Hi. After loss of #4 and the wing area with it, wasn’t the next impact the remainder of the right wing? The main wing spar excavated a ditch deeper than the surrounding wing structure? Next impact was the forward fuselage?
Not sure what CG change would do. Why is that important? The structure is not an airplane any longer? All control lost, everything is ballistic?
I understand your investment in establishing an accurate debris propagation. To support your theory of “reducing bank and attempting a belly landing”, I draw attention to the orientation of the right aileron in its pocket when the right wing tip impacted the rising portion of RR embankment.
There was a crushing scar on the outboard face of the inboard pocket rib. Since the embankment was the first ground impact, we can say that the evidence found is at least as worthy as the gyro horizon face, indicating ninety degrees Bank. It is legend to invest sacred truth to obliterated structure, “it impacted at 9:01, that’s where the hands of the clock were....”.
This scar was left by the Alclad hem of the lower skin of the right aileron. It showed the aileron was deflected three degrees in the up (wing down) position. That tells me that not only was roll control regained, but the ailerons were deflected manually, with the three to one mechanical advantage the design afforded. If CAB theory is correct, no such finding can be made. Aileron Control was not totally lost, and they were not “along for the ride”.
Somebody show me a turnbuckle. Make a case for “unthreaded cable”.
I do know Lockheed designed the tankage to minimize CG variation with fuel consumption. The fuel was oriented span wise.
The Electra was a groundbreaking design. I don’t buy the theory that absence of a safety wire brought this aircraft down.
http://dotlibrary.specialcollection....ry=(select+732)
Instructive, but still “the cable unscrewed”. I believe this is a myth. Aircraft cables are robust, and cannot rotate, twist, or unscrew from a threaded connector.