X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:13:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2862584 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:39:45 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.46; envelope-from=needforspeed01@cox.net Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080419033908.REWD27061.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:39:08 -0400 Received: from Kitchen ([68.226.176.192]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id FFf31Z00249SkvY02Ff6l7; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:39:07 -0400 From: "Dana Westphal" X-Original-To: Subject: RE: Legacy crash - speculation X-Original-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:39:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8A1A5.0E33A300" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcihPOWDcav7YZIhT7WV+3dtfxvoPAAkZY4Q In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Original-Message-Id: <20080419033908.REWD27061.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8A1A5.0E33A300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe the engine sag or speculated broken motor mount caused the canopy to unlatch through some torque or twist imparted to the firewall and/or fuselage, i.e., the canopy unlatching was a symptom of a bigger problem . Dana _____ From: Gary Casey [mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:35 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Legacy crash - speculation Paul may be on to something. I looked at the original picture sent by Tom and if you look at the bottom of the spinner (not the top), it looks like it extends beyond the cowl. In the other picture of the plane on the ground there was some sag, but not enough to bring the spinner below the cowl line. A broken engine mount? Maybe the canopy being unlatched had nothing to do with it except to cause a distraction. Normally, a slight nose-down thrust vector is a stabilizing influence, not destabilizing. As I understand it the plane had low hours, so the fatigue failures of mounts we have seen shouldn't have been a factor. Gary Casey Looking at the photo it does appear that the front of the cowling is "high" relative to the spinner. The cowling does appear to be still in position on the fuselage (no gaps and proper alignment of the paint features). I don't know the condition of the wreckage but a broken upper motor mount could result in a nose down thrust vector. Enough to cause loss of control? Paul Bricker ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8A1A5.0E33A300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe the engine sag or speculated = broken motor mount caused the canopy to unlatch through some torque or twist = imparted to the firewall and/or fuselage, i.e., the canopy unlatching was a = symptom of a bigger problem …

 

Dana

 

From: Gary = Casey [mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, = 2008 11:35 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: Legacy crash = - speculation

 

Paul may be on to something.  I looked at the original = picture sent by Tom and if you look at the bottom of the spinner (not the top), = it looks like it extends beyond the cowl.  In the other picture of the = plane on the ground there was some sag, but not enough to bring the spinner = below the cowl line.  A broken engine mount?  Maybe the canopy being = unlatched had nothing to do with it except to cause a distraction.  Normally, = a slight nose-down thrust vector is a stabilizing influence, not = destabilizing.  As I understand it the plane had low hours, so the fatigue = failures of mounts we have seen shouldn't have been a = factor.

Gary Casey

 

Looking at the photo it does appear that the front of the cowling is = “high” relative to the spinner. The cowling does appear to be still in position on the = fuselage (no gaps and proper alignment of the paint features). I don’t know = the condition of the wreckage but a broken upper motor mount could result in = a nose down thrust vector. Enough to cause loss of = control?

 

Paul Bricker

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8A1A5.0E33A300--