PBY tanker 85 broken in half during recovery!!!

[Dan Jones]

Agree eze. It would be an interesting legal case, and likely drawn out for some time. Salvage contracts are often written with a no fault/no guarantee clause- basically the salvor will attempt a recovery but is not responsbile for any damage. Much like a tow truck pulling your car out of the ditch- they won't hook up until you sign on the dotted line. Could get into all sorts of legalize with having to show negligence, due care, etc, which may in fact be the case (especially if they used lifting slings in the wrong places) but proving that in court, and around the contract is another manner.... Salvors are not inclined to do anything until the contract is signed and funds are obligated. Just my experience with (vessel) salvage.

I too would like more info on the drain plugs- the article talkes about good samaritans trying to plug the "holes", but that could mean all sorts of stuff.

Dan, interesting on the histortical "stoving in" on the nose gear bay. Is the compartment supposed to stay dry, or is some leakage normal? I imagine any stoving in would then compromise the rest of the wheel well with high pressure water?

I don't know, the next time I see him I'll ask. You would expect that the nose gear well would be a separate compartment. That's a good question.

Last edited by Dan Jones on Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

[CoastieJohn]

Has anyone seen salvage pics of the front part of the fuselage showing the nose doors?

Doors, no doors....I suspect something else was compromised or missing that allowed water to enter the inside of the water-tight areas.

Then we get back to the other issue....the recovery.

[george]

I must have missed it, but why was the plane floating around with its gear down? Seems like it could have been secured and saved when it was stuck near the shore if the gear had been retracted.

[ErrolC]

There are some good comments about PBY ops on Wings Over NZ from one of the ZK-PBY team (including informed speculation on why the mainwheels were down).
http://rnzaf.proboards.com/post/228958/thread

[CAPFlyer]

I must have missed it, but why was the plane floating around with its gear down? Seems like it could have been secured and saved when it was stuck near the shore if the gear had been retracted.

The gear was most likely down for 2 reasons - 1) to help anchor the airplane in the shallow water, and 2) when they attempted the initial recovery, they tried to tow it out but the nose dug into the sand instead of rolling up the shoreline.

[Dan Jones]

Was the nose gear down?

[BAJ]

Agree eze. It would be an interesting legal case, and likely drawn out for some time. Salvage contracts are often written with a no fault/no guarantee clause- basically the salvor will attempt a recovery but is not responsbile for any damage. Much like a tow truck pulling your car out of the ditch- they won't hook up until you sign on the dotted line. Could get into all sorts of legalize with having to show negligence, due care, etc, which may in fact be the case (especially if they used lifting slings in the wrong places) but proving that in court, and around the contract is another manner.... Salvors are not inclined to do anything until the contract is signed and funds are obligated. Just my experience with (vessel) salvage.

I too would like more info on the drain plugs- the article talkes about good samaritans trying to plug the "holes", but that could mean all sorts of stuff.

Dan, interesting on the histortical "stoving in" on the nose gear bay. Is the compartment supposed to stay dry, or is some leakage normal? I imagine any stoving in would then compromise the rest of the wheel well with high pressure water?

I don't know, the next time I see him I'll ask. You would expect that the nose gear well would be a separate compartment. That's a good question.

The nose gear of the Cat is housed in a separate compartment beneath the cockpit, infact the floor is deliberately bulged up to provide enough room for the tire.

The nose wheel doors have torsion tubes to help opening and closing. The doors themselves are of a very robust construction but impact with water at speed can stove them in and cause the wheel compartment itself to significantly over pressurize and rupture seams into the cockpit area allowing the hull to take on water. Depending on how good the onboard water pumps are the Cat will keep afloat.

Operational PBY's had multiple bulkheads with waterproof doors along the interior of the hull. When built the cockpit bulkhead behind the pilots seats was fitted with a strong but lightweight water proof door to protect the rest of the aircraft in such an event. After the war these were usual removed.

Im sure this is the case here, overpressure, no door, bad pumps, followed by multiple failers of judgement and rednecks who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag.

[BAJ]

I must have missed it, but why was the plane floating around with its gear down? Seems like it could have been secured and saved when it was stuck near the shore if the gear had been retracted.

Not at all George the undercarriage of the PBY is built like a battleship and is incredibly robust. Having the gear down is a good logical move as it stabilises the aircraft and prevents the hull itself from touching bottom.

[Chuck Giese]

Given the first picture in the salvage sequence, it looks like the salt water is up to the cockpit windows.

Is it possible that between the salt water immersion, the amount of damage to the instrument panel and whatever othe equipment sat in salt water for 4(?) days, and the unknown but speculated damage due to sitting in the surf zone, it was deemed a write-off?

In that case, whatever gets it out of the water works.

Just giving the benefit of the doubt to the salvors.

[JOMiller]

Anyone have a number of how many airworthy PBYs remain??

THX,
Owen

[marine air]

Chuck I think you nailed it. The recovery crew viewed it as a a "crashed airplane in saltwater. It was just another wreck. Imagine if it was a Piper Navajo Chieftain of equal value. There wouldn't be any thought to trying to preserve and keep it as intact as possible. My guess is the airplane was worth somewhere between $150K and $350k. Different deal when the Flug Werk Fw-190 or the F4U-5 went into the ocean a few years ago.

[Iclo]

As the first attempt with the 2 loaders was definitly a huge mistake for all people who one time operate to refloat a ship, the second attempt is probably more debatable
I seriously doubt a naval recovery company could have the knowledge on "how to lift a Catalina", they probably did their best and how their looks to have done it will probably worked fine with a sailboat or motorboat.

I wonder if a real specialist in this kind of sailplane was involved directly in the operation. If yes, he probably desserves the majority of criticism.

[Chuck Giese]

Chuck I think you nailed it. The recovery crew viewed it as a a "crashed airplane in saltwater. It was just another wreck. Imagine if it was a Piper Navajo Chieftain of equal value. There wouldn't be any thought to trying to preserve and keep it as intact as possible. My guess is the airplane was worth somewhere between $150K and $350k. Different deal when the Flug Werk Fw-190 or the F4U-5 went into the ocean a few years ago.

Yet another theory. Let's say that they started doing it by the book. And it's a 75 year old airplane and something (lift point ring) broke. There was a similar problem when recovering Liberty Belle, and the broken lift ring resulted in dropping one wing on top of the other on the trailer. In this case if the slings were a backup, or if it was a coordinated lift and the slings were to relieve 5K lbs or so from the lift points, a lift failure would have had the slings slicing through the hull.

I have no direct knowledge of the event, but I have been involved in a couple of recoveries. Like I said before, I'm willing to give the salvor the benefit of the doubt until the facts come out. These are 70 year old airplanes, things - including structure - break.

[CAPFlyer]

As the first attempt with the 2 loaders was definitly a huge mistake for all people who one time operate to refloat a ship, the second attempt is probably more debatable
I seriously doubt a naval recovery company could have the knowledge on "how to lift a Catalina", they probably did their best and how their looks to have done it will probably worked fine with a sailboat or motorboat.

I wonder if a real specialist in this kind of sailplane was involved directly in the operation. If yes, he probably desserves the majority of criticism.

Resolve Marine were a contractor brought in by Atlanta Aircraft Salvage, who was hired for the recovery operation. AAS contacted at least 1 PBY operator for the lifting diagrams. This is why so many are being critical of the operation. It was being carried out by a marine salvage company, but they were doing it on contract to an aircraft recovery firm that should have been in overall control of the operation.

Chuck -

1) From everything I've seen, water most likely did not enter the aircraft in any significant amounts once the initial flooding issue was solved. We don't even know how much water got in initially or how far it got into the plane if it even got past the initial bulkheads. Those windows are designed to take surf and are mostly water tight. Additionally, they had pumps running onboard at least during filming times so how much stayed in the plane for any amount of time is debatable as well. The fact it was floating the day before the hoist with no visible pumps suggests that the plane was watertight.

2) The photos are pretty clear that there were no other lifting devices attached except the slings.

I give the benefit of the doubt to Resolve. They were operating at the direction of Atlanta Aircraft Salvage. I don't give any benefit to AAS as they knew better. The other question I have is how much did this really affect the filming? Cost of the aircraft aside, the statements from the production company during the 4 days before the lift indicated they had plans of doing a lot more filming of the plane, including mentions of more filming after it was taken out of the water, so this throws their plans way out of whack and possibly will cost them a lot more money to keep their planned sequences if they have to come up with alternate shooting plans (other PBYs, CGI, green screen, etc) which means more cost and thus the issue is more than just replacing a plane.

[marine air]

When the movie "Battle of Britain" was filmed they hired as technical advisors Standford Tuck, Gen. Adolf Galland, Connie Edwards, and others. When When the movie "The Right Stuff" was filmed they hired test pilots Gen. Chuck Yeager and Col. Bud Anderson plus others. When the U.S. Navy wanted to recreate the flying around the world in a flying boat they hired the best, COnnie Edwards. He brought the PBY back from Europe alive.
When the movie "Murphy's War was filmed they hired Frank Tallman to consult and also do the aerobatic and water scenes in the Grumman J2F Duck. (See youtube Murphy's War -first flight") * NO Ducks were harmed in the making of that film.*
When they made this movie on the USS Indianapolis they hired previous actors and movie stars "Larry , Moe , and Curly" from the"Three Stooges!