Talk:1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tri-tailplane more likely to have been lost mid-flight and hit the DC-9 on the way down.
Line 54: Line 54:
:Look closely at the illustration, the right alieron is clearly raised, as it would be in a right bank. I would imagine that the force of impact with the left wing would cause a roll to the left despite the control input for right bank. [[User:Wschart|Wschart]] ([[User talk:Wschart|talk]]) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
:Look closely at the illustration, the right alieron is clearly raised, as it would be in a right bank. I would imagine that the force of impact with the left wing would cause a roll to the left despite the control input for right bank. [[User:Wschart|Wschart]] ([[User talk:Wschart|talk]]) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


I've just watched the National Geographic tv representation of events which repeatedly showed the United DC-7 banking to the right IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the TWA Constellation in front of it! The pilot is seen to push the controls forward into a sharp dive, which seems sensible, but the computer graphics show the plane banking sharply. There's an elephant in the room here; the experienced pilot would have no reason to bank in order to avoid a collision. If he did, he would have instinctively banked to the left. The TWA is assumed to be flying level with the DC-7 approaching from behind and to the right. A banking maneuver takes a lot of time to accomplish, whilst a straight dive is much quicker. The events simply don't stack-up. I wish that the evidence of the 'paint' on the wreckage had been photographed and made public. The three deep gouges equidistant apart piqued my interest and signifies a left-field solution to the conundrum imv. The loss of tailplanes in aircraft accidents is a recurring feature and reminded me of the horrendous 1985 incident of Japan Airlines 123 which lost it's tailplane mid-flight and eventually crashed into a mountain side. [[Special:Contributions/176.24.226.120|176.24.226.120]] ([[User talk:176.24.226.120|talk]]) 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.
I've just watched the National Geographic tv representation of events which repeatedly showed the United DC-7 banking to the right IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the TWA Constellation in front of it! The pilot is seen to push the controls forward into a sharp dive, which seems sensible, but the computer graphics concentrate on the plane banking sharply. There's an elephant in the room here; the experienced pilot would have no reason to bank in order to avoid a collision. Even if he did, he would have instinctively banked to the left. The Constellation is assumed to be flying level with the DC-7 approaching from behind and to the right. A banking maneuver takes a lot of time to accomplish, whilst a straight dive is much quicker. The events simply don't stack-up. In hindsight, it's more likely that the TWA Constellation lost it's tri-tailplane mid-flight and the piece then hit the DC-7 on the way down. The loss of tailplanes in aircraft accidents is a recurring feature and reminded me of the horrendous 1985 incident of Japan Airlines 123 which lost it's tailplane mid-flight and eventually crashed into a mountain side. (P.S. The three deep gouges equidistant apart piqued my interest and signifies a left-field solution to the conundrum imv) [[Special:Contributions/176.24.226.120|176.24.226.120]] ([[User talk:176.24.226.120|talk]]) 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

Revision as of 16:58, 24 June 2013

Fair use rationale for Image:Grandcanyoncrash.jpg

Image:Grandcanyoncrash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More history

I have added info to the article and have re-organized it. I was 11 years old at the time of this accident and very interested in anything to which wings and engines had been attached. I still recall in detail the national uproar that this tragedy caused.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization & additional material

I have added info to the article and have re-organized it with citations to several sources.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst for change citations

Due to illness, my opportunities to continue editing this article and add the needed citations to the Catalyst for change section have been very limited. I have the necessary material but have not been well enough to engage in extended work. I hope to get back to it soon.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of memorials

I have added two photos of TWA memorial from my recent trip through Flagstaff. I wanted to go to the Grand Canyon to get the United memorial, but time got the better of me. Next time. Chloe93 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The description of the collision states "Post-crash analysis determined that the United DC-7 was banked to the right and pitched down at the time of the collision, suggesting that one or possibly both of the United pilots saw the TWA Constellation seconds before impact and that evasive action was attempted". However, the picture in this article appears to show the DC-7 banked to the left, turning towards the TWA Constellation. 82.1.57.194 (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at the illustration, the right alieron is clearly raised, as it would be in a right bank. I would imagine that the force of impact with the left wing would cause a roll to the left despite the control input for right bank. Wschart (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watched the National Geographic tv representation of events which repeatedly showed the United DC-7 banking to the right IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the TWA Constellation in front of it! The pilot is seen to push the controls forward into a sharp dive, which seems sensible, but the computer graphics concentrate on the plane banking sharply. There's an elephant in the room here; the experienced pilot would have no reason to bank in order to avoid a collision. Even if he did, he would have instinctively banked to the left. The Constellation is assumed to be flying level with the DC-7 approaching from behind and to the right. A banking maneuver takes a lot of time to accomplish, whilst a straight dive is much quicker. The events simply don't stack-up. In hindsight, it's more likely that the TWA Constellation lost it's tri-tailplane mid-flight and the piece then hit the DC-7 on the way down. The loss of tailplanes in aircraft accidents is a recurring feature and reminded me of the horrendous 1985 incident of Japan Airlines 123 which lost it's tailplane mid-flight and eventually crashed into a mountain side. (P.S. The three deep gouges equidistant apart piqued my interest and signifies a left-field solution to the conundrum imv) 176.24.226.120 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.[reply]