super Constellation by imposing a full power on brake test on the ramp for certification, causing the bakes to burn through, setting tires alight and bending the gear. The poor Conny sits on jacks now, needing another million $ for repair.

+1 ZachariasX. I have a simple example.

I fly a plane which has NO flaps. so no "regular way" to slow down when we have thermals on final.

Thus, we have to to a side slip , like the pilots back in the days, but it turns out that it is forbidden by the regulations made by people who do not know theses planes (or they to not pilot any plane!) When releasing one of my flight videos on Internet, they caught me and asked me to remove it.

They are even capable of forcing taildraggers to become tricycle.

I just hate how they destroy the aviation spirit.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TG1_Nil said:

+1 ZachariasX. I have a simple example.

I fly a plane which has NO flaps. so no "regular way" to slow down when we have thermals on final.

Thus, we have to to a side slip , like the pilots back in the days, but it turns out that it is forbidden by the regulations made by people who do not know theses planes (or they to not pilot any plane!) When releasing one of my flight videos on Internet, they caught me and asked me to remove it.

They are even capable of forcing taildraggers to become tricycle.

I just hate how they destroy the aviation spirit.

There is indeed a tectonic shift I see going on in aviation. All little bureaucrats that are creeping up the echelons of the administrations never flew with "the old planes". They just have no idea about these. A Cessna 172 or a Robin Dauphin is about the oldest they had. And these are already "real aircraft".

 

It comes all down to someone of these clerks signing off on an airworthiness certification. By doing so, that little bureaucrat is *responsible* when that plane has an ill fate. Why would they sign off on something that is deviating from an official document that they can use to pass on guilt?

 

Up until now (and especially in the case of the Ju-Air), it is the people owning theses special aircraft determining what is required to keep it airworthy. All the authorities can do is double check if they did the work they said they will do. But now, what if the owner does something that is not in accordance to the original type manual? If the authorities are strict on the requirement that the aircraft has to match the original document exactly, the aircraft will often be not airworthy effective immediately. The Ju-52 have de-rated engines, thus the aircraft is NOT according to original documentation. They can ground the aircraft at leisure.

 

Here is another example: A Bü-131 normally has a Hirth engine. It gives it a nice look, but that engine is simply a nightmare to maintain and in process remarkably unsafe to operate. Think of an English sports car of the 60's unreliable. Yes, that unreliable. Now, for that twin seater, the manual says 65 kg for both pilot and co-pilot to still have reserve for some fuel. Now, being fed up with that Hirth, think that a Lycoming has been patched on in place. In other words, a real engine. Now, today people are taller than in the 1930's making pilot and passenger easily pass 170 kg together. According to the weight and balance chart, you then cannot carry fuel then anymore (at least not for an endurance that would permit a legal flight). But since the aircraft has considerably more power at the same stated hp with the Lycoming, it flies remarkably well, even 45 kg above max weight loaded. All it takes now is that someone decides that actually, the manual with all its performance curves and tables states a different engine, making the actual aircraft contradict the documents. Ergo, no flights. Overload? No flights. You can say, "C'mon, we did this for 40 years and it works!" And he will go "And it is my ass they are having when you beak wood." And this just because some people impose modern safety standards and procedures that are completely out of place for the old planes.

 

Another example, think of 100LL AVGAS getting banned. We are very much on track for this to happen. How easy do you think you can convert an all original old-timer to MOGAS and how much will he be according to official documents then? (See problem above.) Once you have to bring your own cans of fuel to the airfield, the hobby with flying the old planes has become a distant memory.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Some moron from the BAZL (federal office of civil aviation) almost destroyed the Breitling Super Constellation by imposing a full power on brake test on the ramp for certification, causing the bakes to burn through, setting tires alight and bending the gear. The poor Conny sits on jacks now, needing another million $ for repair.

 

Looks like BAZL and LBA are getting their people from the same pool.

 

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It comes all down to someone of these clerks signing off on an airworthiness certification. By doing so, that little bureaucrat is *responsible* when that plane has an ill fate. Why would they sign off on something that is deviating from an official document that they can use to pass on guilt?

 

Spot on. CYA has become more important than common sense, pragmatic thinking and visions for the future. That is also very true for the corporate landscape (but that's another topic).

On top of that comes the self-image of CAAs like BAZL or LBA, being just under God himself - on a good day. On a bad day, the old man might have to deal with a SAFA audit and possibly have his ARC pulled from under his butt.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

They can still do flights for member of the Ju-Air association. In effect, little changed, as most passengers indeed are members of the association.

 

It is just pitiful that the spokesman of the BAZL (Federal Office of Civil Aviation) said that "it wouldn't make sense for 80 year old planes doing commercial flights anymore".

 

But unfortunately, the press just tossed around some photos of a bad hose, some corrosion and a part of foul floor wood, none of which was putting a danger to the plane or had anything to do with the crash. So the officials just had to cover their rear somehow.

 

Still, in the long run it is probably better this way. When you book a flight in a warbird (like a Spitfire), then you usually sign a document stating that this is a bloody dangerous affair and you're on your own if something happens and that they told you so. It's not that you just buy a ticket and take a ride like on a bus. While the Ju-52 is indeed a great aircraft, it is by no means conceived to be operated as a passenger plane over decades according to todays standards. They knew back then they will eventually be bending metal and made plenty of those aircraft. Todays society has little understanding for a rather fatalistic approach in the early days of avaition and people just taking a ride might not have a concept of what this aircraft really is for. If you die in your own oldtimer, people just shrug their shoulders. If you operate as a public transport, standards differ. So having the passangers as member of your associations, you can brief them a bit more honestly what they are really up to.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 6:48 PM, LukeFF said:

Well, it's happened:

Something else happened as well: they effectively grounded the Super Connie. (Article in German) After they got the gear in order again for almost $2 million, now they found some chippings on the main spar of the wing. So they grounded the plane until the whole wingspar is like new again. That's like $10 to $15 million investment, as you have to take the wing apart totally besides maufacturing it.

 

/rant mode

Thinking of, if that was the safety standard in general, no aero club located near sea or humid areas could keep their planes airworthy. You know, in the right climate it takes few years for wings to fall off. But it's a new plane, despite dead, you're safe. Moving on, nothing to see. And when the front falls off a ship, then it's unusual. But certainly no reason to do anything against operating such ships.

 

Thank God Boeing kills us with new airplanes. Imagine you'd crash in an old aircraft. I mean, that would be seriously tragic. With those new airplanes, you can just "give them a software update" (and we see how many people die then). That's the great thing about "software problems". They just happen. Like rain. You cannot be held accountable for them. ou don't even reqire a new type certification, even though your screens may run Pac Man besides an artificial horizon. Or Solitaire in case of Windows for Aircraft.

 

Nice being looked after. Not.

/rant mode off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...