X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:44:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with ESMTP id 4485876 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:46:51 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.144; envelope-from=rehbinc@aol.com Received: from mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.6]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o8TDk2q0014504 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:46:02 -0400 Received: from user1-656b2de53 (adsl-068-157-189-102.sip.asm.bellsouth.net [68.157.189.102]) by mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 91523E000164 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:46:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:45:51 -0400 From: REHBINC Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thunder Mustang Crash at Reno X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-ID: <9967e664.9701.4f0e.9580.58a6b3116b01@aol.com> References: X-Mailer: Nexus Desktop Client 3.3.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/alternative; BOUNDARY=e2c1017a-40fa-4c08-bebc-bec0bd226c9d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:144565472:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29064ca343191abc X-AOL-IP: 68.157.189.102 --e2c1017a-40fa-4c08-bebc-bec0bd226c9d Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm not so sure I'd like the idea of cart wheeling either, but I can see how a series of small impacts could be a lot healthier than one big one. 25 to 30 years ago, I read an article that stated the safest way to conduct an off field landing was to intentionally dip a wing into the ground at the last moment. Destruction of the wing was found to absorb substantial energy without transmitting severe loads back to the cabin. In a standard cornfield landing, it is common for the nose to dig in at some point. This causes a negative bending moment on the fuselage, which buckles around the wing. The roof is then drawn downward, crushing the occupants with negative health effects. I mentioned this to my aerodynamics professor many years ago and he thought it was ridiculous. The idea of spinning the aircraft runs counter to everything we are taught and intentionally destroying the wing is hard to swallow as well, especially when you built it yourself. I've never investigated this idea, but I can see how it could work. Rob In a message dated 09/29/10 07:38:06 Eastern Daylight Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes: This is a very interesting theory. Before taking it seriously, I'd ask just how I could be sure to end up right side up. Mark Ravinski There was an seminar at Sun and Fun years ago where they talked about how to best crash an airplane without a suitable place to land...and this guy did it...a cartwheel. The energy is dissipated more slowly and the G Forces are minimized. They looked at a number of crashes and found that in those that cartwheeled, the pilot walked away. Your comments? Steve Colwell Legacy http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-092110-pilot-survives,0,646191.story?track=rss No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3159 - Release Date: 09/25/10 13:45:00 --e2c1017a-40fa-4c08-bebc-bec0bd226c9d Content-Type: TEXT/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

I'm not so sure I'd like the idea of cart wheeling either, but I can see how a series of small impacts could be a lot healthier than one big one.

25 to 30 years ago, I read an article that stated the safest way to conduct an off field landing was to intentionally dip a wing into the ground at the last moment. Destruction of the wing was found to absorb substantial energy without transmitting severe loads back to the cabin. In a standard cornfield landing, it is common for the nose to dig in at some point. This causes a negative bending moment on the fuselage, which buckles around the wing. The roof is then drawn downward, crushing the occupants with negative health effects.

I mentioned this to my aerodynamics professor many years ago and he thought it was ridiculous. The idea of spinning the aircraft runs counter to everything we are taught and intentionally destroying the wing is hard to swallow as well, especially when you built it yourself.

I've never investigated this idea, but I can see how it could work.

Rob

In a message dated 09/29/10 07:38:06 Eastern Daylight Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes:

This is a very interesting theory.

Before taking it seriously, I'd ask just how I could be sure to end up right side up.

Mark Ravinski

There was an seminar at Sun and Fun years ago where they talked about how to best crash an airplane without a suitable place to land...and this guy did it...a cartwheel. The energy is dissipated more slowly and the G Forces are minimized. They looked at a number of crashes and found that in those that cartwheeled, the pilot walked away. Your comments?

Steve Colwell Legacy
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-092110-pilot-survives,0,646191.story?track=rss

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3159 - Release Date: 09/25/10 13:45:00

--e2c1017a-40fa-4c08-bebc-bec0bd226c9d--