Skymaster Down

hharney · #1 05-28-10, 05:20 PM

N72268 1973G #1550

http://www.highspringsherald.com/art...ws/break01.txt

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...S/5281017/1002

edasmus · #2 05-30-10, 01:15 PM

Does anyone have any info to pass along on this accident on what may have gone wrong?

Ed

hharney · #3 05-30-10, 01:53 PM

Nothing other than several articles on-line. They indicated that he lost power and contacted ATC and they said that there was an airport not too far from his position. Apparently he could not make the airport and decided to do his best to set it down where he could. Looks like he did a good job for the circumstances. The one photo shows the rear blades are feathered. It would look as though he shut that the rear down first. Not sure other than that.

edasmus · #4 05-30-10, 02:33 PM

Yes Herb, I did notice that on the rear prop as well. I agree that he did a great job safely landing the airplane. Is anyone out there experienced in making a judgement as to whether the front engine was making power at touch down or simply windmilling based on the damage to the front prop? I always find it amazing as to the strength of the hub and blade shanks when I see curled prop blades. One would think that the blades would just get ripped out of the hub on initial impact or the blades would break. It is quite a testament to the design and engineering folks who built these machines.

Ed

tropical · #5 05-30-10, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edasmus

Yes Herb, I did notice that on the rear prop as well. I agree that he did a great job safely landing the airplane. Is anyone out there experienced in making a judgement as to whether the front engine was making power at touch down or simply windmilling based on the damage to the front prop? I always find it amazing as to the strength of the hub and blade shanks when I see curled prop blades. One would think that the blades would just get ripped out of the hub on initial impact or the blades would break. It is quite a testament to the design and engineering folks who built these machines.

Ed

It appears it was making power by the twisting of the blades.

Roger · #6 06-02-10, 08:45 AM

A couple of weeks ago I was getting my BFR and the CFII pulled the rear engine, and nothing happened, except that we went a little slower. Of course the book says Full Power on the operating engine, which I did, but that seemed like a waste of fuel and just made a bunch of noise. We are both pretty big guys, and I had just topped off the plane.
Which brings me to the point of this thread : Why if this guy was by himself, with one engine operating, did he put his plane down in a field?

There is something about this accident that doesn't add up.

Ernie Martin · #7 06-02-10, 10:48 AM

I agree, something doesn't add up. Sole occupant, so it's lightly loaded and should fly well on one engine. Front prop was turning, but might it have been windmilling because the pilot failed (or didn't have time) to feather it, given one eyewitness' statement "I heard no power"? I always think of running out of fuel, but Valdosta, GA, is real close to the accident site -- hard to believe the pilot didn't check fuel quantity before departure.

Ernie

BrentH · #8 06-02-10, 07:31 PM

It's been many years since I went through the Crash Survival Investigators School and did aircraft crash investigations but as I remember, when the props are bent back like the front prop is, that says it was windmilling. When the blades are bent forward, that says that the prop was producing power. Could be wrong but if you play the odds, this fellow ran out of fuel. We'll see what NTSB come up with.

WebMaster · #9 06-03-10, 09:47 PM

Either that, or he had a blockage that stopped both engines??

Nope, don't like that idea, either.

NTSB report should be interesting. I note that while the wing was ripped off, the wing attach point was still visible on the fuselage. Maybe Cessna will note that, as well.

Roger · #10 06-03-10, 10:14 PM

I wonder how cold it was ? maybe it was like the one that went down over the frozen atlantic with "both engines" freezing at exactally the same time.

edasmus · #11 06-14-10, 08:41 PM

I am finding it curious that the NTSB has not posted any preliminary report on this accident as of yet. Normally it does not take this long to post. Anyone have any input on this?

Ed

edasmus · #12 07-11-10, 11:00 PM

The preliminary report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X05635&key=1

This plane had some serious rear engine problems but the front engine appeared healthy.

Ed

Roger · #13 07-12-10, 02:03 PM

OK I'm going to go way out on a limb here: I wonder why both engines were "running" off the right tank? and also wonder why all of the controls were full forward, when the rear was in feather? I also wonder how an engine that fails and ends up being very corrodedd could be full of water.

One way could of course be that this aircraft was never operating on both engines. maybe it took off and was flown with just a front engine. Was it being repositioned for an engine replacement?

Of course the rear could have gone into feather if all the oil blew out, but the report says it was full of oil (and water).

How many people out there fly their aircraft on short flights with both engines running off the same tank ? I don't see a viable reason for it.

This is a very strange accident, and this kind of accident continues to add to the niss-information out there about these aircraft.