Posted on 11/11/2013 4:57:24 PM PST by Nachum
Controversial Republican Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe has confirmed that his son died in a plane crash on Sunday.
Dr. Perry Inhofe worked as an orthopedic surgeon in Tulsa and was piloting the Mitsubishi MU-2B-25 twin turboprop aircraft that came down five miles from Tulsa International Airport.
Oklahoma Highway Patrol spokesman George Brown said authorities confirmed that one person died in the crash which occurred at 3.40 p.m.in a heavily wooded area.
According to flight tracking websites the aircraft took off from Salina, Kansas and was due to land at the airport after a 45 minute flight.
Pilots cleared to land after the fatal crash reported to Tulsa World that the aircraft Dr. Inhofe was flying experienced engine failure.
Witnesses Jake Bray and his uncle, Bryon Fry, were in the woods when the plane crashed about 400 yards away.
'I saw it go over once and don't think anything of it,' Bray said to Tulsa World. 'Then it circled around and I saw one propeller out. Then it nosed down and went down hard.
'It started spiraling out of control and it hit the ground.
'We were talking about trying and maybe pulling the guy out if that was possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The Mitsubishi MU-2B-25 has a reputation of being a very difficult aircraft to handle in an emergency. The aircraft had a terrible loss record until transition training was put into place to keep people from making mistakes when losing an engine.
If Dr. Inhofe was not familiar with this particular aircraft, it could well have been pilot error. If he had been trained in the peculiarities of this design, it would be harder to say.
Prayers for Jim. I have donated to him in the past, he is a TRUE conservative.
The plane will fly on 1 engine.
That was mine as well, even more so after seeing his son was a surgeon.
I am so full of cynicism these days.
Another twin engine widow maker. My flight instructor hated piston-engine twins, saying you had twice the risk of an engine failure, and the only advantage it gave you was the opportunity to crash a little closer to the airport.
I think the ideal aircraft from a safety standpoint would be a STOL Cessna Caravan with a single turboprop, fixed gear, and a chute recovery system.
Not happily, it won’t :).
Read the thread.
Back in 2001, there was a plane crash in the Woodlands, Texas. A witness saw the plane in a flat spin before crash. Guess what type? Mitsubishi MU-2B-40, N16CG. It crashed in the woods a few miles from my house. The cause, engine failure. “Aircraft was climbing through 11.000 ft after departure from Conroe, TX when it lost control & crashed in woods near The Woodlands, TX after engine failure, reg canx 11.01.02.”
My father spent over a decade flying privately for business. Mitsu’s are pretty common and as a kid my Dad used to tell me stories about how dangerous they were. I think, if memory serves me, he mentioned something about the planes being a handful and extremely dangerous in engine out scenario’s.
Note the odd configuration of the wing control surfaces. Most aircraft have an aileron on the outer portion of the wing, and a flap inboard. This has full-length flaperons, by the look of it.
A high performance and unforgiving design.
Dino Martin died in an F4 fighter/bomber that flew into the side of a mountain.
*sigh*—We lose too many doctors this way. And not nearly enough lawyers.
You have two planes mixed up,
“Senator James M. Inhofe made an emergency landing on Saturday after the propeller of the small airplane he was flying fell off.”
Not the MU-2B-25 his son was killed in.
Nasty.
No.
Go away.
I don’t get why people don’t want push-pulls, if they want two-engined propeller planes...
Over the years I’ve read where the MU-2B-25 has been involved in a lot of accidents. I for one will never fly in one. They’re death traps.
Engine-out handling
MU2s fly quite well on one engine. However, the MU2s morphing wing requires some special attention to maintain control in a low-speed, engine-out condition. Pilots learning to fly typical multiengine piston airplanes are trained to assure that the gear and flaps are up to maximize performance. But with the MU2, retracting flaps at low airspeed with an engine out can result in a complete loss of climb performance. Remember that 26-knot difference in stall speed between flaps up and down? Like a jet, the MU2 has VYSE speeds for flaps set at the typical 20- and five-degree takeoff settings. MU2 pilots are trained to leave the flaps alone after an engine failure until accelerating to at least the appropriate VYSE for the next flap setting.
More important than cleaning up after an engine failure is the need for the pilot to get the airplane under control and nail the correct rudder input. After that, the pilot need only adjust the aileron trim (the servo tabs on the flaps that work like ailerons) to trim away the spoiler input. A spoiler raised on the wing of the operating engine doesnt help your climb rate. Testing verified that it reduces single-engine climb by about 50 fpm. Once cleaned up, a fully loaded MU2 can expect to climb 500 fpm on one engine.
http://www.mu-2aircraft.com/upload/news/MU2News_115.pdf
see 56
I’m guessing that your flight instructor hated IFR also. I refuse to fly IFR unless it is in a twin.
He didn’t mind IFR but vastly preferred turbines (single or twin) to light piston twins.
I’ve noticed the older I get the higher I consider as a minimum altitude and I have fallen in love with twins and biz jets. I’m just waiting when 30 minutes of extra fuel won’t be enough. I can feel it coming. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.