I've put up a composite image of a low and high bank impact at the tracks, with a computer model Electra approximately to scale.

https://ibb.co/ctkqEb

This isn't evidence or anything, just intended to help visualize.

Hi cordwainer.

Here: "Realistically, none of these agencies or companies has anything to lose by releasing archived records from a closed, 55-year-old, well-publicized public investigation. But I began my research from a point of cynicism as to whether some of the people you contacted for information really knew what they were talking about. Or if they pointed you in another direction just because they didn't want to be bothered. Both are a lot more likely than them trying to hide something or stonewall you."

I must disagree. No matter the length of time involved, any reopening of a "cold case" brings with it the possibility of civil and criminal litigation.

Why? Because in the US, there is no limit to prosecution or litigation IF it can be reasonably demonstrated that there was fraud in any official testimony related to the incident. Fraud can be demonstrated easier than one may think, since even an "innocent" representation that is false might be construed as fraud.

I most certainly am not trying to suggest there was any thing improper in this investigation.

They couldn't be locked directly, that would involve a "disable" switch and in an emergency, no one wants to create risk because Lockheed thinks the aircraft needs to have co ordinated turns "at all times"....any deviation from expected turn behavior would have alerted the crew to a problem, perhaps it was the initial clue for your Dad?

I brought up the early turn earlier. I base my thought on your video, which shows the aircraft turning at extremely low altitude, and since the Electra never exceeded 300 feet AGL as testified to by ATC, one could conclude it initiated a turn at an altitude barely equivalent to its wingspan. "Wind Shear" was not well understood in 1961, but subjecting a passenger transport to ground contact due to an itinerant "down draft" was on every pilot's mind.

BTW, such a shallow climb on departure would catch ATC attention, for sure. More evidence the flight path was not actually consistent with the reported "understanding" of it by the report. More evidence of that reposes in the ALPA statement the Electra was "nearly inverted".... Were there witnesses who saw the actual impact?

The rudder and aileron aren't locked, it's just a spring-loaded link that takes fairly moderate force to overcome. Somewhere in my manuals I probably have more detail.

They were very low, and the reports' glossing over this puzzles me. They were at about half the typical altitude when they passed the tower. I understand the Electra takes off like a reusable rocket, compared to piston planes of the day. Speaking as a veteran Electra simulator pilot, it was hard to keep the thing low and slow. :)

I'm confident the CAB was cherry-picking witness statements. At the point where I say the bank started reducing, the CAB concedes that the rate of increase might have briefly stopped. I think that was their concession to voices who they decided to more or less dismiss. In my simulator run I showed what the same flight would have looked like from different viewpoints, and only someone pretty straight-on to the path would have seen the flattening from a distance. No one in the immediate crash area was quoted in the papers.

I don't know how thick the trees were between the RR impact site and the tower. Page 172 shows a clear line between the tower and the and the RR track in the direction of the final wreckage, but I don't know that they could see the RR impact site. My 1960 construction picture https://ibb.co/krms0w seems to match the ground appearance on page 172, and it shows a block of possible trees just east of the impact site. So the visual contact might have been lost to the tower there.

Starting to work on modeling the site, using the elevation lines to contour it. Figured out in the model where the Trib page 19 picture was taken from by trial-and-error on the model. The Trib picture, my recreation, and a shot of my work surface are at https://ibb.co/cR1GAG

This will let me precisely locate trees and wreckage on the topo map. You can validate the result by clipping the recreation view, making it half transparent, and floating it over the Trib image. In the image of my work surface, the camera is the orange triangle thing. I have a couple other images to use in the same way.

Found a couple errors in my document. On page 35 I thought the station wagon was on the train tracks and we were looking at a berm on the embankment. I realized after modeling the site that there is no berm, the vehicle was on the access road, and the picture was taken from the west side of the top of the embankment.

On page 41 I thought a white line running diagonally from the service road to the center left was a measuring tape, with investigators apparently standing along it. I suspect it's a crowd control tape, and the people there are onlookers.

I've been curious about the space between the trees on the sides of the crash path. It didn't look wide enough for the plane to get through, but I presumed it was an artifact of my perspective. So plotting those trees was a primary interest in doing this virtual scene.

I've posted an image at https://ibb.co/kjvsvR

This shows the trees plotted using the graphic mentioned in the last post. The airplane is to scale and is positioned at ground level. There's not enough room for the plane to fit through there either nose- or tail-first, even lacking a substantial part of the right wing. It could conceivably fit through sideways, since the forward fuselage was missing by that time. Interesting.

ETA: image https://ibb.co/g83Fnb is a close-up of the gap, composed from film frames. No trees appear to be lying down or damaged. No obvious branches on the ground.

Two points to mention regarding trees. The first is that any reasonably stout tree will resist any vehicular impact with the only damage being some stripped bark which regenerates in a few months. I have personal experience of this, revisiting the same tree to write up multiple accident reports over several years,

Secondly, if the aircraft was already banked over at a significant angle, it would pass through the gap in the trees without making contact with either side. That would be in agreement with the findings of the original crash investigators who believed the aircraft hit the railroad embankment with a very high angle of bank.

Perhaps this is the basis of the somersault speculation.

Your investigations have certainly helped to fill in vital gaps in the investigation reports curently available, but they also increasingly tend to support the findings of the original investigators in many ways. I find that rather reassuring in the sense that the crash investigation appears to have been conducted with all the care and diligence expected given the tools, methods, and equipment available at the time. Professionalism at its best. Just like today, the press reports appear to be full of inaccuracies, speculation and a certain amount of sensationalism. Gilding the lily a bit to sell more papers perhaps.

The true story may not be ending quite how you wish it to be, but it is certainly proving to be a most interesting journey through aviation history.

I don't want it to end any particular way, though I understand people think I do. It's obvious the CAB got it wrong, and I want to know what happened. My goal is to come up with a scenario that survives criticism by apparently knowledgeable people and fits what facts we have or can reasonably deduce.

The significant bank is possible. In my document I suggested the plane was in a right bank due to the loss of part of the right wing. A bounce high enough to clear the lower trees, particularly on the north side of the crash path, is possible. Too soon to say, at this point.

If the wing spar could shift a pair of railroad tracks six to nine inches over a distance of twenty feet or whatever, I think it could take out a nontrivial tree trunk. The Constellation crash tests chopped phone poles. Beyond that, don't know about the tree damage. My working assumption is that the plane didn't hit them.

I've got a decent NWA paint job on the plane, so I can do some better illustrations for the next version. I'm working on additional vantage reconstructions to nail down locations on the map.

From the photograph, I think it is safe to say that no substantial part of the aircraft contacted the trees on either side.

There are three possible reasons;
the aircraft was at a high angle of bank as it passed between the trees
the aircraft bounced over the trees after initial impact
the aircraft somersaulted and pivoted around the trees in some way

A fourth option that should technically be considered for the sake of completeness is that the trees were not in the path of the aircraft. I think this can be safely ignored after fairly cursory examination of the evidence.

A high angle of bank would be the the simplest conclusion that fits the other observations at the scene. A turning (twisting) and bouncing somersault would also fit with the final disposition of the wreckage, especially with the nose section broken away. Certainly a combination of the two is possible, accounting for the tail ending up facing the direction of travel.

A simple wings level bounce over the trees is the least likely scenario.

A lesson learned from accident investigation, avoid hitting earth banks and trees. Neither will give an inch in a collision so if the structural damage doesn't get you, the instant deceleration forces certainly will.

The CAB said the plane slid right side up and tail first. The plane was upside down and tail first. The CAB got it wrong. Simple as that. Your steadfast refusal to confront that fact tells me much. The questions then are: What else did they get wrong? How did the plane get into that position? How much of what the CAB said do we have to discard before the remainder makes sense?

My object is to find out what happened. My dad is my hero regardless what this accident turns out to be. That's pretty normal, actually. He was a terrific guy. The drive-by psychoanalysis is typical and boring, but I understand it and am not offended. It's a pity that the instant psychoanalysis often cuts off thinking about the actual issues. I'm willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your snap judgment makes that impossible for you to do.

That's unfortunate.

You've contributed two substantive ideas. First, that the bank angle would have left a mark on the wing when it hit the power line and that the power line breaks if measured would also tell the angle. Neither is mentioned in the reports, and your conjecture doesn't make them evidence. Second, you said the wingtip would have left a mark in the embankment. Since the image quality is too poor to make it out, we don't know what that mark was.

Beyond that, you object to this project because I'm not a licensed crash investigator, which is quite true. My most intense familiarity with big planes comes from paying part of my college by polishing the bellies of NWA jets. This put me on intimate terms with the underside of an airplane, which is probably why I could detect that the plane was upside down, a factoid that eluded the professionally trained CAB investigators.

You also objected because the people who wrote the report are no longer here to defend it. Presumably this would forbid the study of history as a whole, and I dismiss that objection entirely.

You're my favorite contributor. You've hated this project from the start, and if anyone was going to find flaws in it that person would be you. You've never posted anything here that I wasn't pleased to see.

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." Winston Churchill

I find it amazing that you can't see the contradiction in your own posts.

Please state a contradiction.

For those who haven't read my report, I'll make it easy.

https://ibb.co/d7dk26 is page four of the CAB report, saying the plane slid tail first and upright until it stopped.

https://ibb.co/kvz8N6 is a press photo of the main wreckage, showing the plane is upside down. If it's not immediately obvious to you, note the position of the main gear. It retracts forward from the main spar, and the brake lines which are behind the wheels end up below the main strut when retracted. You're looking at the bottom of the wing, and the leading edge is to the left.

There it is, real simple. Either the plane is NOT upside down, or the CAB is wrong. Take your choice.

Once you accept that the CAB is wrong, the questions are: How did the plane get there? What else did the CAB get wrong? How much of the official reports do we have to discard before what's left makes sense?

For the purposes of this discussion, let's say it rotated in some fashion about its vertical axis as it slid. This of course means the CAB was wrong in saying it slid tail first the final 820 feet.

So now it's at a stop after sliding 820 feet upright. How did it flip over? Note that the leading edge is facing back the way it came and it's still tail-first. If it slid tail-first and upright, when it flipped over the wings had to swap left-for-right. If it slid nose-first and upright, what flipped it after it stopped? Any guess how that was done?

I appreciate your enthusiastic defense of your fellow investigators, but at some point it seems like reality should start to impinge.

From the final position of the a/craft.

The wingbox is intact, the main spar is intact from outboard #2 to outboard #3.

The tail section appears to have remained partially attached.

The V/S is intact save for crumpling at its peak. The HS are intact.

And the structure is upside down. I don’t see any ruts consistent with “slide”.

There is a long rut at a bias of about sixty degrees to the structure, but it is continuous on both sides, and appears to be man made.

There is wing structure visible outboard of both MLG, and upper cowling of #3 is present next to the wheels of Starboard landing gear.

“Sliding” would appear to be not supported by the photographic evidence IMO. The tail cone would be corrupted extensively, and the orientation of wing box/tail would similarly have been less suggestive of structural continuity.

What I see would suggest that this wreckage had been airborne just prior to impact at this location. In other words, it flopped onto the ground, it did not slide.

As to CAB, I think it is a reach to have concluded the cause of this accident within hours of its occurrence. Their text on page four suggests that a turn was initiated while the aircraft was still on the ground. It also suggests a climbing turn. For that to have occurred as they describe, the maximum altitude attained would have had to have been at least twice that of what ATC testified to.

Also, from page four, it states five witnesses report a change in “engine noise” as the turn was initiated.
There would be NO reason to change thrust this early in take off, unless there was something else going on. “Noise abatement”? Doubt it.

The Electra has thrust levers, not throttles. Engines maintain approx. 13000 rpm. What they heard is likely a change in propellor pitch. Most turboprops make far more noise with the propellors than engines.

Five witnesses? Remarkable. If the aircraft was on runway heading when the turn initiated, and altitude was as low as reported, Why the concurrent noise change? A change in heading absent aileron means a thrust problem. Gearbox? Pitch pressure? The aircraft would be at takeoff power, so a change in noise might indicate engine trouble. Not even addressed by CAB.

My first inclination having this data would not be aileron malfunction. Loss of thrust on the right side? In any case, without discussion, CAB concluded the cause virtually immediately. Right side aileron was determined to be in three degree up, (wing down) post crash. Three degrees is one third of aileron deflection available without boost, in manual. Maximum aileron in boost mode is over thirty degrees.

Pretty weak in roll command. At first blush, not nearly enough to have caused this accident...

Short of rejecting CAB’s conclusion, what is important is conduct, incomplete analysis, and a rush to judgment. How many cable sets command boost? What is suggested by testimony of change in noise level? It doesn’t take a dunce cap to associate change in noise level with lackluster climb. Why is boost off done by mechanically pulling a handle, which loops a continuation of pressure? Why not switch off the electric pumps? No chance of jamming the boost off handle, no need to move the wheel to alleviate a stalled piston?

Not exactly an exhaustive investigation.

Some thoughts on interpreting the final wreckage image at https://ibb.co/kvz8N6

When I first noticed the crossways ditch, I thought it was something the farmer dug. This was some kind of squash/pumpkin patch, and the reports mention the wreckage among the squash. But the ditch doesn't seem to collect from anywhere or debouch to anywhere. There are no other ditches in the area.

Perhaps the farmer dug a ditch that has a slight dogleg that matches an Electra dihedral. Perhaps he dug it where a plane would crash a few days later. I can't prove it one way or another. If anyone wants to weigh in on that, have at it.

But let's hypothesize for the moment that this was an artifact of the crash, and let's see where that hypothesis leads us. This is how science is done.

Let's say the plane was sliding nose-first to its final destination, and as it slowed it was digging into the soft ground. As dirt built up ahead of it it would tend to dig in even more. As the weight of ground slowed it, the tail would start to kick up, sort of like a car hitting a retaining wall. At some point the tail would pitch over.

If the ditch were dug by the leading edges, it would have roughly the plan it does. But it shows no sign of dirt scooping from the left side. Instead the ditch is quite symmetrical, near as we can judge. So if the ditch was caused by the leading edge, the leading edge was coming down from some height. It need not have been coming down vertically, but it must have been coming down at not much more than the slope angle of the left wall of the ditch. Let's say 30 degrees for convenience.

Here's an experiment you can safely do at home. Take a kleenex box and put it on the desk in front of you, and imagine some line at which the sliding plane would scoop enough dirt that it would hit the retaining wall and start to pitch over. The box long side is the fuselage long dimension; the short side is the fuselage width. Slide the box until it hits the retaining wall point and tilt it over. It briefly stands on its short side, and then tilts on over to rest on the cabin roof.

The box is now as far from your retaining wall line as the box is tall. If you assume some skidding it might be farther, but it can't be less. The top of the cabin is a fulcrum on which the fuselage will rotate, and the more intact the cabin the farther from the ditch it will land.

If you like, chop a bevel in your kleenex box to simulate a partially collapsed cabin. The box will end up not quite so far away, but still well clear of the ditch. If you don't want to tear up your kleenex box, it's all illustrated on page 54 of my document. https://we.tl/beXUsgYPvX

In the image in question, the only way for the plane to end up athwart the ditch is for it to bounce into the air. The cabin height is 13 feet. This means (if the ditch is an artifact of this crash) that the plane bounced at least 13 feet into the air.

What drove this bounce? Electra wings are notoriously stiff vertically. This plane had been through the LEAP program so they were even stiffer. I have no data on fore-and-aft elasticity of Electra wings, but I'm prepared to say they had virtually none. But the main gear was present, the inboard nacelles were stripped, and the main gear seems to my untutored eye like an adequate explanation for the bounce.

So I conjecture that the plane came down at an angle, the wings cut the visible ditch, the main gear bounced the plane back up at least 13 feet, as it continued to pitch over.

I don't know the angle it came down at. It might have been near vertical, it might have been anything down to the slope angle of the ditch left wall. I doubt it could have been much less, but depending on the dirt collapse it is unclear. The issue here is not how high the plane was as it descended, but how much energy it had. It need not have come down from more than 13 feet in order to bounce 13 feet.

This tells me the plane arrived at the final site not by sliding but by some aerial trajectory of mostly unknown specifics.

If anyone would like to propose an alternate explanation for what we see, I'd be delighted to hear it. This is simply what the picture says to me.

Hi....

But there is a fence post in the ditch six feet East of the landing gear. At the bottom, and vertical. It even has a sign on it.

The ditch is a gulley, with a neat and narrow trench at its bottom. The trench is six inches wide, the spar is almost two feet.

The trench was supposed to get a pipe laid in it, likely for water.

The gulley is almost two hundred feet long. What was left of the wing at this location was no more than fifty feet in span. How did the wreckage miss the fence post but carve a continuous gulley through it?

The wreck may have slid. If it did, it was heading whilst upright, heading forward. The wheels fell into the gulley, and the assembly “pitch poled”, landing upside down, “facing” South. Tail on its VS.

In the last fifty feet of its journey, there was little energy left, that disappeared as it rotated end for end. Then it caught fire.

I took it for a piece of debris embedded in the ground. Hard to see someone digging a ditch and then putting a post in the middle of it, or digging a ditch and leaving the post. No other posts in the area.

https://ibb.co/dixuVR is a closeup of it. No sign.

If it predates the crash it shoots down my hypothesis, of course.

Gotta go run errands, back later.

https://ibb.co/nN6UVR is an image of the left wing. The report said it was broken in two places but was present at the final site.