Essentially, Jetstream Rider has it correct. It was Chicago and it was a DC-10. The engine didn’t actually fail, per se. The problem was the manner in which the mating and de-mating of the engine to the wing was accomplished – a fork-lift truck was used instead of the approved procedure, and it damaged the attach points between the engine and the wing. When the airplane rolled down the runway for takeoff everything was going fine; however, at rotation, more stress was placed on the engine attach bolts. The rear attach bolt failed and allowed the rear of the engine to drop down, actually pivoting on the front bolt(s), slinging the engine up and over the leading edge of the wing, tearing out fuel lines and hydraulic lines in the process. The engine departed the airplane – so the term “engine loss” took on a whole new meaning. With the rupture of the hydraulic lines, the pressure in those lines (that was keeping the leading edge flaps and slats held in the extended position) was lost and those devices retracted. The speed that the airplane had achieved was probably sufficient to maintain aileron effectiveness sufficiently to counter the roll - where the roll was caused by yaw due to the asymmetric thrust and the asymmetric lift with the absence of the leading edge devices. As the airplane slowed down to V2 speed, this aileron effectiveness lessened and the pilot was unable to control the roll, resulting in a nose down, rolling impact just off the airport property.