Beech V35 crashes in S.C.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

That particular pilot never thought to change
tanks because the fuel gauges still ran full. The mistake killed him.

I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

The V35B I fly has a left, right, and off fuel selector. The two Beech
fuel gauges do indicate full fuel, but the left tank gauge is slow to
indicate any level less than full.

With mine it's both gauges, but they become quite accurate when the tank is
about 3/4th or so full.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
"Mike W." wrote:

What about carb icing?

The IO-520 (original engine in the V35) and IO-550 (an available upgrade)
are fuel injected.

I think some of the very early models were carbureted, but not since the
1950's.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
"Mike W." wrote:

What about carb icing?

The IO-520 (original engine in the V35) and IO-550 (an available
upgrade)
are fuel injected.

I think some of the very early models were carbureted, but not since the
1950's.

This particular aircraft is a '71, I believe.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

True. Look at the Harrier crash in Yuma last month. The pilot ejects, the
plane drops like a rock into the small area separating four houses in town.
Four 500lb bombs drop into the neighborhood with the plane. One minor
injury.

It defies reason the think that the pilot, just before ejecting, was able to
input control commands that would have the plane auger in directly between
the houses.

I bet the guy simply and understandably saw that his plane was doomed, and
he pulled (or whatever they do in a Harrier) the ejection
knob/handle/whatever and once free of the crippled craft thanked God.
"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...
The press is sloppy and ill informed regarding aviation in general and
accidents in particular. Since the reporting is so often independent of
reality, I'd say we are fools to not encourage "the natural romance" and
discourage the negative realities when dealing with the press and public
relations.

It's an information war and we should try to win.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance
of flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of
us who remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the
difference and deal with it.
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.
Dudley Henriques

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...

Sounds like a welcome gift horse to me - but I hear you.

The fact is, according to the NTSB and the FAA, (in that order) it is and
will always be the pilots fault when a plane crashes.

1) The pilot is responsible for the correct piloting of his craft.
2) The pilot is responsible for the mechanical fitness of his craft.

Sure, people sue everyone when these things happen, but in the end it's the
pilots fault. That's easier for the FAA/NTSB to deal with.


"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
...
Mike W. wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
message
news

[deleted stuff ...]

NTSB, in their infinite wisdom, will find the pilot contributed to the
accident by" failing to maintain separation from the terrain".

[deleted stuff ...]


Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mike W." wrote:
I would bet when the report comes out, the tanks are dry.

Peter R. wrote:
On what do you base this speculation?

I, too, fly out of OSU and knew both the aircraft and the pilot.
The pilot purchased the aircraft two or three years ago from a former
Navy Commander who had flown the aircraft around the world back in the
70's. The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks. I was courious about
fuel usage and operation and had the opportunity to examine the fuel
system and discuss operation with the now deceased owner.
Depending on what tanks contained fuel, it is possible to inadvertantly
run a tank dry. The system requires transferring from the auxillary
tanks to the two main tanks. If the transfer process is not monitored
properly, you may not be able transfer to an empty tank fast enough to
restart the engine.
The accident aircraft has been for sale for more than six months, as the
owner was in the looking to purchasing a newer Bonanza.

"Mike W." wrote:
I would bet when the report comes out, the tanks are dry.

Peter R. wrote:
On what do you base this speculation?

Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power) and the
overwhelming majority of engine failures are due to fuel exhaustion.

jsmith wrote:

The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks.

Really? Where were all of those tanks located? With two tip tanks, I have
a total of four tanks on the wings. I cannot imagine where 3 times that
many tanks would be placed, unless the remainder were all gallon milk jugs
located in the cabin. But then if this were the case, where would the
passengers go?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Mike W." wrote:

Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)

And you are basing this on... ?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
"Mike W." wrote:

Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)

And you are basing this on... ?


The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
just before they crashed .




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE