On June 11, 1999, at 0630 central daylight time, a Cessna T188C agricultural airplane, N9659J, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain during a forced landing, following a partial loss of engine power during takeoff initial climb near Panhandle, Texas. The airplane was registered to and operated by Stamps Spraying Service Inc., of Panhandle, Texas. The commercial pilot, sole occupant of the airplane, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 137 aerial application flight, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight was originating from the Stamps Field Airport, Panhandle, Texas, at the time of the accident. According to the 2,333-hour pilot, the preflight inspection and before takeoff engine run-up revealed no discrepancies. The airplane departed from runway 17, reached an altitude of approximately 75 feet agl, and began to "settle to the ground." The pilot initiated an emergency dump of the airplane's chemical load. The airplane continued to settle, and the spray booms "started to drag in a wheat field," which "caused the airplane to be pulled down into the field." The pilot attempted "to maintain control and land;" however, the airplane contacted the ground with the left main landing gear, which separated 3 inches above the axle. Subsequently, the airplane groundlooped and slid 60 feet, coming to a stop upright. An FAA inspector examined the airplane at the accident site and reported that the left wing, including the spars, was structurally damaged. He added that the propeller blades tips were bent back. The 310-horsepower Continental TSIO-520-T1B engine, was examined by another FAA inspector. According to the inspector, the engine underwent its most recent annual inspection on May 23, 1999, and had accumulated a total of 1,440 hours at the time of the accident. The examination revealed that each spark plug produced a spark when tested and each electrode was free of sediment. Each of the magneto leads produced a spark when the impulse coupling was rotated. The oil filter was removed and observed free of contaminants. A compression check of each cylinder was performed. Compression was within manufacturer's specifications in each of the cylinders, except for the number 5 cylinder. The number 5 cylinder produced a compression of 34/80 (manufacturer's specifications state that the acceptable compression is 60/80). The airframe and engine were removed from the examination facility by the owner, without authorization by the FAA or NTSB, and no further examination was conducted.