In the CX-4 crash, did you notice the missing prop flange? I know they're saying the prop came off, but there's nothing sticking out of the crankcase. Looks like the crank broke, which also explains the oil on the windshield.
I’m guessing the telephoto lens made it look a lot closer than it was, but that was definitely a runway incision and the go-around was justified and mandated by the regulations.Almost crash:
The story I heard (3rd party hearsay) was the prop flange (prop adapter??) came apart from the crankshaft, which would explain why you didn't see it. If the propeller lost a blade in flight, chances are it would have torn the engine loose form the mount, and you would see a badly bent up cowling, perhaps with the engine hanging under it. So IMHO the whole propeller mount flange departing would explain why there is nothing showing on the front of the engine.In the CX-4 crash, did you notice the missing prop flange? I know they're saying the prop came off, but there's nothing sticking out of the crankcase. Looks like the crank broke, which also explains the oil on the windshield.
I don’t know much about the Murphy Moose, but a friend of mine was an aerobatic show pilot and was asked by the Murphy factory to fly a demo in the Murphy Renegade during a show in Florida. Being unfamiliar with the plane, he flew a conservative routine. On the back half of a loop, the entire upper wing leading edge folded up and back from the front spar. He was low over trees and had full up elevator to keep the nose from tucking. He got out of the plane but was in the trees before his chute was fully inflated. IIRC, he ended up with breaks to his legs and ankles. A later review of the design showed that there was too much insupported wing structure forward of the spar (the spar was set further back in the airfoil compared to most common designs). This was the early days for the Murphy line, so this design issue may have been corrected since then.We lost three more people yesterday in a crash that destroyed a Murphy Moose with a brand new set of amphib floats and a check pilot who was there to train the owner, just outside Edmonton, Alberta. Eye witness accounts indicate the engine quit and they where only 50 foot altitude so too little time to take any corrective measures. What surprised me the most was the total destruction of the fuselage. Crashworthiness has certainly gotten a lot more of my attention in the last few weeks. There are hundreds of research articles and developments since the 1960's, but we certainly need to do more. Simple things like wearing a helmet with head and neck restraints and a 5 point seat belt harness with a CFRP seats might have made a difference in this crash - for the rear passenger at least.
Cessna added a drooped leading edge to the outboard wing panels in 1973 which gave the underside of the wing some undercamber just aft of the leading edge. That change which Cessna called the "Camber-lift" wing made the 172 almost idiot proof. Very docile stall and nearly impossible to spin.Is built year 1975 ok for a C-172 ?