"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between
climb
rate and over temping.

Mike
MU-2

Well never mind where I got it initially, but it's all on the NTSB
website now. There are even the cockpit data recorder info online. They
are looking at climb SPEED (they climbed for 15 minutes at slower than
the speed called for in the manual, which is in one of the files on the
NTSB website), they STALLED the aircraft at 41k (or so). They failed to
do a restart. And they are looking at seized engines. It doesn't
actually say yet, the engines seized, but they have some reports on
engine core lock in the display documents. There is a rather gripping,
blow by blow transcription of everything the pilots and ATC said, as
well as their struggle to unsuccessfully restart the engines. They
aren't looking at fuel or pressurization issues.

If you want to actually find out what happened check it out at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/

The idea about the cooling "cycle" (getting behind the cooling curve),
is not there yet and I didn't see engine temperatures in the data
recording file. Don't know why. There may be more coming out on that
one. Maybe not. Anyway, if the engines DID seize, both of them, there
is something peculiar going on with the GE engines, probably related to
the speed at which they climbed. But this is all preliminary and
obviously not conclusive. This one is going to be interesting.


OK that is totally different. Forward speed while climbing in a turbine
aircraft near max altitude is critical not only because of l/d but also
becasue turbine engines produce more power as higher airspeeds as inlet
pressure is higher. Sounds like the pilots of this aircraft operated
outside the airplanes flight envelope and then were unfortunate enough to
have the engines sieze after they flamed out.

Darwinism at work again