Scatterbrain Kid II News

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Matt Gunsch wrote:

the plane was flying well enough to fly from San Marcos to Breckenridge, so it was flying before. They had been having intermittant problems and were going nuts trying to figure it out. It would run for hours with no problems, then pack up and run like sugar.

They took the plane to the run up pad, performed as many checks on the ground as they could, and it passed them all, they taxied back, we recowled it, and then they went out to fly it. they performed thier runup and everything was good, there was no sign of anything bad, so they took off, and it was not until rotation that it started to smoke. There was not enough runway left to stop so he did what he thought best, get it into the air as high as he could, and hopefully limp around and land. The reason he did not land on the highway was he never got high enough to make a turn, he barely made a left turn before there were unable to keep it in the air any longer.

I don't remember a L-bird looking for them. The Zero took off after they went down, and it took him a while to find them. Lefty was all ready in the air and he could not find it.

The pilot did nothing wrong, and as far as the passenger, she was crew, and had been working on the plane,so it was not a beaver flight. Lori had been busting her butt working on that plane, and the only reason I went over to help is my 4 planes were out flying, and I had nothing to do.

Matt, did they ever figure out why she was smoking out both enignes? Was it not burning properly, hence the black smoke?

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:06 am

it crashed, the FAA blamed the pilot, so it went no futher. They might find the reason during restoration.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Matt Gunsch wrote:

it crashed, the FAA blamed the pilot, so it went no futher. They might find the reason during restoration.

Makes perfect sense to blame the pilot entirely. It will be interesting to find out what turns up, once things get underway

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:57 am

Matt Gunsch wrote:

The pilot did nothing wrong, and as far as the passenger, she was crew, and had been working on the plane,so it was not a beaver flight. .

Bull, there is only one crew position on a P-38, no matter how you try to twist it. There is no other crew position.
Look on the dash one for min crew-one.

The engines were barking during the turns, and the crew could not identify it, so they took it up. Poor judgement.

The FAA should have violated the pilot for reckless operation of an aircraft.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:03 pm

skymstr02 wrote:

Matt Gunsch wrote:

The pilot did nothing wrong, and as far as the passenger, she was crew, and had been working on the plane,so it was not a beaver flight. .

Bull, there is only one crew position on a P-38, no matter how you try to twist it. There is no other crew position.
Look on the dash one for min crew-one.

The engines were barking during the turns, and the crew could not identify it, so they took it up. Poor judgement.

The FAA should have violated the pilot for reckless operation of an aircraft.

Lori went along as a mechanic, sometimes you need to go on a flight to try and ID a problem. Most pilots don't know which end of a screw driver to hold, let alone trouble shooting a problem with a plane, and prior to take off, all the ground check were fine. I listened to it during the checks both before we cowled it and before it took off, and it sounded fine. I did not see or hear anything wrong until rotation.

FG1D Pilot · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:42 am **Posts:** 450

Matt Gunsch wrote:

Obergrafeter wrote:

Another one of those Garys' gonna be mad (he was probably there and watched it happen) but all in all it doesn't look that bad given todays value of a flying P-38. I don't know how it fits in with the USAF vs. CAF lawsuit, but it was part of the P-82 trade deal at one time. The most difficult part would be to get rid of that ugly ass paint job. Thats one that should have been on the ugly paint job thread.

she then pulled the pilot out, and then turned off the fuel, notice I said she turned it off, the FAA said the pilot took off with the selectors in the drop tank postition selected, and this was after Lori told them SHE TURNED THEM OFF, she told them that several times.

So the FAA blamed the pilot for taking off with the selectors in drop tank postition, even though they were told otherwise, just blame it on the pilot, and don't let facts get in the way.
Lori later got her A&P, and IA, and was working with the CAF wing in Lancaster, TX. I have not heard from her in several years, but she has alot of pictures of the kid at the crash site.

Gee I hate to start a war, but... I was there. I was part of the investigation as I was DOM of the CAF at the time. The fuel selectors were in the off or drop position when i got to the plane. It was impossible to move the selectors as the rods that go from the selector to the valves were bent in a z pattern. I talked to Lori. i don't recall her saying she turned them off, but the pilot said he did to the FAA in the hospital. That would have been impossible because, Lori drug him out unconsious and again, they were impossible to turn. We took off the side panels and saw the damage to the rods and selector. The engines were surging on takeoff and there was a video of it that I have seen several times that clearly shows the surging. He should have shut it down as soon as it started.

There is no doubt in my mind that the fuel was shut off on takeoff and the FAA came to the same conclusion.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:34 pm

I remember Lori saying she turned them off, and told that to the FAA. It was a year after the accident when I talked to her, but she said she turned the fuel off.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:29 pm

The CAF flight evaluation board came up with the same conclusion as the FAA. I don't think Lori was at the meeting, not sure but it was a long time ago. Never the less if there were problems with the engines a more experienced pilot should have been checking it out. I know the pilot had a gazillion hours, but very few in the P-38 and especially in that one (if he ever flew another one). I have seen that video many times and the surging starts way before rotation. Even taxing out it didn't sound that great to me. But what do I know......I'm barely a private pilot.

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:29 pm

"They took the plane to the run up pad, performed as many checks on the ground as they could, and it passed them all, they taxied back, we recowled it, and then they went out to fly it. they performed thier runup and everything was good, there was no sign of anything bad, so they took off, and it was not until rotation that it started to smoke. There was not enough runway left to stop so he did what he thought best, get it into the air as high as he could, and hopefully limp around and land. The reason he did not land on the highway was he never got high enough to make a turn, he barely made a left turn before there were unable to keep it in the air any longer."

Ah no, it was still popping during the run up and the group from Burnet thought it might be the spark plugs. It was popping all the way down the runway with everybody running to the runway to see whatz up. As far as the runway Vs the highway, he told me at Midland he didn't think of doing that. A high work load on him with little time to think.

Lynn

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:33 pm

I don't know Lynn.............were there two seperate P-38 accidents that day? Your lying eyes and ears must have been lying to you and the video that day.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:38 pm

You also have to remember the members of the evaluation board that day. The same ones that tried to say it was my fault that another plane wrecked when I was sitting on the ground minding my own business despite the pilot taking full responsibility. Also remeber the fiasco of the radio transmissions when the plane left San Marcos.

Randy Wilson · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:35 pm

I was also asked to be onsite with Doug for the CAF at the crash site and can confirm that the fuel selectors were as he said after the crash. I took off in the CAF A6M2 to join the search but another aircraft first sighted the crash site, an L-bird or similar type but I don't remember who, sorry. The camo of the P-38 was very effective is all I can say. I'm glad all survived what could have been much worse.

Randy

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:38 pm

I have to say, that even thought it is not accurate, I wouldn't mind if they put it back in the markings it wore. Odd paint scheme, but that is part of it's history. I also wouldn't mind seeing it restored in the markings of Yippee.

FG1D Pilot · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:42 am **Posts:** 450

I do have to make one correction. I had been the CAF DOM up until a couple of months before the accident. Randy and I represented HQ at the scene. I talked to the experianced pilot who did the runup and he said he had turned off the fuel after the test run. The pilot in the incident, said they never turned off as normal procedure. The selector had a line painted on the side wall for on, as the selector didn't line up with the on position.

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:31 pm

FG1D Pilot wrote:

I do have to make one correction. I had been the CAF DOM up until a couple of months before the accident. Randy and I represented HQ at the scene. I talked to the experianced pilot who did the runup and he said he had turned off the fuel after the test run. The pilot in the incident, said they never turned off as normal procedure. The selector had a line painted on the side wall for on, as the selector didn't line up with the on position.

Doug, wasn't the damage around the selector so that one wouldn't have been able to move the selector??

Lynn

Warbird Information Exchange

Scatterbrain Kid II News

Who is online