crashed

[Ron Moore]

Understood. But, 3.8 is symmetric G's; there isn't a published unsymmetric (rolling) G limit. All that is known is that it is less than the symmetric G tolerance, the aircraft is not stressed for to withstand 3.8G's in a rolling pull.
If he was at red line and pulled up abruptly, he clearly exceeded the airframe limits. If he did a rolling pull, he exceeded them to some unknown additional extent.
It will be interesting to see the investigation results. He could have easily pulled the wing off a aero time airframe....

[Roger]

In fact isn't the whole idea behind a screaming dive down to the runway with a last minute pull up, done in a manner to exert G-forces on the passengers? It's like a roller coaster ride.


"watch this"

[hharney]

Just for a visual, here is the location of Station 177. It is 46 inches from the end of the wing not counting the wingtip.

[WebMaster]

It is way out on the wing, and the strut held. This should be an argument against the SID, at least the strut inspection.

[Roger]

I was discussing this today with a friend who is a chief metallurgist for P&W, and he mentioned something that puts this into perspective, ie. apparently the bobsleds running at the olympics are pulling 5.2G's going 90mph in a lateral turn.

Think about that for a moment, and then consider that for this crash the guy was doing over twice that speed and his G inducing pull was vertical ! I don't know the math on this, because we can't calculate the "unknown pull-up" but I can certainly see how easy it would be to snap a piece of wing off given what we believe occured.

Anybody want to bet a $100- burger that the word corrosion never comes up in the final report?

"watch this"

[N5ZX]

First and foremost...like everyone here.... I mean absolutely disrespect to the lost lives. I did not know them and I can only assume that they were very similar to me...love flying...enjoying life...everything was fun...until someone got hurt. S--- Happens. My gripe comes from the uninformed pundants blaming the airplane. The machine did its job.

This is all cessna needed to tighten the noose on their supplimental inspection extortion.

Naturally there is no mention in the media (even the aviation media) of the fact that the accident aircraft had an OUTBOARD wing failure.....no-where near the wing-root that is the subject of the inspection.

There is no mention in the articles that the left seat was a visiting pilot from Poland, the right seat (PIC) was a 2200hr ATP.

The three pax were the children of the left-seater

There were three other family members on the ground watching the take-off

The plane was modified to larger 300hp engines and 3-blade props ( hinting that the owner liked "performance"...certainly not a crime or even remotely a "bad thing" but its an important piece of the puzzle)

The plane was modified with extended tip-tanks (exactly like mine) which when empty reduces max maneuvering speed to 143kts ... at altitude...interpret that as reduced air density = reduced drag. Ergo, at lower altitudes or colder atmospheric conditions...greater desity....more resistance....even lower Max Maneuvering Speed)

The plane took off (90kts), retracted gear) climbed to pattern alt ( 100kts) turned downwind (125kts @ 900' msl) turned base (140kts) decended on final, flaps up, gear up, (155kts) leveled off 50' agl (165kts) nosed up sharply at the far end if the runway (171kts)

At which time the right wing tip snapped off and the plane rolled into the ground....but stayed significantly intact

I'm no accident investigator, but I interpret all that as a pilot doing an impromptu airshow for visiting friends...no problem...until you exceed the placarded performance limitations of your tip-extensions. Then s--- happens and you go from pilot to farmer in about...3 seconds.

But since the words "skymaster" and "wing" are used in the same article, it's a foregone conclusion that the 337 fleet should just go ahead and start lubing-up in preperation for cessena's regulatory boon-doggle.

The articles also don't mention that in the 2000+ production aircraft in 40+ years of military and civilian flights (including the rollercoaster rides of being an FAC "hedge runner").....not one has had the failure that the new inspection is supposed to address.

Oh well....I'm justglad that the supplimental inspection is SUPPOSED to be for commercial operators ..... For now.... But we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I know I preaching to the choir and I'm still a new comer around here.

But it just infuriates me to have the media implying it was the airplanes fault.

I absolutely LOVE my skymaster. I did years of research that lead me to it. I've read and summarized every single 337 accident on file with the NTSB and I've made cross comparison charts with other types. The SkyMaster isnt perfect, but it is a DARN good plane if it is used properly...and is very forgiving if it is used improperly. But everything has its limits.

And it irritates the crap out of me that an unfortunate event resulted in the death of 5....tragedy for their families and friend....and will almost certainly have profound, possibly devistating results on the rest of us, too.

Again, no disrespect for the dead or their families. But, again, assuming he was anything like me, he would be the first to say "I was having fun and didnt pay attention to my airspeed...and it caught up with me. It wasn't the plane's fault...it was the PILOT IN COMMAND."

Just my rookie opinion, and probably not a very popular opinion.

Cole Reed

[hharney]

Just curious about your the extended fuel cells, are these the Flint model units?