Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:56 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:06 am
Posts: 1056
Location: Virginia
Matt Gunsch wrote:

for the 111, A loss of engine power for reasons undetermined, was the determination, but there was no way to tell how much fuel was on board as the plane burned. The most likely reason was it ran out of fuel as the had flown non stop from midland to casper, they were heading to a show and it was normal to go to the shows light on fuel and load up on "free" gas.


For what it's worth the NTSB report says that one bank of the failed engine had oil fouled spark plugs:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 125&akey=1



-

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:49 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3258
Location: Phoenix, Az
whistlingdeath77 wrote:

How many hours do you have as a PIC of a multi engine warbird managing fuel consumption?

not as PIC, but enough as co-pilot and crew chief and pilot of single engine warbirds to know you make sure you have more fuel in your tanks than the duration of your intended flight.
You don't need to be PIC of a multi engine plane to figure that out.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:14 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:28 am
Posts: 2008
Location: massachusetts
Matt Gunsch wrote:
whistlingdeath77 wrote:

How many hours do you have as a PIC of a multi engine warbird managing fuel consumption?

not as PIC, but enough as co-pilot and crew chief and pilot of single engine warbirds to know you make sure you have more fuel in your tanks than the duration of your intended flight.
You don't need to be PIC of a multi engine plane to figure that out.


That wasn’t directed at you Matt

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:56 am
Posts: 843
The pilot in command is the ultimate responsible person. That does not necessarily mean he personally does the final checks however you can't rely of a joyrider also to check the fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:14 pm 
Offline
Newly minted Mustang Pilot
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 1410
Location: Everywhere
At Collings, our "0" was 100 gallons per engine. This gives at least a 45 minute reserve over and above what is required for both rides and legal reserve. This was mandated in case you had a problem that could be worked out in communication with mechanics and upper management on the ground with our onboard flight engineer. Every morning we planned our fuel around scheduled flights or moves. Tanks were stuck by either the mechanics or us, as PICs. This also helps manage the stress on the airframes, tires and landing gears. The Mustang was always topped off at the beginning of the day and we figured an hour in each wing tank. I will say the fuel gauges in the Mustang are really accurate.

Jim

_________________
www.spiritof44.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:50 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:27 pm
Posts: 2550
OD/NG wrote:
A26 Special K wrote:
We always used a calibrated stick in the B-25 we operated for over ten years to determine fuel on board. However, there are some airplanes that a stick cannot be inserted into the tank. For example, the A-26 has a nearly 90 degree bend that leads to the tank. Kay has a fairly accurate fuel flow meter on each engine that takes some of the guesswork out of it, but we have also put a lot of effort into having accurate fuel gauges. We still run the timer and start paying a lot closer attention when approaching time to switch tanks. The fuel pressure will start fluctuating slightly as a first clue. That’s when you better catch it by switching and turning the appropriate boost pump on until established on the new tank. We did learn one other trick to get more fuel out of the B-25 tanks when getting low and that was to lower 10 degrees of flaps to lower the nose attitude and move some fuel forward to the pickup from the back of the tank.

Thanks for that info, A26 Special K, I was not aware of that limitation on the B-26. A few questions for you:

1) Is the fuel quantity indicating system on Special K different from the one they used on factory A-26's in W.W.II? In other words, was that fuel indicating system an "upgrade" put into place on the On Mark conversions to B-26K standard? Is your fuel flow meter part of that standard, or is it the same one from W.W.II? Answer, the fuel gauges are different but the float type sensors in the tanks are the same. We couldn’t find anyone to overhaul the sensors so we gathered pieces and one of our electrical wizards repaired and calibrated them. They are fairly reliable, but we still follow that up with time estimates and keep a one hour reserve on every flight. The fuel flow meter is different from WW2 and we have an additional gauge for engine torque that is helpful on setting power. The pressure carburetor has auto lean and auto rich settings on the mixture control so there are a lot of variables possible on fuel burns. K likes 30 in of MP and 2000 rpm on the prop. That makes for a predictable fuel flow in auto lean at 8000 ft of 170 gal per hour.

2) For tanks where dips can't be taken, there has to be another way to mitigate fuel errors. If you can't use a dipstick, does the B-26 have a fuel dripstick? I'm not familiar with the B-26 fuel tank system - does the B-26 have that functionality? It sounds like your fuel flow indicator is one way to mitigate errors/inaccuracies. I'm assuming that in order to have "known" fuel quantities prior to takeoff, you probably fill up one or more tanks to full levels. Is this a strategy you employ? Answer: we fill mains with 300 gal each usually. If going somewhere, we may fill the aux tanks with 100 gal each. The tips hold 165 gal each but only 150 is usable. Have to jettison that last 15 per side before landing so we don’t use the tips unless absolutely necessary.

3) I've heard in anecdotal stories from Vets that one of the things they did in the MTO was to use partial flaps in those B-25's to extend the range. So, what you say is validated by Veterans' recollections.
answer: There are some other stories that were told by instructors back in the days after WW2 when the B-25 was used as a multi engine trainer. They went on some long cross countries and had to use this technique to make it home for one reason or another. I learned about it from them. I would have not have liked for the B-25 to be my first multi engine trainer. It is such a beast to taxi. Flying it is easy. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:09 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:27 pm
Posts: 2550
Not sure how the loss of the CAF Casa HE-111 conversation came about, but I was a member of AZ Wing at the time. The airplane had numerous engine failures over the many years we flew it. Those Merlin engines Just didn’t seem to hold up. My personal opinion was they were subjected to too much heating. The Spanish adapted that engine to the airframe, but it was still underpowered. One of the worst things that could happen would be to lose one engine. At full power on the good engine, you had about five minutes before it would redline the temp gauge. Power had to be reduced. If you were in a poor energy position with low airspeed and low altitude to begin with, it could bite you in a hurry. Combined with the density altitude in Cheyenne and gear down, it was not going to make the runway. It did not run out of gas. The fire was fuel fed and very intense. The damage was such that the NTSB could not really determine the cause of the engine failure, but an eyewitness report stated one prop was not moving. It has nothing to do with what happened to Old Glory. Could we get back on subject or maybe we have already beat it to death? Let’s move on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:18 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 1007
Location: Whittier CA USA, 25 miles east of Los Angeles
Thank you. Bringing up the He -111 in the words of Bobby Unser is “ Really Really Dumb!” Way off topic!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:18 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 1157
Any updates on the B-25 incident? Been surprisingly light on here, thought there would have been news and initial thoughts by now. Hope everyone is mending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 715
sandiego89 wrote:
Any updates on the B-25 incident? Been surprisingly light on here, thought there would have been news and initial thoughts by now. Hope everyone is mending.

I've heard that none of the 3 personnel involved have any life-threatening injuries and will eventually be O.K., however one person had some pretty serious back injuries that required surgery. Beyond that, we should just wait for the NTSB preliminary report for additional details. That should come out any day now. Like all accidents, if the rumors/innuendo I'm hearing end up being true, there will be lots of lessons learned which should help prevent future accidents and make flying warbirds safer for everyone involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:42 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
Not quite the same thing (and I'm not faulting anyone or saying anyone ran out of fuel)...

Last weekend I rode right seat last in a SE warbird.
In addition to calling out traffic, my (pre-engine start) briefed jobs included keeping an eye on the fuel gauges and tank selector....just in case the PIC got busy (he didn't).

No matter what you are flying, you can never be too careful.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:26 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 1933
Location: Meriden,Ct.
Side question, what's the big benefit of running so close to empty ?
In G.A. it's the weight, but that can't be a factor here. I hope it's not the piece of the fuel.

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 715
phil65 wrote:
Side question, what's the big benefit of running so close to empty ?
In G.A. it's the weight, but that can't be a factor here. I hope it's not the piece of the fuel.

Phil

In a generic sense, the benefit of running close to empty for big, multi-engine aircraft, could be numerous factors:

1) Performance - yes, the B-25 does have performance issues at high density altitudes, particularly in single engine situations.

2) Sponsorship/free gas - if someone else is paying the gas bill to fill up your tanks, it makes sense to take on as much "free gas", as one can. FYI, it is a very popular "technique" for warbirds to show up at airshows/flying events with very low fuel tanks - as little as the pilots are comfortable arriving with. Many airshows/events will "fill your tanks" and allow you to take on as much gas as you can hold. With this being the case, I know of several warbird pilots, particularly privately owned who pay their own bills, who will plan on showing up close to minimum/emergency fuel, just to take advantage of the "free gas".

2) Cost of gas - keep in mind that the B-25 carries close to 1000 gallons of gas. The big effect of a small difference in gas price is the following exercise. I looked up the cost of 100LL at both Nut Tree and Stockton, which were the last legs of "Old Glory". Here is what it costs today (Oct 8th):

KSCK: $5.57/gallon

KVCB: $3.55/gallon

According to online sources, the B-25 carries 974 gallons of internal fuel, not including bomb bay tanks, etc.

So, if we do the math, we find a difference of $2.02/gallon between the above fuel stops.

Then we find the difference in cost between filling full tanks at both locations:

2.02 x 974 = $1967.48

So, the difference saved is nearly $2000. That is not insignificant, and I am in no way suggesting that was in play with this accident - in fact, it couldn't be - as the cost at Nut Tree was cheaper than Stockton.

Whether any of the above was at at play is way, way too early to speculate about in regards to "Old Glory", and I am NOT suggesting it was. I only bring this up as an academic exercise to show that there are many situations where it makes sense to show up with a minimal amount of fuel on an aircraft to answer the original question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:27 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 1933
Location: Meriden,Ct.
Thanks for your insight …

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:46 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:28 am
Posts: 2008
Location: massachusetts
OD/NG wrote:
phil65 wrote:
Side question, what's the big benefit of running so close to empty ?
In G.A. it's the weight, but that can't be a factor here. I hope it's not the piece of the fuel.

Phil

In a generic sense, the benefit of running close to empty for big, multi-engine aircraft, could be numerous factors:

1) Performance - yes, the B-25 does have performance issues at high density altitudes, particularly in single engine situations.

2) Sponsorship/free gas - if someone else is paying the gas bill to fill up your tanks, it makes sense to take on as much "free gas", as one can. FYI, it is a very popular "technique" for warbirds to show up at airshows/flying events with very low fuel tanks - as little as the pilots are comfortable arriving with. Many airshows/events will "fill your tanks" and allow you to take on as much gas as you can hold. With this being the case, I know of several warbird pilots, particularly privately owned who pay their own bills, who will plan on showing up close to minimum/emergency fuel, just to take advantage of the "free gas".

2) Cost of gas - keep in mind that the B-25 carries close to 1000 gallons of gas. The big effect of a small difference in gas price is the following exercise. I looked up the cost of 100LL at both Nut Tree and Stockton, which were the last legs of "Old Glory". Here is what it costs today (Oct 8th):

KSCK: $5.57/gallon

KVCB: $3.55/gallon

According to online sources, the B-25 carries 974 gallons of internal fuel, not including bomb bay tanks, etc.

So, if we do the math, we find a difference of $2.02/gallon between the above fuel stops.

Then we find the difference in cost between filling full tanks at both locations:

2.02 x 974 = $1967.48

So, the difference saved is nearly $2000. That is not insignificant, and I am in no way suggesting that was in play with this accident - in fact, it couldn't be - as the cost at Nut Tree was cheaper than Stockton.

Whether any of the above was at at play is way, way too early to speculate about in regards to "Old Glory", and I am NOT suggesting it was. I only bring this up as an academic exercise to show that there are many situations where it makes sense to show up with a minimal amount of fuel on an aircraft to answer the original question.


could you please tell me what altitudes the b-25 have "performance issues at high density altitudes?" I never see them flying around more than 2-4k feet

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group