Huh. That’s good to know. I’ve always heard nothing but good about Aero Commanders. The pilot might have thought he had an engine problem, but it was really the bad mix of cruise prop and laminar flow that made him think he had so much drag that he had an engine problem.
“so much drag”.
Maybe he had a few boxes of Florida math books on board.
The airplane really had nothing to do with the Ted Smith Aero Commander designs. It was designed by a small company called Volaire in Pennsylvania who only built a few before Rockwell bought the design and renamed it the Aero Commander 100.
Hadn’t considered that–the FBO I worked for had one of the first Volaire/Commander 100s. It LOOKED like an aglomeration of airplane parts–a 172-like cabin, a Mooney tail, a 150 hp engine, hand brake like a Tri-Pacer–and the infamous laminar-flow wing.
The flight instructors warned that the back seat should be removed–our airplane had a useful load of only 800+ pounds–the airplane was a runway-eater–even in relatively cool Minnesota. The FBO decided to prove the instructors wrong, and filled the seats (but restricted the fuel). The airplane BARELY got off the 3800’ runway, and it took several miles before it climbed enough to make the turn to return to the airport. All aboard were shaken–including the owner–a very experienced military instructor and aerobatic pilot. He immediately took it off the flight line, and sold it.
The listed service ceiling is only 11,000 feet on a standard day.The video mentions “climbing to 7000’ over mountains”–on a July day in the south–if true, it was approaching its service ceiling… It also mentions “the propeller stopped 3 times”–yet it was operating on touchdown. In the NBC interview, he contradicts himself, admitting “it just wasn’t climbing the way it should have to clear the mountains.” Having flown one, IF I were to guess, I believe that with 2 aboard and full fuel and trying to climb to 7000’ on a hot day, the airplane just ran out of steam. To make it even worse–the attempt at a laminar flow wing meant that if you got it slow, the drag was so high that there was no way to regain speed without sacrificing altitude–even at full power.
The reports don’t mention how much training or time in type the pilot had–would be interesting to know. Though the aircraft kind of LOOKS like a 172–it is NOT.
One would think that there would be an NTSB report on this eventually–instead of “news” reports.
STILL wondering about the go-Pro camera installation–WITH SOUND.
Better to have carcam with extra lens facing sideways.
To use handheld camera you should be on the sidwalk spending time.
The mighty Volaircraft Darter.
It was definitely engine problems, at least according to one of the news videos. The pilot stated that he restarted the engine several times, and the reporter said that a mechanic repaired it at no charge (but she gave no indication of what the problem was).
I’m no Go-Pro pro, but are there any that DON’T have sound? According to their web site, they have “Advanced Wind-Noise Reduction” with 3 or 6 mic processing.