Beech V35 crashes in S.C.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Peter R. wrote:
"Mike W." wrote:

Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)

And you are basing this on... ?

The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
just before they crashed .

So, how does "was *heard* sputtering just before the crash" translate to
"the plane crashed *due* to engine failure?"

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
just before they crashed .

So, how does "was *heard* sputtering just before the crash" translate to
"the plane crashed *due* to engine failure?"


Well, gee... I'm not sure. We all took numbers and this is the clue that won?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

jsmith wrote:
The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks.

Peter R. wrote:
Really? Where were all of those tanks located? With two tip tanks, I have
a total of four tanks on the wings. I cannot imagine where 3 times that
many tanks would be placed, unless the remainder were all gallon milk jugs
located in the cabin. But then if this were the case, where would the
passengers go?

I was amazed to find that many tanks distributed throughout the
aircraft. If there was a space, there was a fuel tank. Aft fuselage,
wings, cabin.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Well, gee... I'm not sure. We all took numbers and this is the
clue that won?

What clue?

Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident was
definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?

It is no wonder that the National Enquirer continues to enjoy such a large
subscriber base.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident was
definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?


I'm so ashamed... I jumped the gun again without consulting you. So... tell us
what you think caused this accident? Are you expecting the NTSB to get it
right?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
Peter R. wrote:
Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident
was
definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?


I'm so ashamed... I jumped the gun again without consulting you. So...
tell us what you think caused this accident? Are you expecting the NTSB
to get it right?

Diversion noted. Your conclusion is unwarranted. You could have "likely",
no?

moo

Happy Dog wrote:
Diversion noted. Your conclusion is unwarranted. You could have "likely",
no?


And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow. I would
think it would be understood by all that anything written about an accident none
of us attended would be conjecture. I guess there I go jumping the gun again.

When all is said and done, I think it's highly likely it's going to turn out
that this ends up being a fuel starvation accident. Just call it a hunch. I'm
willing to be wrong. If this particular bird did indeed have this highly
complex fuel system it would seem highly possible that something went wrong with
it or its management. **** happens.

Peter hasn't made any suggestion at all what he thinks might have brought this
aircraft down. Unwilling to ever be wrong? Or take a chance? It's just a
conversation... it's not like it's going to cost him money if he guesses wrong.

I think it's ridiculous to wait 18 months for a NTSB opinion which is likely to
be wrong anyway. They don't spend the resources on GA that they do on
commercial crashes. You definitely get the second string with those guys.

We are allowed to speculate today. This is America. G




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow.

What you interpreted as "snippy" was nothing more than a legitimate
question, kept brief and to the point. Why is it that the only intention
one interprets while reading in this medium is that of snippy?


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow.

What you interpreted as "snippy" was nothing more than a legitimate
question, kept brief and to the point. Why is it that the only intention
one interprets while reading in this medium is that of snippy?


You're not from the South, are you? Just another one of my wild guesses....

Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident? You must have an
opinion; share it with us.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

You're not from the South, are you? Just another one of my wild guesses....

Why do you ask? - note, no snippy attitude was intended or implied in the
previous question.

Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident?

I am replying to your other post now.



--
Peter