"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
When the right wing seperated, and the load trnsferred to the other wing
which was also cracked as we now know, how come that wing didn't seperate
as
well?

For a couple of reasons. One is that the presence of a crack weakens the
wing, it doesn't guarantee that it will break. So, even if the load had
transferred to the other wing, that doesn't necessarily mean it would break.

The other is that to say that "the load transferred" is faulty thinking.
The load didn't transfer to the other wing; the airplane banked into the
missing wing. The load on the other wing remained the same initially, and
then as control was lost, probably actually decreased as that wing lost
lift.

The video footage of the fire bomber C-130 shows this happening but it
didn't happen on the Grumman.

From memory granted, but my recollection is that the C-130 wings both failed
nearly at the same time. I would guess that the two accidents are actually
quite different, even though they appear the same. That is, the seaplane
wing appears to have simply failed in unaccelerated flight, while the C-130
wings appear to have failed because of acceleration (pull-up).

So, while in the case of the seaplane, the wing simply gave out once it had
fatigued at the crack enough, in the case of the C-130, both wings were
pushed past their strength at the same time by the increased load, and
failed about the same time.

Just a theory, and I may be misremembering the footage. And of course, I'm
not a materials engineer, so my theories may be suspect in any case.

Pete