Peter wrote:
There is one other case I know of, in Sweden.
Do you know when?
There is one other case I know of, in Sweden.
Also one in Belgium: PH-UBG in 2001. The aircraft disintegrated in flight after encountering turbulence and icing.
Peter wrote:
A search onTB20 AND SWEDEN
digs out this and he might know more.
Already when he posted that I searched the online archives of the Accident Investigation Authority and found nothing. They go back to 1995.
lenthamen wrote:
Also one in Belgium: PH-UBG in 2001. The aircraft disintegrated in flight after encountering turbulence and icing.
That is the one that killed Hein Jonkers from Dutch Flight Support :( . As I recall they encountered Towering Cumulus.
Peter wrote:
The final NTSB report has surfaced for N654GT
That appears to have nothing to do with the plane being a TB20. Anything will break up if you overstress it after losing control.
Nor does the Belgian accident. Again loss of control in IMC overstresing airframe.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
As I recall they encountered Towering Cumulus.
If an encounter with towering cumulus can break an aeroplane I would be dead one hundred times by now. It must have been more than that.
JasonC wrote:
Anything will break up if you overstress it after losing control.
Would have struts prevented the wing from breaking? Can we regard the Cessna construction as safer?
highflyer wrote:
Would have struts prevented the wing from breaking? Can we regard the Cessna construction as safer?
If an otherwise equally strong wing is reinforced with struts then it will of course bear more load. But this would carry a weight penalty and therefore no one does that. The strut of the Cessnas enables them to build a lighter and less strong wing. The reason for it is not additional strength, but similar strength with less mass. The price to pay is increased drag, which at C152 speeds does not really do much harm, as opposed to TB20 speeds.
