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

[Baldeagle]

for the 111, A loss of engine power for reasons undetermined, was the determination, but there was no way to tell how much fuel was on board as the plane burned. The most likely reason was it ran out of fuel as the had flown non stop from midland to casper, they were heading to a show and it was normal to go to the shows light on fuel and load up on "free" gas.

For what it's worth the NTSB report says that one bank of the failed engine had oil fouled spark plugs:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 125&akey=1



-

[Matt Gunsch]

How many hours do you have as a PIC of a multi engine warbird managing fuel consumption?

not as PIC, but enough as co-pilot and crew chief and pilot of single engine warbirds to know you make sure you have more fuel in your tanks than the duration of your intended flight.
You don't need to be PIC of a multi engine plane to figure that out.

[whistlingdeath77]

How many hours do you have as a PIC of a multi engine warbird managing fuel consumption?

not as PIC, but enough as co-pilot and crew chief and pilot of single engine warbirds to know you make sure you have more fuel in your tanks than the duration of your intended flight.
You don't need to be PIC of a multi engine plane to figure that out.

That wasn’t directed at you Matt

[Invader26]

The pilot in command is the ultimate responsible person. That does not necessarily mean he personally does the final checks however you can't rely of a joyrider also to check the fuel.

[JimH]

At Collings, our "0" was 100 gallons per engine. This gives at least a 45 minute reserve over and above what is required for both rides and legal reserve. This was mandated in case you had a problem that could be worked out in communication with mechanics and upper management on the ground with our onboard flight engineer. Every morning we planned our fuel around scheduled flights or moves. Tanks were stuck by either the mechanics or us, as PICs. This also helps manage the stress on the airframes, tires and landing gears. The Mustang was always topped off at the beginning of the day and we figured an hour in each wing tank. I will say the fuel gauges in the Mustang are really accurate.

Jim

[A26 Special K]

We always used a calibrated stick in the B-25 we operated for over ten years to determine fuel on board. However, there are some airplanes that a stick cannot be inserted into the tank. For example, the A-26 has a nearly 90 degree bend that leads to the tank. Kay has a fairly accurate fuel flow meter on each engine that takes some of the guesswork out of it, but we have also put a lot of effort into having accurate fuel gauges. We still run the timer and start paying a lot closer attention when approaching time to switch tanks. The fuel pressure will start fluctuating slightly as a first clue. That’s when you better catch it by switching and turning the appropriate boost pump on until established on the new tank. We did learn one other trick to get more fuel out of the B-25 tanks when getting low and that was to lower 10 degrees of flaps to lower the nose attitude and move some fuel forward to the pickup from the back of the tank.

Thanks for that info, A26 Special K, I was not aware of that limitation on the B-26. A few questions for you:

1) Is the fuel quantity indicating system on Special K different from the one they used on factory A-26's in W.W.II? In other words, was that fuel indicating system an "upgrade" put into place on the On Mark conversions to B-26K standard? Is your fuel flow meter part of that standard, or is it the same one from W.W.II? Answer, the fuel gauges are different but the float type sensors in the tanks are the same. We couldn’t find anyone to overhaul the sensors so we gathered pieces and one of our electrical wizards repaired and calibrated them. They are fairly reliable, but we still follow that up with time estimates and keep a one hour reserve on every flight. The fuel flow meter is different from WW2 and we have an additional gauge for engine torque that is helpful on setting power. The pressure carburetor has auto lean and auto rich settings on the mixture control so there are a lot of variables possible on fuel burns. K likes 30 in of MP and 2000 rpm on the prop. That makes for a predictable fuel flow in auto lean at 8000 ft of 170 gal per hour.

2) For tanks where dips can't be taken, there has to be another way to mitigate fuel errors. If you can't use a dipstick, does the B-26 have a fuel dripstick? I'm not familiar with the B-26 fuel tank system - does the B-26 have that functionality? It sounds like your fuel flow indicator is one way to mitigate errors/inaccuracies. I'm assuming that in order to have "known" fuel quantities prior to takeoff, you probably fill up one or more tanks to full levels. Is this a strategy you employ? Answer: we fill mains with 300 gal each usually. If going somewhere, we may fill the aux tanks with 100 gal each. The tips hold 165 gal each but only 150 is usable. Have to jettison that last 15 per side before landing so we don’t use the tips unless absolutely necessary.

3) I've heard in anecdotal stories from Vets that one of the things they did in the MTO was to use partial flaps in those B-25's to extend the range. So, what you say is validated by Veterans' recollections.

answer: There are some other stories that were told by instructors back in the days after WW2 when the B-25 was used as a multi engine trainer. They went on some long cross countries and had to use this technique to make it home for one reason or another. I learned about it from them. I would have not have liked for the B-25 to be my first multi engine trainer. It is such a beast to taxi. Flying it is easy.

[A26 Special K]

Not sure how the loss of the CAF Casa HE-111 conversation came about, but I was a member of AZ Wing at the time. The airplane had numerous engine failures over the many years we flew it. Those Merlin engines Just didn’t seem to hold up. My personal opinion was they were subjected to too much heating. The Spanish adapted that engine to the airframe, but it was still underpowered. One of the worst things that could happen would be to lose one engine. At full power on the good engine, you had about five minutes before it would redline the temp gauge. Power had to be reduced. If you were in a poor energy position with low airspeed and low altitude to begin with, it could bite you in a hurry. Combined with the density altitude in Cheyenne and gear down, it was not going to make the runway. It did not run out of gas. The fire was fuel fed and very intense. The damage was such that the NTSB could not really determine the cause of the engine failure, but an eyewitness report stated one prop was not moving. It has nothing to do with what happened to Old Glory. Could we get back on subject or maybe we have already beat it to death? Let’s move on.

[JohnH]

Thank you. Bringing up the He -111 in the words of Bobby Unser is “ Really Really Dumb!” Way off topic!

[sandiego89]

Any updates on the B-25 incident? Been surprisingly light on here, thought there would have been news and initial thoughts by now. Hope everyone is mending.

[OD/NG]

Any updates on the B-25 incident? Been surprisingly light on here, thought there would have been news and initial thoughts by now. Hope everyone is mending.

I've heard that none of the 3 personnel involved have any life-threatening injuries and will eventually be O.K., however one person had some pretty serious back injuries that required surgery. Beyond that, we should just wait for the NTSB preliminary report for additional details. That should come out any day now. Like all accidents, if the rumors/innuendo I'm hearing end up being true, there will be lots of lessons learned which should help prevent future accidents and make flying warbirds safer for everyone involved.

[JohnB]

Not quite the same thing (and I'm not faulting anyone or saying anyone ran out of fuel)...

Last weekend I rode right seat last in a SE warbird.
In addition to calling out traffic, my (pre-engine start) briefed jobs included keeping an eye on the fuel gauges and tank selector....just in case the PIC got busy (he didn't).

No matter what you are flying, you can never be too careful.

[phil65]

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

[OD/NG]

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.

[phil65]

Thanks for your insight …

Phil

[whistlingdeath77]

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.

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