B-25 "Old Glory" down in accident. No fatalities. 2020

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 523

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.

B-25s have ASTRONOMICAL operating expenses. 1000 gals of 100LL at $5-6 per gal is a drop in the bucket when compared to all the rest, cost of the plane, etc etc. Your explanation of running tanks low to save on fuel costs sounds penny wise and pound foolish. The only one who can speak to the situation and the decision making is the PIC that night. Maybe in a couple years after final reports are out he may comment on it.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:39 am

menards wrote:

B-25s have ASTRONOMICAL operating expenses. 1000 gals of 100LL at $5-6 per gal is a drop in the bucket when compared to all the rest, cost of the plane, etc etc. Your explanation of running tanks low to save on fuel costs sounds penny wise and pound foolish. The only one who can speak to the situation and the decision making is the PIC that night. Maybe in a couple years after final reports are out he may comment on it.

Considering his response was a generic one (first line - "In a generic sense...") and using those two airports simply as an example (and a very good one at that considering the vastly different fuel prices), your entire response is unnecessary. Instead of throwing OD/NG under the bus for answering phil65's question, why don't you add something constructive to the discussion?

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:00 am

whistlingdeath77 wrote:

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

Well 2000-4000 feet isn't a "high density altitude" for one. While yes, in much of California this wouldn't be a problem, since he was talking generically it is still a point to bring up. Being non-turbocharged engines, above ~4000 feet, the max power available starts to fall off, limiting performance. So you get into airports that are even "slightly" elevated (say like Grass Valley/Nevada County KGOO) at ~3200 ft. MSL and suddenly you start getting Density Altitudes in the summer of 6,000 feet or more. In the C-172N, a 6000 foot Density Altitude adds ~25% to the base takeoff roll. I don't have books for a B-25, but I know from listening to those who operate them, ambient temperature and density altitude were always hot topics on summer day operations for both engine limits (oil & CHTs) and performance.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11281

whistlingdeath77 wrote:

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

https://www.bigbearcityairport.com/

Located in Southern California, field elevation 6,752'

https://www.bigbearcityairport.com/air- ... ery/page/2

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 523

CAPFlyer wrote:

menards wrote:

B-25s have ASTRONOMICAL operating expenses. 1000 gals of 100LL at $5-6 per gal is a drop in the bucket when compared to all the rest, cost of the plane, etc etc. Your explanation of running tanks low to save on fuel costs sounds penny wise and pound foolish. The only one who can speak to the situation and the decision making is the PIC that night. Maybe in a couple years after final reports are out he may comment on it.

Considering his response was a generic one (first line - "In a generic sense...") and using those two airports simply as an example (and a very good one at that considering the vastly different fuel prices), your entire response is unnecessary. Instead of throwing OD/NG under the bus for answering phil65's question, why don't you add something constructive to the discussion?

OD/NG provided an example of bold flying. No one responsible flies or makes decisions like that. This is not a Warbird specific topic either...if you fly a Cherokee on a budget, and your visual inspection of the tanks shows fuel significantly below the tabs, a responsible cognizant pilot is not taking off and flying to an airport 50NM away because “there is cheaper gas over there”. There are too many variables and no guarantees. Generally speaking..in all these “run out gas accidents” the PIC made the decision to save either a couple of pennies or a couple minutes of time, and wound up costing the airframe plus possible casualties. As I stated before, it’s a perfect example Of penny wise and pound foolish.

lucky52 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:33 pm

Was the guy flying the B-25 the owner?

Hooligan2 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:43 pm

A Cessna 150 I used to fly in occasionally was destroyed in a sad fatal stall/spin accident after running out of fuel a couple of days after Christmas a few years ago. Several airfields closed or fuel unavailable, fuel available at an airport with expensive landing fees but the decision appeared to have been made to fly back to base and crashed a few miles short. Ancient aviation adage: the three most useless things in aviation? Runway behind, sky above and air in the tanks.

NB this post is not a comment on the B-25 crash, let the investigation identify the cause.

Archer · **Joined:** Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:13 pm **Posts:** 368

OD/NG wrote:

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".

I have a very distinct memory of a fuelling supervisor on the phone to his boss going "We've put in over 200 gallons already, and it's still not full. I know we promised them full tanks but how much is reasonable....?"
That was before we got the Aux tanks servicable again... :twisted:

marine air · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:12 pm

A friend who flies B-17's , C-47's and other larger warbirds distinctly told me "Pilots don't put fuel in airplanes, OWNERS put fuel in airplanes." Most warbird pilots don't have the money to put fuel in the airplane unless they are an owner.

Saville · **Joined:** Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:45 am **Posts:** 511

menards wrote:
"B-25s have ASTRONOMICAL operating expenses. 1000 gals of 100LL at $5-6 per gal is a drop in the bucket when compared to all the rest, cost of the plane, etc etc. Your explanation of running tanks low to save on fuel costs sounds penny wise and pound foolish. The only one who can speak to the situation and the decision making is the PIC that night. Maybe in a couple years after final reports are out he may comment on it.

CAPflyer wrote:

Considering his response was a generic one (first line - "In a generic sense...") and using those two airports simply as an example (and a very good one at that considering the vastly different fuel prices), your entire response is unnecessary. Instead of throwing OD/NG under the bus for answering phil65's question, why don't you add something constructive to the discussion?"

Registering an opinion can be constructive. Nothing wrong with the response.
I see nothing wrong with comparing fuel costs to all the rest of the costs of operating the airplane.

I know my opinion on running low on gas: I'll go to great lengths to avoid it. For example, when I brought my RV-8 home after purchase - flying from Paris Tx. to Beverly, Ma. - the airplane was new to me. So I had no real idea how accurate the fuel gauges were. No experience sticking the tanks.

So I kept every leg at around 250-300 miles. I knew that was half the range, calculated at a very conservative speed. But my tanks hold 40 gallons total, not 1000.

So when I read that the B-25 ran out of gas I was a little amazed - how does anyone let that happen? But then I read this thread - saw OD/NG's post which makes sense, never knew about the possibility of a B-25 having special density altitude concerns.

And now menard's opened my eyes to the idea that the fuel costs are far less than the rest of the costs. I'd have to check for myself to know for sure, but it's plausible.

Nothing wrong with his post.

Stoney · **Posted:** Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:07 am

its always best to have a hours worth of fuel in your back pocket i.e. reserve on landing, you never know when you might need it.

phil65 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:21 am

Saville - "So when I read that the B-25 ran out of gas I was a little amazed."

Did they ?
I thought we were just guessing.

Phil

Saville · **Joined:** Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:45 am **Posts:** 511

phil65 wrote:

Saville - "So when I read that the B-25 ran out of gas I was a little amazed."

Did they ?
I thought we were just guessing.

Phil

Ok to be more precise:

"When I read that they MIGHT have run out of gas, I was a little amazed."

A26 Special K · **Joined:** Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:27 pm **Posts:** 2553

The question was asked about high density altitudes and the B-25. Any airplane is effected by DA. Some handle it better than others. The B-25 is in the better column. The B-25 engines are supercharged. To give an idea of its capabilities, we operated numerous times out of several Colorado airports in the summer with field elevations close to 7000 ft. We did an airshow at Steamboat Springs with a 4400 ft runway at 6900 ft elevation. As with any other aircraft, we didn’t go out full of gas, mainly because of the short runway and terrain after takeoff. After the show, we sold rides out of Hayden. We departed from Hayden full of gas for the flight back to Ft Worth at 13,500 ft. The original engines had two stage blowers. A shift to high blower usually took place at 11,000 ft. Low blower could maintain manifold pressure to 9000 ft before the mp started falling off. If I had to choose any WW2 twin to handle a short or high runway, it would be a B-25. If it was good enough for Doolittle, it was good enough for me!

WIXMOD-Charlie · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:53 am **Posts:** 256

Speculation as to the cause is for the NTSB. Let's just all be glad everyone got out OK.

Warbird Information Exchange

B-25 "Old Glory" down in accident. No fatalities. 2020

Who is online