The only thing that speaks against aileron flutter , severe or not is that 
flutter occurs usually only on one side.

But it was reported by the witness that both ailerons were free to flutter.

 

Here again an excerpt from the report:

 

"From his position, he (the witness) could see the bottom of the airplane, as 
well as both wings, as the airplane traveled north. He additionally noted that 
while the airplane was banking, both ailerons were "fluttering" at a high 
frequency. The bank angle increased to almost 90 degrees, when the left wing of 
the airplane "folded back" and separated from the fuselage. The airplane then 
pivoted about the lateral axis 90 degrees, and the right wing then separated 
from the fuselage along with a portion of the cabin. The wings "fluttered” or 
"twirled" to the ground, while the portion of the cabin continued forward and 
down to the ground. He recalled hearing three distinct "thuds" as the pieces of 
the airplane impacted the ground.

The witness also reported that during the breakup, the airplane released what 
initially looked like "confetti," which he later determined to be painted chips 
of dope from the airplane’s fabric covered wings."

 

While the airplane was banking ..... and the bank increased to almost 90 
degrees. Only someone that can not control the ailerons allows that degree of 
bank.

Now the first wing folds back. Then just short thereafter the second wing. 
Still convinced the flutter was the cause ?

During the breakup the confetti like fabric covering is released. Now that 
would be normal, since the whole thing just rips apart. NOT before the breakup 
though.

Still not convinced that something else was failing that lead to the fluttering 
of ailerons/wings and then to the breakup in the sequence described?

 

 

I hope teh NTSB and Mr. Caldwell come to a more precise conclusion. After all 
they have the evidence, we are just guessing from 2 witness reports.

And the fact that Mr. Caldwell points out illegal holes and a crack in the 
upper spar cap.

 

 

 

Hartmut

 

 

 

 


To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:25:00 -0500
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re;FYI -Seibring crash Read & Ponder

  



I suspect the cause was severe aileron flutter followed by drastic maneuver 
followed by fabric separation then catastropic failure of the spar, followed by 
loss of wings.
Bill 

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:16:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re;FYI -Seibring crash Read & Ponder

  



Was it aileron flutter he saw (and heard) or loose fabric?


On 30/9/09 08:15, "Hartmut Beil" <[email protected]> wrote:



Ralph.
 
I have the same doubts about the eye witness account.
 
It is almost impossible to see any detail of a plane that flies 1200 feet above 
you.
Now, the plane might have been directly above the witness and maybe the sun was 
in an angle that mirrored.
But the breakup occurred at 11:15 local time I think, ( If it would be Zulu 
time, the flight would have happened at 6 A.M in the morning), so at least the 
report.
This is the worst time to see anything against the sky.
 
Anyhow. Maybe he could see the detail. If  both ailerons were to flutter, the 
whole control system was broken loose.
 
What I believe is that the upper spar cap broke at one side and the whole wing 
was fluttering. That made the other side of the spar also loose its wing 
support and we now had two wings fluttering. THAT you can observe from 1200 ft 
below.
 
I hope the NTSB will get the details out soon. So the talk "we don't do 
nothing, the controls were fluttering" will stop.
 
 
Hartmut
 


To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:44:53 -0700
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re;FYI -Seibring crash Read & Ponder

  
"From the second witness's position, he could see both ailerons - the hinged
flaps on the control surfaces attached to the wing's trailing edge -
fluttering at a high frequency."
 
 Hard to believe. Eyewitness accounts are known to be unreliable.

“And they flutter that much that a witness from 1200ft below can see them
moving.”

Even less reliable. 1200 feet away and he can see both fluttering?

Ralph Finch




________________
Alon A2
A-188
G-HARY
www.ercoupe.co.uk








Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how. 







                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out!
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009

Reply via email to