Crash near Miami, FL

Those seaplanes were built to operate on the ocean. They
also have probably been rebuilt several times with
replacement of the skin and other structure. Much more
likely is that a new fuel line to the new turboprop engine
failed, for what ever reason and that caused a chain of
events which led to the wing spar being softened by the
fire, which caused it to fail.

You'll find a lot of corrosion on land planes parked around
any big city due to air pollution, acid rain and car and
factory exhausts fumes get everywhere.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Stubby" wrote in
message ...
| tscottme wrote:
| "vincent p. norris" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is
a "hydroplane".
|
| All
|
| the years I dealt with them I thought they were
seaplanes.
|
| They've been called that since the days of Glenn
Curtiss.
|
| So you see, you don't know everything, either. Perhaps
you shouldn't
| be judging Mary S. ((:-))
|
| vince norris
|
|
| Did I "credit" Shiavo with the hydroplane comment? None
of us that worked
| on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew
ever once called
| any of the aircraft a hydroplane. Maybe the accident
aircraft hit an air
| pocket?
|
| Mary made a couple of humdingers during her commentary
on TV today, as she
| usually does. Did you know the aircraft, contrary to
FAA records and the
| data plates I saw with my own eyes, couldn't have been
of mid 1940's origin.
| Mary informs us that seawater is far too corrosive to
see such an aged
| aircraft survive to the present. Mary wrote a book so
she knows better than
| the aircraft owners and maintenance personnel what she
is talking about,
| just ask her.
|
| My ASES instructor said to don't even think about
sal****er near his
| plane. He said no matter how thoroughly you wash it off,
it will still
| corrode.

Hilton wrote:
Tim wrote:

Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight path
with one engine inoperative.


Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long runway as they
were.

What's an infinitely long runway?

I don't know what happened here, but there have been plenty of takeoff,
engine failure crashes that occurred beyong the airport boundaries, even
with a 12,000' long runway.

KMIA has had more than its share of takeoff accidents because of all the
junk birds that operate to and from there to places south.

Gees, I hate it when infants, kids, babies die. Sad...

Yep! Or, for that matter, any innocent passenger who doesn't know what
they are climbing into.

Jim Macklin wrote:

Reports and photographs indicate that there was a fire and
fuel explosion and one wing was blown off the airplane.
Kind of hard to fly anywhere with only half an airplane.

My guess at this point, a fuel line leak in the nacelle and
the fuel mixture in the wing root exploded.

Normal procedure for any seaplane is to land (is that
water?) but the Grumman Albatross (the Mallard is smaller)
with the turboprop engines flies just fine on one engine.


Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An in-flight explosion
brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.

Mike H wrote:

so I doubt that your comments (or mine) have any
bearing whatsoever on this crash.

So it would seem.

wrote in message news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...

What's an infinitely long runway?

That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that if someone
could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of it.

That was in reference to Republic



"John R. Copeland" wrote in
message .. .
wrote in message
news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...

What's an infinitely long runway?

That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that
if someone
could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of
it.

John R. Copeland wrote:
wrote in message news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...

What's an infinitely long runway?


That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that if someone
could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of it.

That would be handy for practicing takeoffs and landings without wasting
fuel to go around the patch.

Tim wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Tim wrote:

Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight
path with one engine inoperative.


Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long runway as they
were.

What's an infinitely long runway?

They took off on water with water in front of them for many many miles.

Hilton

None of us that worked
on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
any of the aircraft a hydroplane.

The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
historical literature.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message ...
None of us that worked
on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
any of the aircraft a hydroplane.

The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
historical literature.

vince norris

So then, what should we call a racing power boat with a step in its hull,
designed for high-speed skimming across the water surface?