Warbird Information Exchange

A few years ago, Tom Reilly told me he was working on a proposal to use a B-25 for some government project (maybe in the testing or equipment calibration arena) that required high altitude loiter capability of several hours. IIRC, the designated altitude was 30,000'+ (specifically, I remember 34K'). I mentioned my surprise that the -25 could handle that and he indicated it wasn't a major problem.

As we stray way-off topic....
I get that civilian B-25's are lighter than combat aircraft, but 10,000 ft above service ceiling is quite a bit.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... ummary.pdf

_________________
45-47=-2

I know. But....

The Black Book....

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

New news ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT_IMnPTUAU

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

Well, so much for the mag switch theory. Very unfortunate.

Final NTSB report is out:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... 101996/pdf

Strange sentence, "The pilot, copilot, and passenger did not visually verify the fuel levels in all four main fuel tanks before the accident flight". Whilst I'm sure it's true, it also seems strange to include the passenger.

The passenger was the airplane's mechanic/crew chief/flight engineer. Since those positions aren't "official" on a B-25, the NTSB lists him as a passenger since that's officially what he was, but Page 3 of the report clarifies the situation.

Ah OK - missed that bit

Many thanks

Well, that's unfortunate information.
This B-25 had previously been crashed requiring a total restoration from running out of gas on a flight from Stockton CA to Reno NV back in 1987. Another case where they intended to arrive dry because they were going to get filled at the show.
And Taigh Ramey was a part of the recovery effort at that time....http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29431&start=15

_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers

Ouch, it appears that the fuel exhaustion speculation from soon after the accident was spot on. Sometimes the simplest explanation is often the most likely. The perceived or actual pressure resulting in the "rushed" routine (top of page 4) bit hard.

Can anyone speak to the accuracy of a B-25's fuel gauges, generally speaking? I've flown some airplanes with lousy fuel gauges but we always had a way to either stick it or drip it and even then operated on the side of caution using "fat" burn numbers.

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

I can say, in all the years I flew Tondelayo, or any of the bombers for that matter...the fuel gauge was not on my list of things to check, it's like any other airplane, don't trust them. Every flight, and I mean every flight the tanks were stuck and the daily form(s) filled out and updated. The only fuel gauges I really trusted were in the Mustang, and even then I never exceeded an hour out of each wing while giving flight experiences. Doing multiple takeoffs and landings in anything also ramps up your fuel burn considerably.

jim

_________________
www.spiritof44.com

Now that the "fat lady has sung" (the NTSB report issued), what's the status of the airframe?
Repairable?
Repairable for static (I would think someone would welcome a static B-25)?
Parts?
Scrap?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.