P-47 restoration

[Pat Carry]

I was reading in the current issue of Warbirds Digest about Air Corps Aviation in Bemidji, Mn restoring a combat veteran P-47 for the Texas Flying Legends Museum. This got me to wondering about CAF's P-47 and the American Airpower Museum's P-47. Any work taking place on these 2 aircraft?

[OD/NG]

I believe the CAF's P-47 is stored at the CAF HQ in Dallas, pending a decision on what to do with it. The last update I saw on it was from a post by B.P. here on WIX.

The AAM's P-47, as far as I know, is still being used for the NTSB investigation, which is not finished. I'm sure once the investigation is complete, we'll hear more on its future status.

The AAM's P-47 is no longer listed on the AAM's website, leading some to speculate that she has or will be sold after it is released from the NTSB.

[Richard W.]

Is it usual for the NTSB report on the Hudson River ditching to take so long? Been over a year now.

Before someone jumps down my throat , I have never been involved in an accident investigation and my question is sincere, not a criticism.

[Punisher05]

Is it usual for the NTSB report on the Hudson River ditching to take so long? Been over a year now.

Before someone jumps down my throat , I have never been involved in an accident investigation and my question is sincere, not a criticism.

Excellent question. I had to work a single-seat fatality last year, and the NTSB finished their report in roughly three months. However--it was largely handled by the local FSDO, with information CC'd to them. There were also a number of witnesses, so it was fairly open and shut. I would imagine that contributed to the speed of the report.

I'm drawing a blank at the moment, but I think the P-47 incident in question stemmed from an in-flight engine failure. Because of that, the investigation would take more time to find the root cause of the failure and determine if any service bulletins or ADs were recommended.

Just my $0.02.

-Brandon

[CAPFlyer]

If a fatality is involved and it's not considered a "major investigation" (i.e. doesn't involve a large aircraft with multiple fatalities), then it's not unusual for it to take 18 months or more. The investigation on Air Tahoma 185 took 21 months, and that was a Convair 580 that crashed short of the runway at Cincinnati.

Brandon's case is unusual that it was finished that quickly and I suspect because they chose not to do any technical investigation (i.e. have parts torn down and fully investigated to ensure no other causes were present).

[Punisher05]

If a fatality is involved and it's not considered a "major investigation" (i.e. doesn't involve a large aircraft with multiple fatalities), then it's not unusual for it to take 18 months or more. The investigation on Air Tahoma 185 took 21 months, and that was a Convair 580 that crashed short of the runway at Cincinnati.

Brandon's case is unusual that it was finished that quickly and I suspect because they chose not to do any technical investigation (i.e. have parts torn down and fully investigated to ensure no other causes were present).

Quite right--I was surprised when I checked the NTSB database and saw a Final Report issued, since I was just expecting a Preliminary. But there was no teardown, and it really was quite straightforward. Out of curiosity, I went and looked up my last one (172 with 2 on board) and it took right at 13 months for the Final to be issued.

-Brandon