PLANE FLIES FOR TWO HOURS WITH WING MISSING

wrote:
I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
story stinks.

Dan

I have to agree. Even assuming it could remain in the air (pics look
like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), there would
be drastic trim problems. That the pilot and passengers would fly that
long without noticing odd flight characteristics and noone would glance
out the window and "say old chap, I do believe we are missing
something".

Harry K

On 19 Aug 2005 19:12:02 -0700, "Harry K"
wrote:


wrote:
I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
story stinks.

Dan

I have to agree. Even assuming it could remain in the air (pics look
like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), there would
be drastic trim problems. That the pilot and passengers would fly that
long without noticing odd flight characteristics and noone would glance

The 210 flys like a truck and can haul just about as much. They might
not notice.

out the window and "say old chap, I do believe we are missing
something".

Looks to me like he only lost a wing tip and the leading edge is a
little frayed.

Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Harry K

Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
that it's a turbine?

Thats a turbine, i have worked on one and you can tell because of how
large the exast is and the prop is feathered like a turbine, single
engine recipes don't feather all the way.
Drew Dalgleish wrote:
Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
that it's a turbine?

Missing a few feet of wing in the pictures, for sure, but
that doesn't mean that it happened in flight, nor that it flew that
way. I've seen similar pictures of aircraft damaged that way on the
ground by trucks or other aircraft, or even by bad landings in strong
crosswinds. Even taxying too close to a signpost at excessive speed
could do it. The end of the wing is badly mashed and would present huge
drag and really serious controllability problems.
Let's see:
Mashed left wingtip, massive drag requiring all the
rudder he has, maybe not enough at that.
Loss of lift from mashed wing section (disturbed airflow)
requiring extra lift from aileron, which itself is a third gone
Loss of lift because part of wing is missing, meaning
more aileron required. Those ailerons simply can't make up the
difference.

And nobody noticed. Right.

The engine is probably a Soloy conversion, more
common on 206s. An Allison turbine set up to drive a prop.

Dan

wrote:

Missing a few feet of wing in the pictures, for sure, but
that doesn't mean that it happened in flight, nor that it flew that
way. I've seen similar pictures of aircraft damaged that way on the
ground by trucks or other aircraft, or even by bad landings in strong
crosswinds. Even taxying too close to a signpost at excessive speed
could do it. The end of the wing is badly mashed and would present huge
drag and really serious controllability problems.

So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
them, you somehow don't believe it happened???

So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
them, you somehow don't believe it happened???

So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net hoaxes.

I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having
trouble believing this one.

Dan

In article .com,
wrote:

So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
them, you somehow don't believe it happened???

So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net hoaxes.

I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having
trouble believing this one.

Dan

I don't know much about airplanes, hopefully enough to stay alive up
there, but I think it's entirely plausible that the plane could have
flown in that condition, and even that the occupants might not have
noticed. What I'm having a devil of a time believing, is that an impact
of the magnitude necessary to rip off the wingtip in flight wouldn't
have dragged the damn thing out of the sky. Supposedly this happened due
to impacting trees just after takeoff, so would I be wrong to assume
that there wasn't much airspeed or altitude available for recovery from
such a "disturbance?" To me, that's the fishiest part of the story.

wrote:

So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
them, you somehow don't believe it happened???


So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net
hoaxes.

Well, a Pinckneyville attendee (who prefers to remain nameless) knows
the pilot on the flight and has shared information with me, so yes, I
believe it happened. Of course that won't convince you, but since you
don't my source yourself, his posting here wouldn't do any good either.
I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.

I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having trouble
believing this one.

And I'm part-owner of a 182 which hit a tree on a missed approach,
ripping off the left wing tip and crushing the leading edge of the left
wing from the strut out to what was left, among other damage. The folks
on board flew it back from Duluth to Minneapolis in that condition at
night. They damned well knew something was wrong, and I'm sure the 210
crew must have as well - that part smells of ass-covering. But it flew,
and I believe the 210 did as well. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Here's that 210 in happier times, for anyone interested:

http://www.pacnetair.com/aircraft.html

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:11:05 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:


Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
that it's a turbine?

I'd think so. I missed that photo.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com