Narrative:

I was piloting my 1968 cessna cardinal (150 hp) and was about to take my son-in-law and 3 small grandchildren on a sightseeing trip over their house. Weight and balance computations indicated the weight was within the limits prescribed by the manufacturer. Temperature was 82 degrees, field elevation 171, runway length 3000 ft. The takeoff roll was 'normal' and I rotated at 65 mph as per aircraft specifications. Takeoff also calls for 10 degree flaps. Upon lifting off and reaching an altitude of approximately 30 ft I sensed that the aircraft was not gaining any more altitude. The engine seemed to be performing normally, but I could feel the plane was not climbing. A line of trees loomed approximately 2500 ft ahead. I made the decision to abort the takeoff because I did not want to endanger the lives of my passenger. I landed hard on the remaining 100 ft of runway and proceeded off into the grassy knoll near the runway end. The plane skidded about 100 ft before stopping. Fortunately, no one was injured, and all exited the plane in an orderly fashion. Damage to the plane included broken nosewheel, bent right wheel, bent propeller tips, bent firewall. While I have taken many flts with similar weight (540 pounds) under what I perceived to be similar meteorological conditions, apparently something was 'different' on this day. Perhaps the performance specifications listed in the book lulled me into a false sense of security that the airplane would perform today as it had 28 yrs ago, when it came out of the factory. Had I been making some mental adjustments to the performance specifications, particularly in hot WX flts, I may have been more aware that the 150 hp engine may not be what it 'used to be.' I felt my decision to abort was the right one, in view of the literally hundreds of accident reports I have read in which pilots continued on into further danger after an emergency began to develop. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states the NTSB considers this an incident. FAA has given reporter a recertification ride which he passed well. The FAA did question him regarding density altitude calculations. The insurance company totalled the aircraft so reporter has no way to know if there was an engine problem or not. FAA representatives indicated the cardinal with 150 hp is not a great performer. Reporter agrees.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARDINAL PLT ABORTS TKOF AS ACFT FAILS TO CLB.

Narrative: I WAS PILOTING MY 1968 CESSNA CARDINAL (150 HP) AND WAS ABOUT TO TAKE MY SON-IN-LAW AND 3 SMALL GRANDCHILDREN ON A SIGHTSEEING TRIP OVER THEIR HOUSE. WT AND BAL COMPUTATIONS INDICATED THE WT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE MANUFACTURER. TEMP WAS 82 DEGS, FIELD ELEVATION 171, RWY LENGTH 3000 FT. THE TKOF ROLL WAS 'NORMAL' AND I ROTATED AT 65 MPH AS PER ACFT SPECS. TKOF ALSO CALLS FOR 10 DEG FLAPS. UPON LIFTING OFF AND REACHING AN ALT OF APPROX 30 FT I SENSED THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT GAINING ANY MORE ALT. THE ENG SEEMED TO BE PERFORMING NORMALLY, BUT I COULD FEEL THE PLANE WAS NOT CLBING. A LINE OF TREES LOOMED APPROX 2500 FT AHEAD. I MADE THE DECISION TO ABORT THE TKOF BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO ENDANGER THE LIVES OF MY PAX. I LANDED HARD ON THE REMAINING 100 FT OF RWY AND PROCEEDED OFF INTO THE GRASSY KNOLL NEAR THE RWY END. THE PLANE SKIDDED ABOUT 100 FT BEFORE STOPPING. FORTUNATELY, NO ONE WAS INJURED, AND ALL EXITED THE PLANE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION. DAMAGE TO THE PLANE INCLUDED BROKEN NOSEWHEEL, BENT R WHEEL, BENT PROP TIPS, BENT FIREWALL. WHILE I HAVE TAKEN MANY FLTS WITH SIMILAR WT (540 LBS) UNDER WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE SIMILAR METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS, APPARENTLY SOMETHING WAS 'DIFFERENT' ON THIS DAY. PERHAPS THE PERFORMANCE SPECS LISTED IN THE BOOK LULLED ME INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT THE AIRPLANE WOULD PERFORM TODAY AS IT HAD 28 YRS AGO, WHEN IT CAME OUT OF THE FACTORY. HAD I BEEN MAKING SOME MENTAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PERFORMANCE SPECS, PARTICULARLY IN HOT WX FLTS, I MAY HAVE BEEN MORE AWARE THAT THE 150 HP ENG MAY NOT BE WHAT IT 'USED TO BE.' I FELT MY DECISION TO ABORT WAS THE RIGHT ONE, IN VIEW OF THE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF ACCIDENT RPTS I HAVE READ IN WHICH PLTS CONTINUED ON INTO FURTHER DANGER AFTER AN EMER BEGAN TO DEVELOP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THE NTSB CONSIDERS THIS AN INCIDENT. FAA HAS GIVEN RPTR A RECERTIFICATION RIDE WHICH HE PASSED WELL. THE FAA DID QUESTION HIM REGARDING DENSITY ALT CALCULATIONS. THE INSURANCE COMPANY TOTALLED THE ACFT SO RPTR HAS NO WAY TO KNOW IF THERE WAS AN ENG PROB OR NOT. FAA REPRESENTATIVES INDICATED THE CARDINAL WITH 150 HP IS NOT A GREAT PERFORMER. RPTR AGREES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.