Story

I sure hope that wasn't Matt Nelson...

Edit: Nevermind, I just looked at a pic of his Stinson and it's white...

Says something about the strength of that Stinson. How many other planes would be sitting on their gear - not collapsed, with another plane on top. Looks like you could throw that top plane off and fly the Stinson home.

That's a stretch calling that pile of metal on top a plane.

I have a hard time imagining where a persons state of mind must be during a landing if they could possibly land on top of another airplane. I can easily imagine an incursion during the roll out, but I have to wonder what was wrong with the "go" button when he saw the eminent collision on approach...

Wow, Well I like the strength of the the Stinson, but I am biased. I love mine, it is sad to see another one bite the dust,

When I first saw the picture, I thought they were mating. And the caption was about mixed marriages. I wonder what the babies would look like? White with red spots? Midwing?
tom

Rob,

What makes you think the guy in the Piper even saw the Stinson at all?

As to suggesting that a Warrior, or Archer as the case may be isn't an airplane--please grow up.

Those are great airplanes, and they do a great job of flying. They'll also take more rough handling than most airplanes, and I've seen them in places that would stand the hair on the back of most folk's neck to land in.

There is, and always has been a REQUIREMENT and more specifically, a RESPONSIBILITY to look out the windows. Unfortunately, many pilots these days seem not to heed that call.

MTV

I'd say the scenario usually follows the same script... low wing collides with high wing from above...but the 172 vs 172 accident in McCall a few weeks back defeats that.

I read an accident report a few years ago where a DHC-3 climbed up and through a DHC-2. Hmm.

I am in agreement with MTV, " grow up " you probably think that Johnson Creek is a real backcountry strip also. Having a tailwheel doesn't make you backcountry, and it apparently doesn't keep you from yielding the right of way to landing aircraft. It does seem to make a lot of people assume they are better than others. I have lurked here for sometime and have concluded that a good portion of the tailwheel people are way to impressed with themselves. To bad, I thought this was about Backcountry flying, not, I have a tailwheel so I must be better.

Dan

mtv wrote:As to suggesting that a Warrior, or Archer as the case may be isn't an airplane--please grow up.
Those are great airplanes, and they do a great job of flying. They'll also take more rough handling than most airplanes, and I've seen them in places that would stand the hair on the back of most folk's neck to land in.

No shit. Watch and talk to the guys who fly the Cherokee Six's and Lances up north. Tough airplanes, good load haulers, and out there every single day with the Cessnas in the doom, gloom and mud. Those airplanes will do anything a good driver asks of her, and bring him home in one piece pretty much every time.

Gump

DSD wrote:I am in agreement with MTV, " grow up " you probably think that Johnson Creek is a real backcountry strip also. Having a tailwheel doesn't make you backcountry, and it apparently doesn't keep you from yielding the right of way to landing aircraft. It does seem to make a lot of people assume they are better than others. I have lurked here for sometime and have concluded that a good portion of the tailwheel people are way to impressed with themselves. To bad, I thought this was about Backcountry flying, not, I have a tailwheel so I must be better.

Dan

Well, as long as were on people that are way too impressed with themselves,,, do you think painting all tailwheel jocks with the same brush is fair ?

Personally, I could care less how a plane is configured, I can see the beauty in most of them. People on the other hand have one chance at a good first impression and well,,, never mind at least you were a good lurker.

Hi MTV and Z,

Sorry boys I don't buy the "low wing" bullshiv...

I fly a low wing every single NIGHT, and with many more landing cycles than the average joe....... I never lose sight of where I am landing until the wheels are just about to kiss the ground and I am not a "super pilot"... having said that my eyes don't just get stuck on the point of impact, they look around for who is potentially about to run out in front of me (the "threshold" of my home "strip" is a road) and I don't trust anyone to hold short... just because an accident MAY not be your fault does not mean you shouldn't be ready to prevent it....The guy in the Stinson may very well have dicked the dog, but at that point the Warrior probably still had options...

Come to think of it every modern day Ag plane is a low wing or worse yet a bi plane... they spend 90% of their operations in the altitude this plane was when he was in trouble, but as a general rule rolling your wheels where they do not belong is frowned upon!

I was taught that every approach was a go-around, with the landing coming as a pleasant surprise, so far i haven't rolled my wheels on any roofs, I may tomorrow, but so far so good...

As a general rule, if I see someone holding short and there is plenty of strip I am going to land ahead of his holdshort point or taxiway, if he is doing a midfield or intersection departure I am landing before his entrance, either way one of us will always have they other in sight. Unless of course our head is up our rear...

Dan, the tailwheel did not give Stinson driver the right to take off in front of the nosewheeled Piper Warrior, Archer, or whatever kind of cherokee it is... and for all I know the guy in the Stinson couldn't fly for beans, having said that I'd rather fly shotgun in an airplane with somone who flies a tailwheel "proficiently" and is impressed with themselves, than a weekend "Warrior" anyday...


Take care, Rob

Oh By the way... after all the shiv the Maule guys and then the Scout guys and then the Cub guys took... I don't think someone bagging on the indian plane should warrant anyone getting their panties in a wad....for starters, it's just another opinion, for pete's sake, further more here on the www... the guy may have been speaking "tongue in cheek" just poking fun... I'm not above calling a spade a spade and my opinion is they suck.... I have no basis for that opinion, in fact I only have about a couple dozen hrs in one...I'm sure if it were all I had to fly I would love it if my opinion eats at you "grow up"

Oh and Gump... you crack me up even when you are being serious!
Is this supposed to be a compliment?:

GumpAir wrote: and bring him home in one piece pretty much every time.

Gump

Rob-

The ag-planes get a get-out-of-jail-free card because they are, of course, taildraggers.

Why are most ag-planes (Pawnee, 188, etc) low wings? I guess so the sprayers don't gag the pilot with 'cides....?

As for Johnson Creek...that may not be backcountry for Idaho, but it might as well be the Northwest Territory, coming from a city of 1.4 million. I know I'll look good there though posing for photos with my plane....freshly showered of course. Just thinking about that dutifully irrigated grass gets me excited.

Boy you guys have no sense of humor at all. The arrogance a couple of you display is underwhelming. Wish I only had 30 yrs flying in Alaska ( oh my mistake I do ). I do know piper low wings work well in Alaska but they are still BUTT UGLY!!! As far as ag planes go some of the earliest were piper high wings J-3, S.C. with booms spraying next to the cabin ( or for the wonderful smell of 2-4-D ). I even like to pick on Maules.

Another note : I get sick when I see any kind of accident but it is better when no one gets hurt and we can have a humorus moment with the incident. ( maybe we can learn from these wrecks )
Note number 2 : you -know it alls- remind me of the government and we all know how well things are operating in this country with the -KNOW IT ALLS- that are in charge.

Rob wrote:Oh and Gump... you crack me up even when you are being serious!
Is this supposed to be a compliment?:

GumpAir wrote: and bring him home in one piece pretty much every time.

Well... I gave more than one ride home to a broke down Cherokee driver or a gear-up'd Lance or Navajo guy, and never, not once, came home in anything other than the Cessna product I started with that flying day.

Now it may have taken me a few days and a boatload of airplane parts and busted knuckles fixin' shit to do it, but I always flew myself home. Guess the Cherokee guys were more willing to leave their airplanes stuck in a village. I know I wasn't.

Gump

Okay, so my verbiage wasn't well chosen.

I like airplanes. Period. I haven't met one yet I really disliked, though there are a few that took a little more effort to really love than others. Part of my comment related to the notion that the low wing Piper was inconsequential. That airplane contained at least one human being.

Also, one should always be careful commenting on accidents, cause there's always someone around who knows more about the accident than do we.

My comment was insensitive largely because the comment offered was insensitive. Responding in kind doesn't work, but hey....

Tailwheel or nosewheel, high or low wing, ALL these things are amazing if you think about it. So you fly an ultralight?? It's still a flying machine, and you're still a pilot, as far as I'm concerned. I've flown with young low time pilots who didn't have ANY time in Alaska that could just fly the bejeezus out of the airplane. THAT is what we should aspire to--each of us--good airmanship.

There have been and are a LOT of great low wing airplanes, and the Cherokee series is a good example of that. They wouldn't be my choice of steeds, but that's just me, and they don't particularly offer what I need.

I think there is a bit of condescention regarding low wing airplanes, nosewheels, ultra lights, spam cans, etc. That's too bad, because the big equalizer is the pilot, and I can introduce you to pilots who can make one of those low wing Pipers really work hard, on and off airport.

I'm like Gump--much of my time in anything with more than two seats has been in Cessna products. The Cessna 206 is a great airplane, but a common modification to make it a better back country airplane (same is true of the 182) is to replace the existing nose wheel fork with one from a low wing Piper. Hmmm.

Anyway, there are a lot of people out there who don't like, could care less about, or are just flat out trying to ground all "little airplanes". It does not serve the GA community well to cast aspersions on other aviators just because of the airplane they fly. I have done so my own self in past, but I like to think I've got past that BS.

We are a much easier target if we divide ourselves into small factions, and piss on each others' leg as often as possible.

Sorry for the ramble,

MTV

Hi MTV,
I agree, pilots as a rule tend to be some of the most passionate people I've encountered... So it goes without saying that we tend to do alot of "arm waiving" and opinion forming. I don't care for seeing the wrecks either...and no we don't need any more anti's....

Z,
Like all others ag planes are compromises at best, but this pretty much sums up the biggest factor for the low wing:

lowflyin'G3 wrote:Finally so you'll know what you're seeing;
If you see us between three and eight feet off the ground with the booms (the little airfoils along the trailing edge of the wings that hold the spray nozzles) on we are spraying liquids...
It makes us nervous.

My thrush canopy sits about about 8 and a half feet off the ground, I don't have an Airtractor handy, but I bet it would go 9' - 10'. The above scenario would be pretty tough to achieve without literally driving the plane another factor is the blind spot your inside wing makes in the turns on a high wing...

Take care, Rob