crashed

[jack374dn]

Originally Posted by hharney

I don't know which optional tanks it had. Given the winglets are Aviation Enterprises maybe the fuel cells are also. I know that some of the optional tip tanks do have a jetison system so that if you have to land before exhausting the fuel the fuel can be dumped so that the gross weight is legal for landing. The increased gross weight is for T/O and flight only and not landing.

Thanks Herb ....

Jack

[birddog]

Has there been a report released on the may 2008 skymaster that went down in Millville, Cumberland County, with Stephen Claussen on board?
________
RED HEAD GIRL LIVE

[hharney]

If I remember reading this incident it had something to do with fuel management. Here is the dialog findings about the fuel system.

The main tanks contained either trace amounts, or were completely devoid, of fuel. The right auxiliary tank contained approximately 11 gallons, and the left auxiliary tank contained approximately 2 gallons. The recovered fuel was clear and bright, with no visible contaminants. Tests with water-detection paste were negative, which indicated that no water was present in the fuel.

The fuel selector valve handle for the front engine was found in the "Left Aux" position, and the corresponding fuel selector valve was found set to the port from the left auxiliary tank. The fuel selector valve handle for the rear engine was found in the "Right Main" position, and the corresponding fuel selector valve was found set to an unused port, which was the "off" position.


Here's the full report

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...08FA184&akey=1

Weight and Balance Report
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation...184/424353.pdf

[Skymaster337B]

Wow, a fuel thing. Seems to be the cause of many 337 accidents. My rules: 1. Always top off the mains 2. Never fly more than 3 hours on the mains 3. Never switch the aux tanks at the same time, wait at least 5-10 minutes 4. Always feel for the indent 5. Grease the fuel valves during each annual 6. Burn main tanks for at least 2 hours before switching to the aux tanks (book says 1 hour, but why do just the minimum?)

Comments?

[hharney]

I like to use my aux tanks as soon as possible on long trips because you can't use the aux for landing. I wait the 60 minutes on the mains and then switch to the aux's and finish them early into the trip. I let the aux's run for 60 minutes and then switch the front back to the main while the rear runs out on the aux then once the main is back in place on the rear I switch the front back to the aux and run it out. Typically about 75 - 80 minutes per aux at normal cruise.

[birddog]

Originally Posted by hharney

If I remember reading this incident it had something to do with fuel management. Here is the dialog findings about the fuel system.

The main tanks contained either trace amounts, or were completely devoid, of fuel. The right auxiliary tank contained approximately 11 gallons, and the left auxiliary tank contained approximately 2 gallons. The recovered fuel was clear and bright, with no visible contaminants. Tests with water-detection paste were negative, which indicated that no water was present in the fuel.

The fuel selector valve handle for the front engine was found in the "Left Aux" position, and the corresponding fuel selector valve was found set to the port from the left auxiliary tank. The fuel selector valve handle for the rear engine was found in the "Right Main" position, and the corresponding fuel selector valve was found set to an unused port, which was the "off" position.


Here's the full report

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...08FA184&akey=1

Weight and Balance Report
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation...184/424353.pdf

Thanks for the information. This came up cross referencing the reports on N12NA. I did not recall the history on that accident so thanks for the details. It's a valuable reminder on fuel management!
________
Ipad Cases

[hharney]

Here is the prelim report for N12NA

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...15X82210&key=1

[WebMaster]

Sad incident, but I find it interesting that even with the wing separating from the aircraft, the failure was out board of the strut, and the wing to fuselage integrity was not compromised.


It would seem to eliminate the need to remove the wings for Cessna's SIDs.

[WebMaster]

Reading the preliminary report, a couple of things struck me.
Radar showed it doing 171 KTS at 600 MSL, 188 degrees from the reported wind.
KBLM is at 153 ft, MSL. So, he was 447 feet AGL.
Presumably, he was descending, and building speed when radar track was lost, because reports are that he was about 50 AGL, or 203 MSL.

At 171, with 7 kts of head wind, he was doing, and I know this is simplified, but he was doing 204 MPH IAS. I remember when Herb put his winglets on, that he had to remark the air speed indicator, because the winglets had a VNE of 201 MPH. So, before he got down on the deck and going really fast, he was already exceeding the VNE for the airframe.

[Roger]

So far this appears to be the classic example of why you never want to be in an airplane where the last thing heard by the pilot was "watch this".

He had apparently accelerated through 171 knots in his dive by the time he was down at 600' from his 1400' starting point going in the opposite direction. It would seem logical that if this dive run continued he would have been well over red line by the time he tried to pull up, and no one will ever know how quickly he (whoever was flying) tried to pull up. I could picture a 2000'+ fpm dive followed by an emergency yank back on the yoke once whoever was flying (or whoever took over) realized he may strike the runway. If that quick pull was done outside of the operating parameters of the aircraft "G" envelope, than this could be pure pilot error.

And/or, does anybody know if the wing tip tank STC requires drilling through the internal wing structure, and if so, where does that drilling take place in relation to this break?

http://www.337skymaster.com/messages...uote=1&p=15274