Warbird Information Exchange

I had a practicing aviation defense lawyer at my local airport yesterday bring this crash up and he brought up the fact that this pilot is actually most likely in deep sh*t for landing between the beech and swimmers very nearby in the water.

I went back and watched the video a few times and there were a lot of swimmers around the plane before and upon impact. With no forward and downward visibility and that amount of people in the water, its surprising it turned out the way it did.

I don't know what the pilots altitude was prior, what the specific failure was and or the rest of the scenario was but If faced with having to ditch in open water or in beach surf. The last thing you want to do is "kill a few kids or innocent bystanders who didn't have a choice or decision in the matter" he said.

Again, its all conjecture until your faced with the same situation and his options could have been just that limited. It will be interesting to see the NTSB report. I'm glad no one was hurt and its too bad it's another warbird taken out of the air.

For those saying that the best thing to do is dunk it in a swimming pool: chlorine is a strong oxidizer (adds oxygen to molecules) for both organic compounds and metals. When mixed with water it can also form hydrochloric acids which will eat away at the metal components.

As one who use to work as a pool lifeguard - many decades ago - Pool water is not pure water. Its Ph is very high due to the large amount of chlorine added to the water to keep it clean.

Yes, submerge it is fresh water; but, insure the Ph level is lowered and add some of the ingredients mentioned earlier in the post to help remove the salt concentrations from the aircraft.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

I doubt it - that's just how they sound when mis-firing or incorrect air/fuel ratio. Heard it many times on B-25s and TBMs, it's also partially due to the plane having two large stacks on either side, so you automatically get a "misfire" vibe even when running correctly.

I'm assuming he had it fire-walled but the engine was at low-RPM. I'm inclined to think the internals were okay, but air/fuel or fuel supply (ie carb or pumps etc) have something to do with this.

I saw an R-2600 with an unhappy carb which exhibited VERY similar behavior (like this, after a few flights prior to which she had been sitting - this bird didn't have many hours post-resto yet). They're very sensitive to being wetted every 30 days or so, not sure what Valiant's SoPs are or if the carb was rebuilt/bench-tested or not, but just thought I'd add this since I've seen it personally.

Thermal shock could be a huge issue for this engine anyways - if they can't get a good core out of it, it may be a no-go for them to restore (need a prop, electronics, eng accessories, avionics/radio stack/instruments/gyro etc etc also).

That is likely a topic that is not allowed, as to why the insurance co wants it scrapped.

I think lawyers have officially ruined everything, everywhere. No one chooses to ditch when there are other viable options. Safe to assume that the Avenger was low and slow when the engine stopped making power. Even with no forward or downward visibility, you still going to site your landing spot and put it down, just like you would during your emergency training in a Cherokee. I think the guy is fine, no third party has any claim or loss.

I think he is talking about the Thunderbolt which remains in storage by the insurance company and untreated from the effects of saltwater immersion AFAIK.

I'm sure they'd rather not people talk about it. But I don't think they can stop anyone here.

I know that's what he's talking about, and I apologize for the thread jack, but it just seemed a curious bomb to kind of lob out there. The "I know things, and I want you to know I know them, but I'm not going to tell" variety of post always leads to more questions.

“Deep sugar.” Is that a legal term? I wouldn’t use that aviation lawyer for anything related to aviation. No one was harmed. No damage to persons or property. No laws or regs broken. Even if they were, PIC authority in an emergency situation is a defense for anything that comes up. The PIC is entitled to at least attempt to survive by ditching close to shore. It’s amazing how someone can preform a perfect ditching of a rather complex vintage aircraft yet still have the know it all’s come out of the wood work.

_________________
Cessna 195

It’s been on FB too. I’m told typically insurance companies don’t let stuff get rebuilt and there is too much liability involved. And the poster earlier is correct , lawyers have officially ruined everything. If hell freezes over and this airplane reappears I will admit I was wrong. It’s not happening and that’s why it’s now five years later and nothing has happened.

My sense from an earlier post on the subject was that the P-47's owner had some control over the airframe and was going to sit on it.

I would think any insurance company would be happy to sell the airframe for big bucks to recoup its losses. I assume a ditching damaged P-47 would still be a half million dollar starting point for a restoration.

Oh, well if it was on FB, then say no more. : )

"Lawyers have ruined everything" There are plenty of lawyers who help Keep 'em Flying as well.

As we're all aware, sometimes warbirds linger a loooong time without being restored for a variety of reasons. The Swoose thread jumps to mind. And then there's the CAF's P-47N. Or....we could go on and on.

Usually the reason is money. But what I can't figure out in the P-47's case is the financial incentive to hold onto a bunch of bent metal that may have significant value. I'm very familiar with liability concerns of insurance companies. But insurance companies trade in high value scrap everyday without exposing themselves to liabilities. It's what they do. So while I'm not disagreeing that there may be something to your claim, it's very unclear to me what the actual substance may be. I hope you can understand my curiosity and even skepticism.

Anyhow, I'll move on. Once again, I sorry for the thread jack.

This makes sense to me. Thanks.

Don’t know what owner has control means. Do you have control when you wreck your car and your ins co takes possession after it pays you off? They paid him off and own the wreck. It’s their call. They are now the owner of the wreck .

Yep.
Not wishing to continue the thread hijack too much, but wasn't this more to do with it being a fatal and the relatives of the pilot were involved were trying or requesting the wreck destroyed so it couldn't be rebuilt? Apologies if my aging memory is getting confused with another incident?