He said the guy then wrapped it up
into a tight left hand turn to try to get back to the runway, but half
way through the turn he started coming almost straight down, but in a
level attitude and pancaked into the trees. It crashed into the group
of small trees just off the left side of the departure end of 24. I've
been wondering why he wasn't able to glide to a farmer's field because
I know there are a lot of them around St Elmo. Now I know why. I feel
terrible, seems so senseless, but I guess the urge to turn back and
save the plane can be a powerful one. This should have ended in an
off-field landing with only bruised egos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouch, that is terrible if true.
Eyewitnesses are anything but 100% reliable. If it is true, it points
up one thing. We all have that unbelievable urge to make it back to the
field.
Art is pretty reliable. Paul's decision
was probably inspired/reinforced by the fact that the last time that
happened, he DID make it.
This sounds more plausible then the
notion about one wing dropping and going past 90 degrees which sounded
like a wing stall. The wing should never stall on the canard, but the
canard would and explain the flat pancake. Then the thing is with
pushers, all that stuff coming along behind is going to smite you if
you land in unforgiving terrain. I've flown UL's (Kolbs) with engines
behind and high. Currently trying to teach a parapeligic friend to fly
in an Odessey with the same arrangement.This just seems like a killer
in an accident.
If the impact is severe enough that the
engine comes through the firewall, you're already dead.
Bernie, Rusty come to Slobvovia if
only for a short time!