Fantome is entitled to his opinion. That is all it is. One mans opinion. Is fantome an aircrash investigator. An investigator of any sort? Does he know more than John watkins of TAA fame? It may be of interest that John Watkins investigated one of the 9 documented crashes in the R&M publication that happened here in Australia. There was a witness on the ground who looked up when he heard the aircraft and actually saw the wing come off the aircraft. I had many long conversations with John about the Hinkler crash. John's opinion is contained in the 1979 second edition of Solo by Mackenzie that fantome has not bothered to read.
Do not denigrate the opinions of others. Opinions based on years of research and information contained in ARC R & M 1699 Report on Puss Moth Accidents plus correspondence between the Italian Air Ministry and the Air Attache at the British Embassy in Rome. Perhaps one should obtain a copy of said document and have a read. Then consider the information contained therein.
If there is an official explanation for the crash of CF-APK then it is accepted as wing flutter causing the wing to separate from the fuselage in flight. Hinkler's crash was one of 9 such documented cases. Seems fantome knows much more than the experts who put together the report on Puss Moth crashes.
I do take exception to people who pretend friendship in order to advance their own causes and post private emails on a forum without even asking permission first. So my ideas have no merit because fantome has no confidence in the credentials of the Italian Air Ministry? So where does that leave his "outhouse musings"? No evidence there at all. It is a fact that the wing separated from the fuselage in flight. If fantome does not wish to accept historical fact, that is his problem.
The simple laws of physics indicate that it is not possible for an aircraft to fly so low as to strike a tree and shed a wing then have the remaining wreckage continue on for 250 metres without striking the ground. Simply not possible.
Hinkler was trying to break the record for flight from England to Australia so would have been travelling at maximum speed. Crossing the Atlantic in the same aircraft would have him flying in maximum endurance mode. Lang Kidby suggests Hinkler was trying to descend through bad weather so what was it? Weather good? Weather bad? Can't have both. Anyone heard of turbulence around mountains? Maximum speed, extreme turbulence, design fault that makes aircraft susceptible to flutter, defect in weld that allows a bolt to move thus allowing even more pronounced flutter, wing separates from fuselage, 250 metres between wing and rest of wreckage. Hinkler deceased. Official documentation/correspondence between Italian Air Ministry and British Embassy states definitely that aircraft did not strike tree. I rest my case.
Last edited by ian.whalley; 6th August 2012 at 07:37.
Reason: further information