T-34A

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:03 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

I wouldn't expect the force vector to be acting in a vertical (as in
away from the Earth) direction, but in a direction away from the axis
of the roll. If the roll were centered on the aircraft's longitudinal
axis (as a snap roll is) and the pilot were positioned off that axis
toward the canopy, I would expect the force to act toward the canopy
if/when it stabilized.

The twisting moment of the roll might have initially induced some
lateral deflection of the victor, but once (if) it stabilized, there
would no longer be any lateral acceleration resulting from the roll,
only the centrifugal force would remain.

This is difficult to discuss without graphics.

You've never flown aerobatics, have you?

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.

I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
you won't be able to bailout.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article , Dale
wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.

I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
you won't be able to bailout.

Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
Big difference in time available.

Larry Dighera wrote

In your experience, specifically what did you find hindered your
egress?

Have you ever stood-up in a convertable doing 125 mph?
The seat-pack parachute didn't help either.

If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you
will find very few who successfully bailed out even though they
were wearing parachutes.

Poorly worded, should have said "occupants" instead of "survivors".

How many do you know of that were unsuccessful?

Well, there's the other T-34, the Pitts Special in Pittsburg a few
years back, and an Edge 540 in CA back in 2001.

Bob Moore

Larry

Been a long time since I flew the '34 so can't remember how the canopy
worked. Know it rolled back and forth in a track. Can't remember if
there was a means of jettisoning the canopy with one lever?? Possibly
Robert who flew bird in Navy can refresh how the canopy worked normal
and in emergency?

If canopy had to be rolled back in track, then after a wing departed
the bird probably pulled both negative and positive G's making it very
difficult to roll the canopy open to get out even if the harness was
very tight to keep one from being thrown around roughly?

Assuming they were not injured when wing broke off and canopy still
operated in track, due to gyrations I'd put the odds of getting out as
1 in 250-500.

Any one getting out of an accident like this would end up "poster boy
for miracles".

In layman's terms "They didn't have a chance".

Big John


On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:24:50 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Big John
wrote:

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

In article ,
EDR wrote:


Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
Big difference in time available.

I agree...time would be a factor. From 4000' you might have 15 seconds.
I was disputing the posters statement that there was no chance if a wing
came off.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Big John
wrote:

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?



In the T-34 that had a wing failure near Atlanta, the wing failed upward,
folded over and struck the canopy. IF the pilots survived that, the canopy
was probably uselessly jammed anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the same
thing happened in the recent crash.

KB

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:56:28 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

You've never flown aerobatics, have you?

I've only a couple of hours of aerobatic instruction.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:55:22 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in Message-Id:
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Big John
wrote:

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?



In the T-34 that had a wing failure near Atlanta, the wing failed upward,
folded over and struck the canopy. IF the pilots survived that, the canopy
was probably uselessly jammed anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the same
thing happened in the recent crash.

Thanks for the data point. If that occurred, it would explain a lot.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

You've never flown aerobatics, have you?

I've only a couple of hours of aerobatic instruction.

Think combined spin and roll at high rate (greater than 300 degrees per
second). The forces exerted are dynamic, they are constantly changing
in direction and magnitude. In the spin, the nose is pitching up and
down while the yaw and roll components vary; the loss of a wing or
portion of a wing also impart their own yaw/pitch/roll components. The
amplitudes of each component are constantly varying.