Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:35 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
cool things down.
We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?

I am based out of Cameron Park. Its a great drive up there because its
usually 5 degrees cooler than it is in Folsom.

Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end.

No geese today. Probably run off by the development.

And those hills on either end juice up some
pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon.

Yea, but the termals usually get you on downwind.

I dunno if that guy was
wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

It will be interesting to find out. Its just impossible to tell at
this point. A friend of mine had a very similar accident. The NTSB
found the result to be two partially plugged injector lines. That's
just an example of how non-expected the results could be.

The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
runway.

Yea, those things always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
airplane obsitcles.

-Robert

I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques