Plausible theory, Art. Hopefully that would show up in an autopsy, although it could have been missed if the M.E, was focusing on post-inpact trauma. In any case, there should have been an autopsy-- can't we get the results? Anyone?
--- In [email protected], Art Langston <n26...@...> wrote: > > Sometimes it's helpful to re-imagine a scenario, least we become > fixated. Since there were no adverse conditions, much of our conjecture > has focused on the plane and wondering why it would spontaneously break up. > > So far we have conflicting statements of eye witnesses, but we may > assume the mechanic is correct in his evaluation of the planes > condition, and eye witnesses are correct in reports of unusual > maneuvering. I have seen no reports of the weight of the two men, or the > amount of fuel. That there was no fire was probably due to the seams of > the tanks opening in the air and released the gas in a hurry. > > After meditating on the eye witness accounts, I can visualize the pilot > losing consciousness or passing away, slumping forward and falling > hard against the yoke. The passenger (who may never have touched > aircraft controls before) reacts in an instant by pulling back, perhaps > very hard. > > It would all take less than a second, and at this point, the aircraft > has been fatally damaged. > > The results are tragic and incredibly sad, but the aircraft is > blameless. This seems more likely than the plane just breaking apart. > > The only other thing I could imagine would be a bolt falling out of the > mixer or one of the short push rods, leaving the aileron free to > flutter. Wish we knew what the shiny thing was they saw. > > All just conjecture. > > Art > N2666H > > PS I'd just buy another plane before replacing the center section - I > don't think it's cost effective, and you can sometimes part an airplane > out for more than you can often sell one. >
