Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Roman
Trad climber
Bostonia
|
|
was the movie Cliffhanger loosely based of this event? I remember Stalone looking for bags full or drugs or money or something from a plane crash in the mountains...
I'm sorry but John Lithgow had to be the ABSOLUTE LAMEST choice of actor for a movie villain ever chosen for a hollywood part EVER. About as scary as being mugged by John Waters with a Bic pen if you ask me...
|
|
Licky
Mountain climber
California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 11, 2009 - 04:09am PT
|
An up date is due.
Most of my time is now being used to tuning the data. I'm chasing down a pretty important lead. It has to do with the cause of the crash. Its big enough for me to slooow down and step carefully. At first I thought it was a little more than paranoia, but Its got some meat and potatoes to it.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 04:52am PT
|
If you're looking for paranoids, you've come to the right place. We've plenty of those around here.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 01:32pm PT
|
It has to do with the cause of the crash.
You mean other than the obvious ones of low-level mountain flying at night with a likely overloaded airplane?
|
|
Jim Wilcox
Boulder climber
Santa Barbara
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 02:13pm PT
|
That's cool-but I still got my money on the engine falling off. In terms of causing a plane crash that'll be hard to top.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 01:49am PT
|
Rok,
I was being glib for the most part. However, flying low in the mountains at night is a sure recipe for disaster. I would bet my house that the wing fell off 'cause a tree took it off after they got in a downdraft.
SRM, Commercial, Glider, MEL, CFII
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 02:31am PT
|
like getting caught in a downdraft behind a hill, where the air tumbles,
Having done a lot of mountain flying I can assert with authority that you can hit severe turbulence 10,000' above the nearest high point. Let's say they were a 'healthy' 2000' AGL when they hit a 'bump'. That plane might have had a good going over when it became a Howard but I strongly doubt the airframe was strengthened. Even if it was it sounds like it had enough unimproved strip landings that some undiagnosed metal fatigue could have been exacerbated. So the wing departs at 2000' AGL and the fuselage has enough inertia to make it a goodly ways past the wing's impact point. Even if the FAA's accident analysis was at best cursory it should have been painfully obvious to Stevie Wonder and a sixth grade dropout whether the wing came off due to metal fatigue or arboreal impact.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 02:52am PT
|
I just thought I would point out that they were most vulnerable to turbulence towards the end of the flight when the wing tanks are getting low. This increases the stresses on the wing roots. That is why, if it is an option, you burn off the inboard tanks first and save the outboard tanks for last.
OK, in lieu of any actual facts I think this dead horse has been whipped aplenty.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 08:53am PT
|
interesting digression, wolfman!
|
|
Licky
Mountain climber
California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2009 - 01:53am PT
|
Until I can get to the nuts and bolts of this, the only thing I can say is that....it appears that it ain't what it appears.
Those speculating seem to be hard pressed to admit that they are doing just that.
The research moves forward. So far, I've not been let down.
Reilly..what makes you think the wing tanks were getting low? Inboard/outboard tanks? More speculation.
Rok...you are running very close!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 02:13am PT
|
Licky -- "Those speculating seem to be hard pressed to admit that they are doing just that."
Hahahaha you got that right.
And those same types are always stressing for others to get their facts straight.
This forum is a total fuking nuthouse .....
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 02:17am PT
|
Licky,
Read more carefully. I was only stating SOP's. Regardless of whether the Howard has inboard and outboard tanks the tanks would have been getting lower thereby increasing the moment on the roots. We're all clearly speculating and unless you have the pertinent wing in hand it seems you are too if the FAA report was as cursory as it appears to have been. Let's see, no radar track, no witnesses, no physical evidence, and a whitewash of an accident report could hardly lead to other than speculation. If you do have cold hard facts I am happy for you, really!
|
|
Licky
Mountain climber
California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2009 - 03:06am PT
|
W...good to see you weigh in. Its been a while. Hope you are well
My next trip up, I'll hunt you down and fill you in on some of my latest
findings. I think you'll get a chuckle.
Reilly, plenty of physical evidence that was documented. Much of it was over
looked either by mistake or on purpose.
The Howard 500 had "wet wings"
|
|
Albion
Trad climber
Bristol, UK
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 01:39pm PT
|
"If the vintage airplane's starboard engine hadn't literally fallen off high above the eastern edge of the Sierras, Cliffhanger, Sylvester Stallone's 1993 $73 million movie, may never have been filmed."
 page 326: 'Death, Daring and Disaster' by Charles R. "Butch" Farabee, Jr.
Taylor Trade Publishing 2005 (Revised Edition)
So, how come the engine fell off? Foulplay???
Guess I'll have to buy the book eh?
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:18pm PT
|
Good God - I can't believe you fell for that...
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:22pm PT
|
That explains his take on 9-11.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Redlands
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:31pm PT
|
Why does a lower fuel level increase moment at the wing roots? Does the added mass of fuel have some dampening effect?
I'd guess (I am an engineer, but not aero), that it's designed so that the weight of fuel in the wings acts to partially counters the lift force on the wing and the moment around the joint. As the tanks run out, the increased stress would happen as the fuel weight dissipated, losing the counterbalancing effect.
Could be 100% wrong, who knows.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 01:35pm PT
|
You have it correct.
Saw an explanation by a BUFF (B52) pilot about the drooping wings.
He gave that exact explanation.
|
|
Delhi Dog
Trad climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:02pm PT
|
On the contrary Rocky, I think it just goes to show that WE have to take what we see/hear on the net/tv/from others...etc with open eyes and not just "believe".
The old cliche(s), "think for yourself", "question reality", "question "authority", yadda, yadda, yadda...is probably more pertinent now than ever.
I got suckered it too, until I saw the other link.
Cheers
DD
(whoa, did I just "defend" Rocky...scary!)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!