Missing test pilot's body found in wreckage, family says
By Daniel Yee
The Associated Press

RANGER, Ga. — Legendary test pilot Scott Crossfield, the first man to fly at twice the speed of sound, was found dead today in the wreckage of a single-engine plane in the mountains of northern Georgia, his son-in-law said.

Searchers discovered the wreckage of a small plane about 50 miles northwest of Atlanta, but the Civil Air Patrol didn't immediately identify the body inside.

Ed Fleming, Crossfield's son-in-law, told The Associated Press from Crossfield's home in Herndon, Va., that family had been told it was Crossfield.

Crossfield's Cessna was last spotted in the same area on Wednesday while on flight from Alabama to Virginia. There were thunderstorms in the area when officials lost radar and radio contact with the plane at 11:15 a.m., said Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Crossfield, 84, had been one of a group of civilian pilots assembled by the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the forerunner of NASA, in the early 1950s.

Air Force Capt. Chuck Yeager had already broken the speed of sound in his history-making flight in 1947. But Crossfield set the Mach 2 record — twice the speed of sound — in 1953, when he reached 1,300 mph in NACA's Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket.

In 1960, Crossfield reached Mach 2.97 in an X-15 rocket plane launched from a B-52 bomber. The plane reached an altitude of 81,000 feet. At the time, Crossfield was working as a pilot and design consultant for North American Aviation, which made the X-15. He later worked as an executive for Eastern Airlines and Hawker Siddley Aviation.

More recently, Crossfield had a key role in preparations for the attempt to re-enact the Wright brothers' flight on the 100th anniversary of their feat near Kitty Hawk, N.C. He trained four pilots for the Dec. 17, 2003, flight attempt in a replica of the brothers' flyer, but poor weather prevented the take-off.

Among his many honors, Crossfield was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1983.

On Wednesday, his plane had left Prattville, Ala., around 9 a.m. en route to Manassas, Va., not far from his home.


Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

tragedy indeed.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about General Aviation flying is that a twin engine aircraft is safer than a single. As a pilot myself (and I think statistics bear this out) I would must rather pilot a single piston engine aircraft than a twin during an engine-out situation. The torque and yaw issues caused by losing a engine on a twin (particularly during takeoff or landing) have proved fatal for many, many pilots and their passengers over the years. The unfortunate truth of the matter, I believe, is that while multi-engine rated pilots train for this scenario, few are really equipped to handle it when it actually happens.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:22 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, not so sure that it is the airplanes fault that the pilot is poorly trained.

Some of these flights ending up un smokes and flame are also caused by over-loading, then when a mill fails, they are unable to maintain altitude and/or climb out of it.

It takes a bit of coordination and a cool head to do everything perfect if ya loose an engine after take-off with a heavily loaded small twin.
These airplanes are also certified to a different standard than a transport catecory aircraft, and the DON'T have to demonstrate a positive rate of climb if the engine fails at the worst moment.

THEREFORE the pilot in command should know the limitations and plan accordingly with regards to weight and pay-load, etc.

Can't just fill all the seats and all the tanks, then blast off.

It has gotten to the point that a stock Apache like 80P is almost a rarity because the cost of the airframes has gotten so low (under $10,000 for a 150 hp dog) that folks are really doing the modification number on them. And let's face it: on an Apache, any modification looks good. The most common mechanical mods are the 170/180 hp Lycoming engines, which only increases cruise by around 5 mph, but they jack the climb up a solid 3-400 fpm. It still won’t leap out from under you, but it does get it on fairly well. Since Vmc is 80 or 85 mph, depending on the exact model, it's safest to keep it on the deck and rotate only when you get the magic number. Then, get it cleaned up and leveled out until 95 mph shows up. 95 mph is the best single engine climb speed, so once you've got that, you should be able to climb away with one engine caged . . . (theoretically, that is).

When flying Russ's airplane we made a number of simulated single engine go-arounds and take-offs, and right then and there I decided I wanted nothing less than 180hp on each side of me in an Apache. With three people on board and full fuel, we could just barely, and I mean barely, climb away from the field. At 95 mph and a rate of climb in the area of 50 fpm (the book says 90 fpm) we were at the mercy of every bit of low-level turbulence that came along. In the end we wound up seeking out ridges and slope-soaring for altitude because even the slightest downer cost us altitude. If it had been a hot day or if we had a heavier load and the emergency had been for real, I would have been looking for a cornfield to set down in.

By now most Apaches either have modern radios or a stack of antiques. There doesn't seem to be an inbetween. The wide panel, however, will accept just about anything.
Again, theoretically, the Apache will climb with the gear down, but I couldn't prove it that day. It would barely hold its own. So, if you lose the left one, which has the only hydraulic pump, you're pumping away like crazy with the long lever that pulls out from under the quadrant to get the gear up while trying to fly a very marginal airplane. The rudder trim is a ceiling mounted crank ala early Piper and it can complicate things because you never know for sure which direction to trim. Even by looking up at it, I made several mistakes and wound up trimming first one way and then the other before I got it right.
What I guess I'm saying is that unless you're a real ace with the airplane and/or are very lightly loaded, losing an engine during the first critical stages of takeoff means you'd just better give up the fight and bring the other throttle back so at least when you hit the ground you're under control. If you try fighting the engine and it gets the best of you, you're going to hit in a steep turn. Once you're cleaned up and climbing, things aren't quite so critical and you'll probably be able to nurse it around for a landing if (a) you're at fairly low altitudes (below 5,000 ft., the single engine ceiling), (b) aren't loaded to the gunwhales, and (c) it isn't 100 degrees in the shade. That's a lot of "IFs."