PLANE FLIES FOR TWO HOURS WITH WING MISSING

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.

Smitty Two wrote:
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.

That too. Were the plane to stay in the air, I can't fathom a pilot
not noticing the hell of a jolt that had to accompany it. This whole
story doesn't pass the smell test.

Harry K

Smitty Two wrote:


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.

Add to that it's a high wing. No one noticed the treetops OVER their
heads!!



--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

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

I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.

Wrong. A respectably-published report would convince me. I'll
wait until someone points it out.
The pictures look like it had STD'd fiberglass wing extensions
or Flint tip tanks, and if so, that may be all that's missing, not part
of the actual wing structure. And not five feet. Whacking off wing
structure will often damage the wing root structure as well, causing
much more serious damage.

Dan

wrote:

I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.


Wrong. A respectably-published report would convince me. I'll
wait until someone points it out.
The pictures look like it had STD'd fiberglass wing extensions
or Flint tip tanks, and if so, that may be all that's missing, not part
of the actual wing structure. And not five feet. Whacking off wing
structure will often damage the wing root structure as well, causing
much more serious damage.

I don't know what photos you're looking at, but this one clearly shows a
majority of the left aileron missing, not to mention the wing structure
forward of it:

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ill...73.jpg&.src=ph

Man did you see the rental prices for the 182 and 172 in the
UK? What's the exchange rate now? About $1.75 per UK pound?

To quote from a popular cable show. "We've got it made in
the USA!" I don't think I can complain about a $80 an hour
wet 172 anymore.

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
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