X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:35:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2860093 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:40:16 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.205; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net Received: from [76.89.163.133] by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20080417143857.ZQQJ15333.mta11.adelphia.net@[76.89.163.133]> for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:38:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7-355226134 X-Original-Message-Id: <6154A9BE-EE3D-453E-B866-0DEF5E50B3CE@adelphia.net> From: Gary Casey Subject: Re: Legacy crash - speculation X-Original-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:39:36 -0700 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) --Apple-Mail-7-355226134 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Paul may be on to something. I looked at the original picture sent =20 by Tom and if you look at the bottom of the spinner (not the top), it =20= looks like it extends beyond the cowl. In the other picture of the =20 plane on the ground there was some sag, but not enough to bring the =20 spinner below the cowl line. A broken engine mount? Maybe the =20 canopy being unlatched had nothing to do with it except to cause a =20 distraction. Normally, a slight nose-down thrust vector is a =20 stabilizing influence, not destabilizing. As I understand it the =20 plane had low hours, so the fatigue failures of mounts we have seen =20 shouldn't have been a factor. Gary Casey > > Looking at the photo it does appear that the front of the cowling =20 > is =93high=94 relative to the spinner. The cowling does appear to be =20= > still in position on the fuselage (no gaps and proper alignment of =20 > the paint features). I don=92t know the condition of the wreckage but =20= > a broken upper motor mount could result in a nose down thrust =20 > vector. Enough to cause loss of control? > > > > Paul Bricker --Apple-Mail-7-355226134 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Paul may be on to something. =A0I 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. =A0In the other picture of the plane on = the ground there was some sag, but not enough to bring the spinner below = the cowl line. =A0A broken engine mount? =A0Maybe the canopy being = unlatched had nothing to do with it except to cause a distraction. = =A0Normally, a slight nose-down thrust vector is a stabilizing = influence, not destabilizing. =A0As 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 =93high=94 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=92t 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?

=A0

Paul = Bricker

= --Apple-Mail-7-355226134--