The old CAF B-26 ...

Russ Matthews · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:10 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

All that notwithstanding, as I asked, how would it have been on any other flight?

His [ZRX61] friends would still be alive.

CH2Tdriver · **Posted:** Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:54 am

Randy Wilson wrote:

CH2Tdriver wrote:

From reading the NTSB report, I'm guessing that the cause of the power interruption to both engines was never determined?

Did this happen out over a practice area or at the airport? (I ask because the report states stall/spin but TBM Tony mentions seeing it slide down the runway)

Thanks.

IIRC '95-'96 was a bad period of time for war birds. In addition to the loss of Carolyn, we lost the only airworthy Heinkel, Mossie, and there was the P-38 Lightning crash at Duxford as well. There were others I'm not recalling at the moment. It just seemed that every time I got a copy of a warbird mag during that time, it featured a warbird loss.

They are talking about two different incidents and accidents involving the B-26. One where the nosewheel collapsed on landing in 1985 and the other where the plane crashed on a checkride to requalify one pilot and qualify another in 1995. The checkride would have required engine out procedures and other slow speed flight conditions. If you reread the entire thread hopefully that will make it clearer. Just one point to add if you are not familiar with the Odessa/Midland area of West Texas, the ground here is about 2900 feet above sea level. The altitudes that the plane was reported to be doing these maneuvers is MSL not AGL. These are my personal comments and I don't speak for anyone else, including the CAF. Hope that helps but that's about my last comment on the accident.

Randy

Thank you Randy. I see your point.

And I did read the thread from the beginning. The quick flip to the fatal accident, not knowing the terrain, the emotion Tony was conveying in his comment about a nose gear collapse, combined with the following from the accident report led me to ask for a clarification of the circumstances.

"Witnesses reported the following information. The aircraft was approximately 250 feet above the ground heading southwest. As the aircraft passed over head, the "engines were sputtering." Approximately 3/4 mile from the witnesses, the aircraft made a "sharp" right turn, nosed down, and impacted the ground. A witness added that the engines "quit" prior to the aircraft turning right."

Tony C · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:06 am

TriangleP wrote:

Tony C wrote:

I note from the Registry that as of 2004, 40-1459 was being restored to airworthy status, is this still the case and if so, is it near completion?

The Registry is inaccurate. The airframe has been largely restored to non airworthy by volunteers at the MAPS Museum

Thanks for the update Chris

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:32 am

ZRX61 wrote:

I didn't say the passengers had anything to do with the crash. I said they shouldn't have been on the flight. It was check ride for both pilots & neither of them had much time in the B26 in the previous year (not withstanding the hours they had in anything else). Go get current, then offer flights.

Sound advice for ANY pilot in ANY aircraft.

C VEICH · **Joined:** Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm **Posts:** 1454

ZRX61 wrote:

Randy Haskin wrote:

CAPFlyer wrote:

If he had intended to practice stalls and steep turns (as was reported in the accident finding) then he shouldn't have had passengers. Most insurance companies and operating instructions specifically prohibit the carriage of non-essential crew on flights where stalls are being performed. I'm pretty sure the CAF's current regulations are the same.

All that notwithstanding, as I asked, how would it have been on any other flight?

As the performance of the stalls and steep turns, and the presence of passengers, had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident that occurred, I'm still confused by the statement.

I didn't say the passengers had anything to do with the crash. I said they shouldn't have been on the flight. It was check ride for both pilots & neither of them had much time in the B26 in the previous year (not withstanding the hours they had in anything else). Go get current, then offer flights.

Call me crazy but it seems that the pax may bear some responsibility for knowing who they are flying with and what the flight plan is. I find it hard to believe that the pilots would invite passengers on a check ride without revealing first that it was, in fact, a check ride. I think many of us, being old airplane enthusiasts, would readily accept the risk if offered such an opportunity and particularly so in an airplane as rare and unique as the Marauder. Obviously I don't know all the details but it seems a bit harsh to place blame solely on the pilots.

JonL · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:19 pm

Having been on a check ride, I only went because the check pilot asked if I wanted to go, and I had absolute faith in his abilities and currency. (it was a full load check )
They are "Check" flights - test or training, with all that entails, not a jaunt around the block. People often don't think of that.

Warbird Information Exchange

The old CAF B-26 ...

Who is online