Warbird Information Exchange

With infinite funds this thing could be made spaceworthy, but then that's what can happen when money is truly no object. Anything can be made to do anything.

I wonder though what it looked like before the barge came along. In the salvage video it looks like the better part of the fabric covered portion of the wing has been torn off and I would think you'd have to be pretty bad at salvage to do that much damage.

_________________
Keep 'em Flying.

Not sure if these two bucket loaders tried to pull it out. If they did hook up to it I would then wonder if it overstressed the airframe?

http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/area_ ... bb0d7.html

I hope it can be repaired and flown again, or at least to static display. The engines didn't get swamped, unless during the lifting. This is so horrible to have happened.

_________________
"According to the map, we've only gone 4 inches."

Guys, also remember this thing was "restored" in 3 months for the film. As I have said on the facebook page, I have serious doubts about the overall condition of this plane even prior to it taking any part in this film. A plane just does not fall apart.

As far as the loaders being used to pull it out, I don't see how they could have done any damage to it as they were using cables from the loaders to the plane. The cables snapped when the plane hit the sandbar and the nose wheel became embedded in the sand.

If you want to blame someone, the owner/operators are who you should be blaming! How do you forget to put in plugs when you know you are going to be landing in the water? It was the film crew who were the ones who saved it to begin with as they were the ones who went down and installed the plugs.

_________________
Tyler Pinkerton
Active Member of Air Heritage Inc. of Beaver Falls, PA.
Aircraft: C47B, C-123K, Fairchild F-24, Funk Model B, L-21B, T-28B, T-34B
Static: F-4C Phantom II, F-15A, T-3 Provost

It has been flying for many years up until the repaint and restoration work. Flown out of Arlington. This was not a ground up restoration. They did some work to help fix it up, but I'm not really sure why people seem to think this is some sort of code for sabatage or botched work. Yeah, the PIC should have made sure the plugs were in, but ultimately that didn't kill it. We could still have another flying Super Cat.

http://imgur.com/a/wsIDs

nevermind

_________________
www.spiritof44.com

Usually on this forum, I'm more a reader, not having real experience in aviation but as a a people who sails since my childhood, I have serious doubts about a real and serious refloating company trying to tug a plane or a fragile yacht using two loaders like this.
A real professionnal will have wait a high tide, put a few airbags on the nose to refloat it, use a big autopump to evacuate as much water as possible and carrefully tow the plane to a barge or to a harbour with a wide ramp or a crane.

Never, never try to take ashore a boat (or a plane) like that except if you already know it's a write-off and just want to remove the wrek, without concerns about more damages.

In this kind of situation, it's not a question to have the biggest loader or the biggest tugboat, but more having a good knowledege of the "thing" you'are trying to save to avoid more damages. (In the sailing world, we says "the beaching doesn't kill the ship, the refloating operation does)

Ironically, a few days ago, I was sailing in the south of Netherdlands and saw a sailship ran aground just a few yards from where our shil was moored, a jackass arrived with a big speed motor boat, saying "I'have a bit engine, I will tug you its easy". A quart hour later, the ship was "more aground" (not towed in the right direction !) and probably damaged. So my father and me, we made our way to the ship and simply showed how to bank 30° the boat to reduce the keep deepnest, and 3 minutes later without having to use lots of power the ship was in free water.

As in aviation, you know how to deal with a specific situation... or you don't.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

found on a nother forum :



Sean

Could it be that they tried lifting it by cables around the fuselage fore and aft of the wing, and the cables tore through the fuselage?

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

That's my guess.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

Some of the damage does indeed look like cables slicing through the structure, but what we do no know if that was while she was intact, or after she had come apart, and they were just doing recovery of the pieces after they realized she was a gonner. Now if they had tried the cables or lifting straps under the hull (like common for boat salvage) in places that could not stand the loads, or attempted a lift with lots of water still in the hull- shame shame.

It would be interesting to hear about the lifting points used, strap type and location, and if she was deatered before attempting the lift. If there was structrual damage from sitting in the surf zone, a hard landing or from the beach recovery attempt, I am far less surprised by the breakup. It is tougher to criticize the lift if she was already compromised. I agree with Ilco on that- once you are in the surf zone, all bets are off and the recovery often ends up tearing things apart.

So I can't tell from looking at pictures what went wrong, but like most incidents I beleive a variety of facotors likely came into play: Airframe (old and perhaps with just a minimal yard touch up), Crew Human factors (drain plugs out? (is that verified?) hard landing?), damage form the surf zone, human factors with the beach recovery attmept, lifting factors.

A bit like the Kee Bird if I may? Lots of human and environmental factors, much head scratching and arm chair analysis, an NO one happy with result.

Seriously, look at this link. You will see the cables wrapped around the very spots on the fuselage that tore apart.

http://imgur.com/a/wsIDs

If it works like for a ship salvage operation, a good fight for insurance's experts will take place. Owner/filming company's insurance will try to minimize the initial damages and try to explain the total loss is the fault of the salvager. The salvage company's insurance will try to explain the plane was already destroyed before they arrive, etc, etc

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

Does anyone know the insurance co. on the hook for this fiasco??

IMO there are two evolutions involved here...both are different issues and results. Of course if you didn't have the first you wouldn't have the second. However the cards are dealt and you have to play what's in your hand.

1. "If" the hull plugs were indeed left out and a water landing resulted in the sinking....that is evolution #1 (E-1). Also, has it been confirmed the hull plugs were not installed or is that media speculation/rumor? I would be shocked if a qual'd PBY pilot or CP would not check those on a preflight or walk-around for an upcoming water landing. It's possibly they were missed but that would be a "Wow!" revelation IMO.

2. It is what it was....the plane took on water for whatever reason and ended up in the surf and a recovery attempt(s) was/were made.......evolution #2 (E-2).

At this point, we can theorize about what exactly led to the sinking (E-1) and who owns it. Probably need to see the official reports for that.

IMO....there is not much theory on the subsequent recovery operation (E-2)......the plane was in one piece when it was beached and the various salvage ops started. IMO the salvage company or the on-scene person in charge with go/no-go authority of the different salvage attempts owns the results. The salvage buck has to stop somewhere.

With all the above said.....a lot of questions and not many answers at this point. Hopefully more details will come out in the near future that will shed light on this situation.