Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

In taking a second look at the recovered airplane photo, I believe you may be right here. The prop spinner is pushed straight in, perhaps having hit a rock. The prop, itself does not appear damaged, but that doesn't mean there isn't some damage that can't be seen by casual observation of a photo. There's no explanation as to the damage to the cowling, but perhaps it was either torn of on impact, or during the recovery process. And again, low altitude stalls are almost never recovered from. Some pilots forget to keep flying the plane while doing something else that distracts them from the job of flying. That's a big problem up here in Alaska. Pilots go out to scout for moose or caribou, then get so involved circling around looking at a moose, for example that they become unaware of the fact that they are getting lower and lower and the circle gets tighter and tighter, until the plane ultimately stalls and they go down. Sometimes they survive it, and sometimes not. I lost a friend up here that did just that.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

That is a very small farm in Kansas.

Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota

One thing that was not mentioned in the replies was that very light wind mostly following the Missouri river current. to me with a fair amount of water flying experience that would indicate the water conditions were nearly glassy.
Maneuvering an aircraft close to the surface in smooth water conditions can be quite dangerous as your depth perception is almost nonexistent. I can tell you from my personal experience that maneuvering an aircraft at low altitudes over water you had better be paying attention to flying the airplane, not taking pictures.

N4646W

Looking at the first photo, you can see the wing damaged, and it is out of the water. In the second photo, the wing strut seem to be pulled from the fuselage mount, and the nose gear seems to be bent slightly back, and the trailing strut looks like it is hanging from the air frame. I'm willing to bet there are some trees around the area that show some damage, and the river was the final resting place. I can attest from personal experience, that with half that much leading edge damage they are a bitch to keep in the air.

Ron

Senior Photog

Can't disagree with anyting you said
If we learned anything, it's 'Let one person fly and one take the photo's.

Caldian Loc: Crystal Lake, Michigan & traveling

I agree with Shutterbugsailor regarding using a recreational pilot. I was a commercial/investment broker and dealt with a lot of properties that were best illustrated by being photographed from the air. I used to pay for the rental of a Cessna by a friend who wanted the flying hours whilst I would use my Contax 35 mm to get the photos. It was a great savings to me financially over professional airial photography rates, he got his flying hours logged and we both enjoyed the flying time. With the intricacies of piloting a plane, adhering to visual flight rules and navigating I can’t imagine then adding the actual photographing to the task list and trying to do this solo.

cherokeeav8r Loc: New Jersey

Upon a review of the photo of the recovered plane, there are certain tell tale signs of the forces that deformed the aircraft. The most prevalent is the condition of the leading edge of the wing. The shape of the curve to the leading edge is VERY strong, yes it can be dinged easily with a point load, but to deform the entire length of it requires a tremendous force. The leading edge is deformed in a way that there must have been a uniform load across the entire span at the same time that pushed it straight back into the ribs. The only way this could occur is by the entire length of the leading edge of the wings hitting the water perpendicular at the same instant, at a very high rate of speed. The propeller spinner tells the same story of being deformed straight back whether from hitting the water or the bottom of the river. To me, to get this type and amount of deformation, the aircraft entered the water at a high rate of speed nose first straight in perpendicular to the water. Also, I believe there is damage to the propeller although the angle of the photo it is hard to detect. It looks like the left side of the propeller (looking at the photo) is pushed rearward and twisted a bit by looking at the angle of the tip compared to the angle of the root by the spinner.

I disagree with making assumptions about the chain of events that led up to this accident. Yes he was solo on a photo job, but one cannot assume that was a cause of distraction. The photos do lead in the direction of a stall/spin, unfortunately, these occurrences occur to often on "normal" flights and there are many different chain of events that lead to this outcome. With ADS-B and GPS information, the investigators will assemble the flight path.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

After reading your assessment, I had to go back and take another look at the pictures. The leading edges of both wings are damaged in the same manner, along the entire wing, and it took another, closer look to see, but it does appear that the left (again, looking at the picture) propellor blade is bent slightly back. It's interesting to note that the landing grear appears largely undamaged, which indicates to me that the plane may have struck the water in a near vertical attitude, but slightly inverted, then rocked back to the position seen in the first photograph. There are, no doubt, several possible scenarios as to how this happened, including losing control while taking pictures, however it is also possible the pilot experienced control failure, as well, or simply got interested in something on the ground and just forgot to pa attention to flying the plane. Unfortunately, he didn't survive the crash, so he can't tell us what happened. I went down in a helicopter I was flying in Vietnam and survived, but I can't, with certainty, tell you what happened. They said it was due to a mechanical failure, but based on the sounds I heard while flying, it sure sounded like bullets striking the aluminum skin of the tail boom. I can tell you all about it, prior to striking the trees, and after that I don't remember anything outside of finding myself on the jungle floor, alive and well. This poor fellow can't tell us anything, so we may just have to offer up conjecture.

jerrylh Loc: Texas

I did some more investigation and found a video of them removing the airplane from the water. You can tell more about what probably happened by seeing it. I watched it 5 times and stopped it several times to see a still.
Find the movie here: https://www.myndnow.com/news/bismarck-news/crashed-plane-retrieved-from-river-faa-begins-investigation/1310297545
I think it went into the water almost verticle with the left wing a little low. It appears the left side has more damage. You can see the prop is bent slightly on the left side, looking from the front. Also, the windscreen is missing and it looks a little like some of the cowlings may have gone through the window. The wheel pant on the right side is missing. From the way they moved the airplane from the water, towing it by a boat from the tail, this may have removed some of the cowlings. Also, the sling they used may have bent a few things like the nose gear. You can see the back side of the wing which confirms to me it went in almost verticle. Most Cessnas like this one may flip when in a turn to the opposite side (right wing down, flip to the left). If the nose is high,it can flip on its back and may end up in a spin. I don't think this happened with this one.

Senior Photog

Jerry, Thanks for the excellent comments. We're all learning. I was a still photographer for the FAA and photographed a number off crashes for them and the NTSB. Mostly large aircraft.
While pilots with different ratings will always have opinions, a trained accident investigator sees things at a different level.
Shooting for NTSB was really interesting.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

This photography task would be ideal for a UAV and likely much less expensive.

Senior Photog

At what price range will the quality match
even a point and shoot digital camera.
Read an article by a photographer that mounted one on his drone and was getting much better results. The sensor was a lot bigger. The UAV's take great video but seem (IMHO) to be lacking for stills.
I have no experience with UAV's and am basing this on what I have read elsewhere.
Here come the comments! 😊

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

There is a growing use of UAVs used for crop monitoring and management, including small and mid-size farms. Many of these are available for sale and are owned and operated by the farm owners. These are not the typical "large hobby type" of multi-rotor "drones" but are fixed wing, like a large radio controlled model aircraft, which have longer range and endurance than multi-rotors. They have flight control systems ("autopilots") that are programmed to fly the desired coverage. They have different sensor packages, not just cameras to monitor such things as soil moisture content and pesticide coverage. The son of one of my fellow professors owns a company that designs and produces such UAVs and re-sells others.

Senior Photog

I was aware of the military types but not
the ones you mentioned. Can't imagine the price tags!

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

They apparently make economic sense compared to paying for manned aircraft to perform the same function, as their use is expanding.