[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1[2]345678910 ]
Subject: Re: A pilot's analysis of the plane crash

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Wed October 24, 2018 12:34:44
In reply to: Aaron Yost 's message, "Re: A pilot's analysis of the plane crash" on Mon October 22, 2018 17:53:13

Aaron, go and look at the photos of the crash.

The main wreck didn't even hit a fence post. It pushed up against a star picket, which are not load bearing - they are hammered straight into the ground, and are there to keep the fence wires aligned. The star picket is only at a slight backwards angle, and the wires of the fence remain taut. What does that tell you? It was also the tail which was against the fence. The closest post to the wreck is about three feet to the left of the main wreck, and another at least six feet away to the right. Both show no visible signs of any damage.

The plane was banking to the right, when the starboard wing clipped the ground and was torn off. You're right about one thing, the first impact wasn't the worst; the second one was when the plane hit the ground at near enough cruising speed. Every subsequent impact as the plane cartwheeled would see it lose velocity as it crumpled up into a ball, dispersing parts and bodies as it went.

Recently, I have taken an interest in Donald Campbell's Bluebird K7. When the Bluebird flipped out, it hit the water on it's port sponson at an estimated 183 miles per hour - very similar in speed to N3794N. Hitting the water would have been like hitting concrete at that speed as well. If one watches the footage of the crash, it hits the water,then starts to cartwheel. The interesting thing to watch is how far it carwheels for - roughly two hundred feet - if that. Then it's all over. It is amazing to see how quickly it loses speed.

You're right, neither of us were there, but there is more than enough factual information out there, and photos of the wreck to look at.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.