@Jacko wrote
For example, a UK AAIB report confirms that one can land a lightly loaded C150 in a mature Sitka spruce forest and walk away without a bruise or scratch. Anecdotally, tree landings in Piper Archer class or faster airplanes seem to require a trip to hospital/ICU.
Any idea why? Strutted wing structure more stable (spreading impact force) and dissipating energy while keeping plane upright?
Re. Survival into forest:
I suggest that the pilot’s technique and the tree type are most important for C1## and Pa28 forest landings. There is unlikely to be a large set of data available. Hitting the tops at recommended approach speed or higher, or stalling high above them, and perhaps spinning, are likely to be bad choices.
There is also the miraculous LN-PFM, where a Vmca demo went wrong, and the DA42 flat spun and inserted itself like a cocktail olive on a toothpick (in this case a Norwegian fir tree), with all crew surviving.
A former big poster here has experience of landing in a forest canopy 
Another case, from 2008, was a Tripacer. I posted about it some years ago. They did survive…
Not really a good topic for getting your family to fly with you…
@Snoopy, the acceleration to stop the plane in a certain distance goes as the square of the speed. So a little faster plane hitting an almost immovable object tends to expose the occupants to a substantially higher acceleration, and thereby a higher impact force.
Of course there are other factors involved like how strong or heavy the nearly immovable object actually is, how much weight/inertia the plane has to break through what it may hit (and therefore not stop so quickly), what kind of harness the occupants are wearing and so on. The constant is that it’s not the speed that kills, it’s the sudden stop.
A fast landing but lightweight plane with occupants poorly secured to their seats would be the worst case (at least my fairly fast landing lightweight plane can check one of three boxes, with five point harnesses from the factory).
Also it’s conceivable that a high wing plane may stop slower when lowered into tree branches because the wing is initially above them.
Also it’s conceivable that a high wing plane may stop slower when lowered into tree branches because the wing is initially above them.
Perhaps you’re on to something. A high wing keeps flying longer into / until the stop occurs. A low wing loses lift at a still higher airspeed (as soon as the lower sitting wing strikes a tree). Very theoretical.
@RobertL18C
Is there a picture of this?
A high wing keeps flying longer into / until the stop occurs. A low wing loses lift at a still higher airspeed (as soon as the lower sitting wing strikes a tree)
Perhaps so.
I was thinking along the lines of introducing less plane to the branches in one moment, with the wing still above them at initial impact.
And the stabilizing effect of a high wing (fuselage weight pulling down)…
RobertL18C wrote:
There is also the miraculous LN-PFM, where a Vmca demo went wrong, and the DA42 flat spun and inserted itself like a cocktail olive on a toothpick (in this case a Norwegian fir tree), with all crew surviving.
This sounds surprisingly like the equally miraculous SE-LVR accident. During a training flight, at night, above a solid cloud cover with base 300-400 ft and with a student passenger in the back seat of the DA42, the instructor intended to demonstrate an accelerated stall in a climbing turn with full power on both engines. The aircraft entered a flat spin and impaled itself on a pine tree, as you put it, like a cocktail olive on a toothpick. All three people survived.
This was apparently not some rouge instructor pulling off a stunt but an exercise included in the ATO training manual. I’m surprised the CAA didn’t pull the ATO’s permit.
