X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 960494 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 May 2005 10:59:34 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.37; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net Received: from smtp.west.cox.net ([172.18.180.52]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with SMTP id <20050523145850.BAQX22430.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 10:58:50 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528) From: Dale Rogers To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: St Elmo accident Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:58:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=____1116860330237_TxVlYo7m2J" Message-Id: <20050523145850.BAQX22430.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1116860330237_TxVlYo7m2J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Sower wrote: > WALTER B KERR wrote: > > ... 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. Jim echoed my thoughts. You folks who are building aluminum airplanes may not appreciate just how strong the double walled U-channel that forms the fuselage is. Any impact hard enough to break the structure that includes the main spar (directly in front of the engine) is *way* beyond what your body is designed to withstand. Regards, Dale R. (___ COZY MkIV-R13B #1254 |----==(___)==----| Ch's 4, 5, 16 & 23 in progress o/ | \o ------=____1116860330237_TxVlYo7m2J Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="reply" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply"

WALTER B KERR wrote:

Rusty wrote:

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!

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

------=____1116860330237_TxVlYo7m2J--