Luscombe Down at Albert Whitted (SPG)

js0305

Well-Known Member
Always tough to see a plane like that, RIP.

On a different note, I dont know anything about a luscombe but the vertical stab must be really tough as it appears completely in tact even though the plane looks to have hit the ground inverted.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Always tough to see a plane like that, RIP.

On a different note, I dont know anything about a luscombe but the vertical stab must be really tough as it appears completely in tact even though the plane looks to have hit the ground inverted.
I would wager that it nosed in and came to a stop, before falling over on its back.
 

drunkenbeagle

Gang Member
I would wager that it nosed in and came to a stop, before falling over on its back.
Or the engine quit, and once on the ground stomped on brakes too hard to stop before the blast fence.

In that situation, I would probably elect for the intentional ground loop.
 

DPApilot

GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Sad day. I am sorry for your loss Russ. Apparently he was a local at a place the Beagle and I frequent near the airport. Tailwinds and rest in peace.
 

Cptnchia

Dissatisfied Customer
Or the engine quit, and once on the ground stomped on brakes too hard to stop before the blast fence.

In that situation, I would probably elect for the intentional ground loop.
That plane didn't flip over because someone stomped on the brakes too hard. Luscombe brakes aren't that good to begin with. Looking at the pics, there was a tremendous amount of energy used to crush the engine back like that. They impacted more vertical than horizontal.

It was an 8A, if it had an 65hp engine and a fuselage tank, I have an idea of what may have happened. Not gonna speculate in public though. How do I know? I have more than a passing knowledge of Luscombes. Check out the avatar. Sad day indeed
 

SteveCostello

My member is well-known.
I have an idea of what may have happened. Not gonna speculate in public though. How do I know? I have more than a passing knowledge of Luscombes.
One of the benefits of public forums like this is education. You don't need to speculate the actual cause, but you could say something along the lines of, "It'll be interesting to see if this has anything to do with Luscombes tendencies to ___________. Not saying that is what it is, but given my level of knowledge with these things, this behavior has caused a lot of serious accidents."

One of the biggest reasons I joined this forum was to post funny pictures learn more about flying. Lots of folks here with a lot of experience.
 

GX

Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear about the loss. It's always bad when one goes down. Even worse when you know those involved.
 

GX

Well-Known Member
One of the benefits of public forums like this is education. You don't need to speculate the actual cause, but you could say something along the lines of, "It'll be interesting to see if this has anything to do with Luscombes tendencies to ___________. Not saying that is what it is, but given my level of knowledge with these things, this behavior has caused a lot of serious accidents."

One of the biggest reasons I joined this forum was to post funny pictures learn more about flying. Lots of folks here with a lot of experience.
I concur. I was hoping you (@Cptnchia) would share some of the tendencies of these aircraft. Great wealth of knowledge without pointing fingers, speculating, or quarterbacking. As a new tailwheel guy, that stuff is gold for me.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
I concur. I was hoping you (@Cptnchia) would share some of the tendencies of these aircraft. Great wealth of knowledge without pointing fingers, speculating, or quarterbacking. As a new tailwheel guy, that stuff is gold for me.
I agree - but I do not think he was talking about an issue having to do with the landing gear geometry. Sounds like a peculiarity with the Luscombe fuel system and how it interacts with a 65 Continental. I'd be interested in hearing that as well.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
I agree - but I do not think he was talking about an issue having to do with the landing gear geometry. Sounds like a peculiarity with the Luscombe fuel system and how it interacts with a 65 Continental. I'd be interested in hearing that as well.
I thought maybe he was saying they ran it dry if the fuel tank is up front and there was no fire.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
For sure though it wasn't a "hit the brakes, nosed over" type of wreck. Those things are usually more slow-speed - keep in mind a Luscombe stalls at around 40-45 MPH...so, if you land and are rolling out you are most likely below that. If you stood on the brakes at 40mph in a Luscombe and got it to nose over it would bang the prop up - but it wouldn't do the damage you see in the picture at all.
 
Top