Skip to comments.
NTSB finds beam [wing spar] cracked in crashed [Miami] plane
AP via Arizona Daily Star ^
| 12/21/05
| CURT ANDERSON
Posted on 12/21/2005 2:48:53 PM PST by IonImplantGuru
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
Proper terminology is 'wing spar', but you all get the picture - it provides structural integrity to the wing.
To: IonImplantGuru
Seems to me I heard somehwere that those WWII sea planes were notorious for blowing up in flight because faulty fuel tanks and lines?
To: Tijeras_Slim; FireTrack; Pukin Dog; citabria; B Knotts; kilowhskey; cyphergirl; Wright is right!; ..
To Aeronaut's
Aviation Ping List.
Investigators look over the recovered wreckage of a Chalk's Ocean Airways plane on a barge anchored at the crash scene off the shore off Miami Beach, Fla., Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005. The seaplane crashed Monday en route to Bimini in the Bahamas, killing all 20 people on board. (AP Photo/Chuck Fadely, Pool)
To: IonImplantGuru
A 1940s-era seaplane that lost a wing during takeoff and crashed within sight of the beach, killing all 20 people aboard, had undetected cracks in its airframe that apparently caused the aircraft to break up, federal investigators said Wednesday. I guess cracks cause other things to happen. -Tom
Ocean rescue personnel witnessed the plane crash, said Miami Beach Fire Chief Floyd Jordan. Smoke billowed from the engines, followed by an explosion that apparently tore one wing off the aircraft and sent it diving into the water, he said.
4
posted on
12/21/2005 2:57:06 PM PST
by
Capt. Tom
(Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
To: AZRepublican
So what caused the explosion and fire.
Wouldn't the wing just break off and fall into the sea?
5
posted on
12/21/2005 2:57:43 PM PST
by
OldFriend
(The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
To: IonImplantGuru
When an airplane gets to be 58 years old stress cracks may very well show up especially on a seaplane. On takeoffs and landings hitting the waves puts enormous stress on the aircraft.
6
posted on
12/21/2005 3:01:22 PM PST
by
bulldozer
To: IonImplantGuru
Planes that old should not be flown no matter what they say about maintenance and inspection techniques. The airframe may be degrading without a whole lot visual evidence till its to late. The same can be said for the systems fuel, acft electric.
Work hardening, added metals precipitating out of the alloy at the granular/crystalline level, microscopic (spider web) cracking. Your going along fine and kaboom.
For those reasons I will not ride on a B17 or DC3 etc no matter how much I would like to.
Wolf
7
posted on
12/21/2005 3:04:38 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: bulldozer
If it weren't for lawyers, there would not BE a 58-yo plane in the air.
I am so pissed off...
8
posted on
12/21/2005 3:04:46 PM PST
by
patton
("Hard Drive Cemetary" - forthcoming best seller)
To: RunningWolf
I flew on a DC3 that was built in 1945 a couple of years ago, it was a blast!
To: OldFriend
I have wondered the same thing many times. One good place would be electric sparking as the wiring is torn apart.
A pet theory I have is that from the metal being ripped apart, there may be heat or static charges at a level difficult to measure in the lab, and that is igniting the fuel when all the chance dominoes line up.
Wolf
10
posted on
12/21/2005 3:10:38 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: IonImplantGuru; Tijeras_Slim; FireTrack; Pukin Dog; citabria; B Knotts; kilowhskey; cyphergirl; ...
11
posted on
12/21/2005 3:11:13 PM PST
by
Aeronaut
(It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began.)
To: Central Scrutiniser
You got more kahunas than me LOL!!
12
posted on
12/21/2005 3:11:34 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: bulldozer
Not to mention corrosion from sea water.
13
posted on
12/21/2005 3:12:36 PM PST
by
BIGLOOK
(I once opposed keelhauling but recently have come to my senses.)
To: RunningWolf
I worked on a fair number of Falcon 20 airplanes.
Mainly refurbs that were built in the late late 60's.
Age is not the determinging factor of worthtness. Anything can be fixed. Microscopic cracks are not undetectable by any means. It is simply a matter if inspections seek out such things or not. Magna flux is an example. I know that the falcons were heavily scrutinized with such testing especially in wing root and cockpit window areas.
I suppose by your own logic you would not ride in a Model A because it is simply too old?
To: OldFriend
Well, the wing's got fuel in it, and an engine on it that's hot... There's enough there that might cause smoke and fire as it breaks up.
15
posted on
12/21/2005 3:15:46 PM PST
by
HairOfTheDog
(Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
To: AZRepublican
I think that you're thinking of the Martin Mariner. It was literally a flying gas can.
Grumman had a great reputation for building sturdy aircraft. The nickname for the company is the "Gumman Iron Works".
16
posted on
12/21/2005 3:17:37 PM PST
by
Tallguy
(When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
To: BlueStateDepression; RunningWolf
I suppose by your own logic you would not ride in a Model A because it is simply too old?I don't share RunningWolf's condemnation of old airplanes based on age alone. but in all seriousness... you have a lot further to fall if an airplane breaks than if a Model A does.
17
posted on
12/21/2005 3:17:51 PM PST
by
HairOfTheDog
(Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
To: BlueStateDepression
Well I was talking more to the aluminum alloys.
A model A at 40 mph? No prob we'll just coast to a stop call AAA with our cell phones.
Who am I to talk of illogical risks? I have done hang gliding, single hand sailing outside of the Golden Gate Bridge, solo mountain climbing.
So go figure. I just have this issue with very old airplanes.
Now an F105, or a FW190-D, well lets go!
Wolf
18
posted on
12/21/2005 3:19:26 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
Planes that old should not be flown no matter what they say about maintenance and inspection techniques.I have to politely and respectfully call BS on this. Way to general of a statement.
Notice the article says nothing about crack striation, high cycle, low cycle, or pure overstress. This airplane could easily have been damaged by an overstress in a prior flight/landing (between inspections).
It may have pulled a Lockheed Electra (P-3 ish) and broke up due to a failed engine mount (low cycle fatigue).
It could have been corrosion induced.
Aluminum actually gets stronger with age...due to the formation of the precipitate (dempending on alloy and final temper).
Either way, if you can't feel safe flying in a 58 year old product of the Iron Works, don't fly.
19
posted on
12/21/2005 3:19:49 PM PST
by
Dead Dog
To: RunningWolf
Is this the same type of plane, the Albatross?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson