I think the pilot was killed instantly inflight by air loads (accelerations)long before he hit.*facepalm*
In flight break up doesn't kill you.... the acceleration of hitting the ground does.
There is no such thing as "decelleration" BTW
I voiced my suspicions in this post: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/hangar-flying/19724-gp-5-goes-down-reno-pilot-killed.html#post234739NTSB said a portion of the right wing separated.
Was that wing repaired from a previous incident?
Was that a gear collapse on rollout?I voiced my suspicions in this post: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/hangar-flying/19724-gp-5-goes-down-reno-pilot-killed.html#post234739
View attachment 34785
Lighter control surfaces obviously means less relative weight in the controls, meaning less balancing weight etc.Lighter controls (relatively) also are great for flutter.
So a wing built of balsa is superior or on par with steel and aluminum?What matters for flutter is stiffness per pound of weight. Typical wood (spruce, balsa) is on par with both steel and alu and only superseded by carbon.
As toobuilder alludes, wood has a huge advantage and can result in much lighter control surfaces. Why? Most aircraft parts are sized for stiffness/counter buckling. Figure of merit is stiffness over density cubed. Wood is orders of magnitude better as most other materials there. Lighter control surfaces obviously means less relative weight in the controls, meaning less balancing weight etc. Lighter controls (relatively) also are great for flutter.
A great weight avalanche if you can ride it out.
I would say the wing was ill suited for air racing at high speeds. Brewster Buffalo had Vne of 620 km/h. One of our aces was able to increase the dihedral of one specimen at a tight turn ( high G-load ). It had similarly tapering wing.If aileron flutter is the cause, and people point to wood as undesirable as a construction medium, take a look at the ailerons on a F4U Corsair. They're made of wood... In large part to cure an aileron flutter issue with that airplane.
I’m not certain just what about the wing made it “ill suited for air racing at high speeds”, but the NTSB concluded:I would say the wing was ill suited for air racing at high speeds.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The failure of the right wing under normal race loads due to an improper repair of the right wing spar that reduced its structural strength following a previous landing accident.
A pilot I respect very much told me "speed is not your friend".I don't think any conclusions ought to be drawn yet as to the cause of the crash. Lots of slow airplanes have lost wings, too - including the one in the HBX Crash Analysis thread. There's nothing "different" about speed, provided you've designed properly for it.
Speed doesn't kill. Sudden deceleration kills.