DC-4 crash Alaska
DRUK,if you look at `Blancos` charts the ADS Info is there.Fairbanks is 500 ft asl,chart shows 600 ft on t/off(1013mb),so a QFE at F-B would be about 1010 mb .ADS HT/SPEED GRAPH SHOWS 15-1600FT.....
Then have a look at G-Earth and check the terrain.
I did spend an hour flying a T/CraftBC12 on floats off the lake between the runways,one evening( my body-clock said it was 01Z UK) in `97`,,It had to be `done` if you end up in Alaska...
Then have a look at G-Earth and check the terrain.
I did spend an hour flying a T/CraftBC12 on floats off the lake between the runways,one evening( my body-clock said it was 01Z UK) in `97`,,It had to be `done` if you end up in Alaska...
Last edited by sycamore; 26th Apr 2024 at 22:05.
What was the source of that fuel system schematic and what model does it apply to?
The NTSB report on the ground fire event indicates one aux tank in each wing. I'm attaching a fuel system schematic extracted from "Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions" which is for sale on eBay but you can scroll through and view the pages. It also shows one aux tank per wing.
I have seen nothing that indicates the wing aux tanks were bladders although the fuselage tanks do appear to have been.
Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions Original - eBay source
Better resolution image from same source
The NTSB report on the ground fire event indicates one aux tank in each wing. I'm attaching a fuel system schematic extracted from "Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions" which is for sale on eBay but you can scroll through and view the pages. It also shows one aux tank per wing.
I have seen nothing that indicates the wing aux tanks were bladders although the fuselage tanks do appear to have been.
Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions Original - eBay source
Better resolution image from same source
Last edited by EXDAC; 27th Apr 2024 at 14:56. Reason: add better resolution image
What was the source of that fuel system schematic and what model does it apply to
I have seen nothing that indicates the wing aux tanks were bladders although the fuselage tanks do appear to have been
Very obvious differences are:
The number of aux tanks in each wing (1 vs 2)
The manifold and valve configuration for feeding engines from the wing aux tanks (use of crossfeed manifold vs direct routing)
The differences are glaring and the schematics are obviously not for the same aircraft type.
The number of aux tanks in each wing (1 vs 2)
The differences are glaring and the schematics are obviously not for the same aircraft type
Any crew names published yet? I know one person who flew the DC 4 in the USA.
Easy for me to say this. However the true fact is this.
"If an aircraft arrived at the ground, under control (not stalled) there is a better chance of survivability "
Not being critical, of the crew. However these facts are and will always be the same.
A stall in a turn is an incepit spin. No chance of walking away from that. 20/20 hind sight would have dictated "land ahead"?
With all that Avagas on board it probably would have been a fireball where ever they ended up.
R.I.P. You did your best.
Easy for me to say this. However the true fact is this.
"If an aircraft arrived at the ground, under control (not stalled) there is a better chance of survivability "
Not being critical, of the crew. However these facts are and will always be the same.
A stall in a turn is an incepit spin. No chance of walking away from that. 20/20 hind sight would have dictated "land ahead"?
With all that Avagas on board it probably would have been a fireball where ever they ended up.
R.I.P. You did your best.
Last edited by RichardJones; 29th Apr 2024 at 03:59.
Maybe have a look at the video posted here at
DC-4 crash Alaska
It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.
Blancolirio on youtube has the same video and his commentary.
DC-4 crash Alaska
It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.
Blancolirio on youtube has the same video and his commentary.
Maybe have a look at the video posted here at
DC-4 crash Alaska
It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.
DC-4 crash Alaska
It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.
I'm sure RJ has seen the video like everybody else here. RJ might have thoughts of immediately idling 3 and 4, with full power on 2 to see if they could get close to holding the wings level. Thought had crossed my mind also.
I believe that what is very evident is that the video clearly shows they had no time at all after that "WTF" moment! Only armchair pilots or Clark Gable could have saved the day!
I have watched a DC-4 (C-54), perhaps this one, takeoff from Fairbanks on a very cold winter morning. The rate of climb on the downwind departure leg was close to zero. I doubt it could have maintained altitude on three engines.
What happened before the explosion, and the decisions that were made before the explosion, may be far more important that the explosion itself. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know.
While researching accidents following loss of an engine I came across a very interesting and informative video. For some reason, when I post a URL, pprune says "video is not available". It should be possible to find it with a search for "Airplane Accidents after Engine Failure - Real Value of Vmc". Perhaps the most important part is the discussion of the effect of bank angle on Vmca. The slope of the plot of Vmca vs bank angle is worth particular attention.
Well worth watching for pilots who are multi-engine rated. Probably a waste of time for non-pilots who already know the cause of this accident.
What happened before the explosion, and the decisions that were made before the explosion, may be far more important that the explosion itself. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know.
While researching accidents following loss of an engine I came across a very interesting and informative video. For some reason, when I post a URL, pprune says "video is not available". It should be possible to find it with a search for "Airplane Accidents after Engine Failure - Real Value of Vmc". Perhaps the most important part is the discussion of the effect of bank angle on Vmca. The slope of the plot of Vmca vs bank angle is worth particular attention.
Well worth watching for pilots who are multi-engine rated. Probably a waste of time for non-pilots who already know the cause of this accident.
Last edited by EXDAC; 30th Apr 2024 at 22:27.
...B
Vmc exists by the grace of asymmetric thrust, if there is none then Vmc doesn’t become zero, it ceases to exist.
There may still be asymmetric drag for a myriad of reasons ( windmilling vs feather) but that’s not Vmc.
If you sense a loss of control take away the asymmetric thrust. It’s better to have a controlled off airport landing then a Vmc loss of directional control.
Reduce power on the ‘working’ side to regain control, this can mean reducing power on just the outboard or on both.
If that engine explosion destroyed hydraulic lines and flight control rods or cables and pulleys then they may have lost all roll control.
There may still be asymmetric drag for a myriad of reasons ( windmilling vs feather) but that’s not Vmc.
If you sense a loss of control take away the asymmetric thrust. It’s better to have a controlled off airport landing then a Vmc loss of directional control.
Reduce power on the ‘working’ side to regain control, this can mean reducing power on just the outboard or on both.
If that engine explosion destroyed hydraulic lines and flight control rods or cables and pulleys then they may have lost all roll control.
This is off topic in relation to the DC4 accident, but asymmetric training in turbine powered aircraft such as the Kingair or Conquest, has no doubt resulted in a lot more fatalities than actual engine failures have caused. The number one reason for this is that trainers are simulating engine failures by retarding a power lever to flight idle, rather than zero thrust. High powered aircraft like the two I've used as examples have a system to assist the pilot in the event of a real engine failure i.e. auto feather or negative torque sensing systems, that will greatly reduce drag on the failed engine & make the pilot's job that much easier.
By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...
Just my 2 lire's worth...
By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...
Just my 2 lire's worth...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
This is off topic in relation to the DC4 accident, but asymmetric training in turbine powered aircraft such as the Kingair or Conquest, has no doubt resulted in a lot more fatalities than actual engine failures have caused. The number one reason for this is that trainers are simulating engine failures by retarding a power lever to flight idle, rather than zero thrust. High powered aircraft like the two I've used as examples have a system to assist the pilot in the event of a real engine failure i.e. auto feather or negative torque sensing systems, that will greatly reduce drag on the failed engine & make the pilot's job that much easier.
By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...
Just my 2 lire's worth...
By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...
Just my 2 lire's worth...