My most sincere condolences.
For me, losing someone I knew in a car or plane accident has always been a powerful reminder of countless tragedies hidden behind dry numbers of every statistical table (:
Like so many other pilots, I am very fond of a Twin Comanche and believe it to be one of the best light touring twins ever built.
By all accounts your friend, Ben, was an experienced pilot, current on the type. The plane he was flying appears to have been lovingly maintained. Since there was no post-impact fire, the cause of this accident should be relatively easy to determine....
Since there was no post-impact fire, the cause of this accident should be relatively easy to determine....
Yes, I have to admit that the thought went through my mind.
Ben,
do you know what the reason for the loss of the red plane was? The reports I have seen are hardly conclusive, only that there was a power loss on both engines on a test flight which ended in a forced landing?
Do you know how long your friend had the accident plane? Was it his first flight in it? Was it, in terms of fuel system layout, identical to his former plane?
Best regards Urs
Mooney Driver
I have no first hand or official information, anything I say is what other suggested and my understanding of some situations.
...was a power loss on both engines on a test flight which ended in a forced landing?
This is what the pilots clamed. However, when you look at the photos you see that only one prop is feathered, this fact raises the question why? Have they shut the wrong engine? Was there enough fuel on board? Also, if my memory works (and I might be wrong here) the P1 used to own a Twincom which was for sell some years ago. Again, if correct, I saw some photos of the aircraft, one wing was rippled badly and the pilot stated that it is not a problem to fly the Twincom above MATOW. If I linked the personalities correctly, then ignoring one safety element will lead to another and to an accident.
Do you know how long your friend had the accident plane?
The red was with him for I think 5-6 years and I assume that the one that killed him for 2 months max, probably less.
Was it his first flight in it?
No
Was it, in terms of fuel system layout, identical to his former plane?
I don’t know but I think that they were identical. The Comanche has 4 tanks as standard, main and aux. 2 in each wing, then many has tip tanks that are being operated by solenoids and connected by a valve to the Aux tanks. As there is no fuel gauge for the tips you don’t know if the solenoid opened the valve and allow the fuel to flow or not. The only way to find out is to watch the Aux fuel level, if the fuel level goes down the fuel does not flow from the tips, if remains at the same level then all is fine. Then, some aircraft have nacelle tanks that add 15gl or 20gl a side depends on make. If none of this aircraft had the nacelle tanks then the fuel system was identical.
In the Comanche there is 1 fuel gauge per side that shows the fuel quantity in the tank being used at the time, the Mains hold 30gl each and the Aux. 15gl each so you must remember which tank you use. The gauge will show Full; ½ etc so if you fly the Aux and think that you are on the Main then you are 15gl down; guess how I know…then think single over water at 1500”.
Ben
one wing was rippled badly and the pilot stated that it is not a problem to fly the Twincom above MATOW
To ripple a wing you need to do way more than just fly above MTOW.
The plane is certified for something like 3.8G. If you loaded a plane to 3.8 times MTOW you would need the whole of Mojave Desert to get airborne. So this damage cannot be done by overloading. It can be done only by pulling a lot of Gs during flight.
There is an error in my description of the fuel system (last message). The fuel selector has to be on 'Aux' then the solenoid has to be activated, fuel flow to the fuel filter / bowl and from there to the engine. If the solenoid does not open then the Aux tank will continue to feed the engine.
Ben
do you know what the reason for the loss of the red plane was? The reports I have seen are hardly >conclusive, only that there was a power loss on both engines on a test flight which ended in a forced >landing?
The red twin co had RayJays and the pilot simply overloaded both engines on take off.
Happened in Damme, not Halle. (No use in distrusting the wrong shops, eh?)
Unbelievable. If I were the client, I would expect my maintenance shop to know how such engines are operated. Otherwise, I wouldn't have much faith in their maintenance skills, either...
Employees of the last maintenance company I used would never fly in a customer aircraft, after they worked on it.
So I would require all inspection covers to be left off so I could check everything visually, before accepting it back.
That's the real world...
Looks like this just is not a good time for those (rare) PA39s...
