Sometimes it's better to NOT know

sheldon957 said:
Rottydaddy,

I think you ought to add 2 other pictures from a post on a different board. The one showing the peelback towards the aileron, and the one with you standing by the wing.
Click to expand...
I might... been busy sending those pics to various other parties; maybe later this week.

I am so glad it came off clean and did not foul that aileron...!! :eek:
 
EdFred said:
I'm looking at that and while it looks horrible, the first thought that popped into my head was the mythbusters with the "better gas mileage with the tailgate up or down in a pickup" episode. Air basically fills the wing and keeps "rolling" inside the wing, and lets the air over the top basically ride on the air inside the wing, *almost* like the skin was still there. There was enough deflection from the leading edge to keep the flow from decaying. My guess would be that if you did the same thing to the other side the plane would fly not much different that normal with the only exception being a loss of a few knots at given power settings.
Click to expand...

I think you're basically correct. Lift is generated by deflecting air downwards and the damaged wing would still accomplish that pretty well. In any case, the air obviously was still flowing over the wing in a nearly normal sense, it just had a bit more drag because there was no boundary layer behind the tear.
 
Okey-doke; as requested... more pics.
First shows the turn we were in just before it went "pop!" (or however one might describe that sound... and may you never hear it!)You can see that during his turn, as in mine previous, we were well within limits for this type. Normal rate of turn, too- no big gee going on here.

Second shows us on our long straight-in for 03, with my new favorite CFI easing her down with almost full right rudder. Went very well, I must say- there was no real indication we'd lost a significant portion of lift on one side, even in the flare.
Thank the sky gods that the wind was calm... hard to say what would've happened with a x-wind or gusts.

The rest show the damage, including one with Yrs Truly for scale. I'm wincing in the pic mostly because the sun was in my eyes... mostly. ;)
 

Attachments

  • rot02230802.JPG
    rot02230802.JPG
    98 KB · Views: 286
  • rot02230803.JPG
    rot02230803.JPG
    123.8 KB · Views: 287
  • rot02230805.JPG
    rot02230805.JPG
    85.7 KB · Views: 333
  • rot02230806.JPG
    rot02230806.JPG
    104.1 KB · Views: 312
gprellwitz said:
That sure looks like a staple sticking up in that third picture.
Click to expand...
There are several left behind... technically they're spring clips, not staples. They're not driven in, the holes in the ribs are drilled before covering, then the clips are inserted somehow.
There have been SBs (not ADs) issued regarding use of these during resto and repair of old ragwing Cessnas, and apparently people are moving away from using them. Probably a good idea...
 
Steve said:
Makes me wonder whether Vne had been challenged on previous flights. :confused:
Click to expand...
Always a worry with rentals... I want to buy partly because I'm tired of assuming that risk. Even the owners can't guarantee you more than that the inspections are current and ADs complied with.

However... my feeling about this failure is that it was probably inevitable regardless of anyone else's handling of the plane.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
You'd have to buy NEW to avoid that risk...
Click to expand...
Well, even in that case there is a chance there is a manufacturing defect or some such, or unreported mishandling prior to delivery... but point taken.

As sole owner/operator of even a used plane, one would have a lot more peace of mind, between knowing just about everything about its maintenance history, being in control of any ongoing maintenance, and knowing that nobody else will get the keys before you fly it again.
Sounds better to me than renting, even a newish plane, even from a top-notch school or FBO. Slightly better odds.

No ironclad guarantees, of course, but flying isn't about ironclad guarantees.
 
smigaldi said:
Even that is not a guarantee Troy. Remember about a year or so ago the guy in Florida with the brand new 172 that had the crankshaft break and the prop flew off? That was a new bird and who would have ever expected that to happen?
Click to expand...
I would have.

New engines (or overhauled ones) have much _higher_ failure rates than older engines. Of course there's a chance that an old engine was abused, nevertheless, depending on the statistic you look at, the risk of a new engine failing in the first 400 hours is up to 4 times higher than an old engine. Good reason not to overhaul/rebuilt perfectly good engines just because they're at "TBO"....

-Felix
 
smigaldi said:
Even that is not a guarantee Troy. Remember about a year or so ago the guy in Florida with the brand new 172 that had the crankshaft break and the prop flew off? That was a new bird and who would have ever expected that to happen?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember... I meant "knowing it hasn't been flown over redline", which was what was being suggested as a possible precursor to the wing losing a panel.

At least I HOPE the factory test pilots don't exceed Vne!
 
Wow! That's almost like the GA version of the Isreali F-15 pilot who lost most (if not all) of his right wing in a mid-air, but didn't know that until he landed - apparently the fuel mist obscured the missing wing from the cockpit's perspective.

Glad it worked out well!
 
Yikes! Glad you made it down ok. You gave me one interesting thought: You said you didn't bother declaring. I probably wouldn't have either. Now that you know what the damage was, would you declare in the same situation again? If you had been able to see it would you have declared?

I'm thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to declare at least a "pan pan" any time I hear a big noise and then have weird things happen to the contols. Or maybe any time I have weird things suddenly happen to the controls. After seeing that, I think I'll assume the worst and nurse my way to the nearest airfield with people already watching out for me and getting the heck out of my way.

Thanks for sharing.
 
cwyckham said:
Yikes! Glad you made it down ok. You gave me one interesting thought: You said you didn't bother declaring. I probably wouldn't have either. Now that you know what the damage was, would you declare in the same situation again? If you had been able to see it would you have declared?

I'm thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to declare at least a "pan pan" any time I hear a big noise and then have weird things happen to the contols. Or maybe any time I have weird things suddenly happen to the controls. After seeing that, I think I'll assume the worst and nurse my way to the nearest airfield with people already watching out for me and getting the heck out of my way.

Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Well, let's remember that I was not acting PIC at the moment it occurred or during the approach... at the time, I didn't suggest he declare an emergency because he seemed to have it well in hand.
By the time my imagination had run to thoughts of the rudder coming off or something, we were already on final, so the point became moot. I've never seen a more beautiful runway in my life... it looked like frikkin' Shangri-La. Even though we were facing possible problems with tailwheel steering (based on our assumptions), I think we were both relieved to clear the fence; it seemed like we'd do just fine.
There were a few planes in the pattern, but nobody holding short for the active... this added to the sense of relief.


BUT... afterwards, Bob told me that in retrospect, he should probably have declared a "Pan-Pan", or at least alluded to our problem (which would have explained the long straight-in to everyone in the pattern), but I think his hindsight was influenced by the sight of what he was really flying with after we landed. ;)
I guess it just didn't seem too bad to him, although if it had gotten worse as he slowed up for descent, I'm sure he'd have made a more grave announcement.

My thought? Well, if it ever happens to me again, any sign of damage that prompts me to head for the nearest runway, I will announce "possible damage; precautionary landing", whether I say "Pan-Pan" or not.

I think Bob would agree- it's best to offer anyone in the pattern or holding short some warning that it could be a "non-standard" arrival.
 
Last edited:
A very similar thing happened to my buddy Mike while flying his Pitts near Hinckley some years ago. He was out doing aerobatics at sunset, then we saw him suddenyl return and land *very* hot....barely stopped....came out with a look on his face that sais he cheated death.

Then he brought us over to see a very similar top wing surface.

Yikes - glad it all turned out well. And I have a few hours in that airplane while working on my taildragger sign off a few years back at Poplar....
 
I just heard from someone else today that the clips are supposed to be the right way to do it and that these wings are never stitched...:dunno:

I guess I shouldn't worry about all that much when flying 140s because of the World According to Garp factor: what are the odds that this would happen to me again? :D
 
WOW. I'd have needed new pants after I saw that.

As for why it kept flying: While there is still a little disagreement as to how portions of lift is generated, the Venturi effect is only a small part. Hence, the bottom skin (which would preserve the pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing) would keep the wing producing lift. In fact, except for the form drag because of the draggy inside of the wing, that portion of the wing was probably producing nearly full lift for a relatively lightly loaded situation at a lowish angle of attack.

~ Christopher
 
955 said:
Yikes - glad it all turned out well. And I have a few hours in that airplane while working on my taildragger sign off a few years back at Poplar....
Click to expand...

Did you do that with Bob? He's a good instructor- doesn't pull any punches, but he wants you to have fun.

And that plane, despite this discrepancy, is OK in my book... I enjoyed flying it.
 
This story was actually mentioned in the latest episode of Uncontrolled Airspace (#70), and was the topic of discussion for a good while. Listen about 47 minutes in... Someone posted it from the C120/C140 forum.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
This story was actually mentioned in the latest episode of Uncontrolled Airspace (#70), and was the topic of discussion for a good while. Listen about 47 minutes in... Someone posted it from the C120/C140 forum.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I am using a really lame hotel WiFi connection and that site just won't load... guess I'll have to listen to it when I get back home.

I hope whoever introduced the topics got their facts straight...
 
Somebody sent me a link to the NTSB report, if anyone's interested... kinda cool to see one's flight written up by the NTSB... very cool to be alive to read it, and not be blamed for the mishap at all. I'm part of an elite group... kinda like the Caterpillar Club. :D

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080310X00291&key=1


Another interesting thing is that what I heard initially about the work done was inaccurate, as far as dates, etc. are concerned: as I first suspected, this was a repair job, not a resto job to meet punch-test requirements or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it seemed to be a pretty much copy-and-paste from a post on the C120/C140 forum. The story there seemed to hold pretty much in-line with what you wrote here. I also linked this thread on their forum so people could come here and get more information.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top