T-34A

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Big John
wrote:

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

In article ,
EDR wrote:

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.

I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
you won't be able to bailout.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article , Dale
wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.

I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
you won't be able to bailout.

Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
Big difference in time available.

In article ,
EDR wrote:


Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
Big difference in time available.

I agree...time would be a factor. From 4000' you might have 15 seconds.
I was disputing the posters statement that there was no chance if a wing
came off.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:38:22 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :


Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Of course we don't know the forces experienced by those pilots during
their final moments with most of one wing missing. But I would guess,
that with only one wing generating lift, the aircraft entered a rapid
roll and dove for the ground. If that was indeed the final flight
mode, and the CG were not centered on the pilots(s), then they would
indeed experience G forces.

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:03 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

I wouldn't expect the force vector to be acting in a vertical (as in
away from the Earth) direction, but in a direction away from the axis
of the roll. If the roll were centered on the aircraft's longitudinal
axis (as a snap roll is) and the pilot were positioned off that axis
toward the canopy, I would expect the force to act toward the canopy
if/when it stabilized.

The twisting moment of the roll might have initially induced some
lateral deflection of the victor, but once (if) it stabilized, there
would no longer be any lateral acceleration resulting from the roll,
only the centrifugal force would remain.

This is difficult to discuss without graphics.