Convair 240 Experience
Thread Starter
Convair 240 Experience
Is there anyone with any experience on the Convair 240 that might be willing to answer some questions for a writer researching a CV-240 accident? Please PM to me if so, and I can put you in touch.
TWB
TWB
Thread Starter
He's looking into the October 20, 1977 crash of N55VM that killed the crew and several members of the Lynyrd Skynyrd band.
The type involved was also known as a CV-300, a CV-240 with R2800CV-16 engines.
TWB
The type involved was also known as a CV-300, a CV-240 with R2800CV-16 engines.
TWB
Ask here, depending on the exact nature of the question an answer may be readily available. The Captain had 68 hours on type and the co-pilot 38. Enough to make you shiver and point to a cause.
The type involved was also known as a CV-300, a CV-240 with R2800CV-16 engines.
As I recall they ran out of gas. Had heard the crew had recently transitioned from a DC-3 to the CV. CV burned right at twice the fuel the Three did so the initial fuel load looked familiar.
The CV-300 was a marketing designation (ie not on the Type Certificate) used to differentiate Convair 240s that were fitted (or retrofitted) with the Double Wasp CB16/17 with a resulting 7-inch longer engine nacelle.
Thread Starter
The NTSB report states that the "fuel dump"valve was closed. Did the CV-240 have a fuel dump system?
The report also states that the fuel crossfeed lever was found in the off position and both left and right fuel tank selector switches were "closed". Would fuel cross feed be available with these switch settings?
The report also states that the fuel crossfeed lever was found in the off position and both left and right fuel tank selector switches were "closed". Would fuel cross feed be available with these switch settings?
No crossfeed with that switch position, fuel would not have been available to the engines either with the fuel tank selectors closed.
Off piste, but another fuel starvation incident. I mention it merely because did the two aircraft have similar fuel systems?
Convair 340, N73102, experienced a forced landing near in Saugus, California on December 30, 1964. United scheduled this aircraft to fly a non stop flight from Freseno Air Terminal, to Los Angeles International Airport, a distance of 181 nautical miles. While over the Santa Clarita Valley, the town of Saugus, both engines stopped. The United pilot did an excellent job of making a "dead stick" forced landing, gear up, in an onion field in Saugus, CA.
United mechanics hoisted the airplane, lowered the landing gear, replaced the propellers and some other parts. Convair 340 N73102 being given basic repairs on site after a forced landing. A United Airlines pilot made the take off from the onion field, flew the airplane gear down to San Francisco for in depth mechanical examination of the ship.
Cause of both engines stopping was fuel starvation. Tthe crew apparently encountered a fuel pump problem at Fresno. To overcome this the crew started the engine with the problem fuel pump using fuel cross feed from the working engine. Fuel cross feed allows an engine with a good fuel pump to send fuel to the opposite engine. Problem here, according to the American Airlines pilot, was the United crew failed to turn OFF the cross feed after the second engine stated. So both engines fed off the same fuel tank. With both engines feeding from one tank the engines quit about 35 miles north of their intended destination.
Importantly, at the time there was an error in the flight manual about crossfeed operation. The pilot was operating the x-feed system in line with how they were trained. Both training and maintenance erroneously thought that the Convair, like the DC-6, had a check valve that prevented transferring fuel from tank to tank. Even the flight manual at the time was wrong. The pilot essentially got led into a trap.
Edited to add: Yes some aircraft did have a fuel dump system, was a mod developed by Pan American Airways. See the type certificate at
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...FILE/a-793.pdf
Off piste, but another fuel starvation incident. I mention it merely because did the two aircraft have similar fuel systems?
Convair 340, N73102, experienced a forced landing near in Saugus, California on December 30, 1964. United scheduled this aircraft to fly a non stop flight from Freseno Air Terminal, to Los Angeles International Airport, a distance of 181 nautical miles. While over the Santa Clarita Valley, the town of Saugus, both engines stopped. The United pilot did an excellent job of making a "dead stick" forced landing, gear up, in an onion field in Saugus, CA.
United mechanics hoisted the airplane, lowered the landing gear, replaced the propellers and some other parts. Convair 340 N73102 being given basic repairs on site after a forced landing. A United Airlines pilot made the take off from the onion field, flew the airplane gear down to San Francisco for in depth mechanical examination of the ship.
Cause of both engines stopping was fuel starvation. Tthe crew apparently encountered a fuel pump problem at Fresno. To overcome this the crew started the engine with the problem fuel pump using fuel cross feed from the working engine. Fuel cross feed allows an engine with a good fuel pump to send fuel to the opposite engine. Problem here, according to the American Airlines pilot, was the United crew failed to turn OFF the cross feed after the second engine stated. So both engines fed off the same fuel tank. With both engines feeding from one tank the engines quit about 35 miles north of their intended destination.
Importantly, at the time there was an error in the flight manual about crossfeed operation. The pilot was operating the x-feed system in line with how they were trained. Both training and maintenance erroneously thought that the Convair, like the DC-6, had a check valve that prevented transferring fuel from tank to tank. Even the flight manual at the time was wrong. The pilot essentially got led into a trap.
Edited to add: Yes some aircraft did have a fuel dump system, was a mod developed by Pan American Airways. See the type certificate at
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...FILE/a-793.pdf
Last edited by megan; 15th Jan 2017 at 04:21.
What I get for reading too fast, I thought you said CV-340. So we created a -300 when we changed the engines. Interesting. For the record we put CB-3s on most of our planes. With the windshield AD high blower wasn't needed and I've had the clutch on a -16 give out. No brown or purple gas available in the mid and late 80s so the CB-4 and -17 were overkill
The CV-300 was a marketing designation (ie not on the Type Certificate) used to differentiate Convair 240s that were fitted (or retrofitted) with the Double Wasp CB16/17
CA3, CA15, CA18, or R2800-83AM3, -83AM4A or -83AM9
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing); or CB3, CB16, R2800-83AM5, -52WM1 or -99W
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing). Note: R2800-97W is equivalent to R2800 CA-18
John Deakin, mentioned previously, also flies a C-131 (military Convair 340), and comments, " Fuel tracking is much more important in this airplane than some. There is no way to physically determine the amount of fuel in the wings. There are mechanical fuel quantity gauges on the bottoms of the wings (gallons), and AC electrical gauges in the cockpit (pounds). Only keeping track of "probable fuel used," and "fuel added," and some combination of fuel quantity indications, we can be reasonably sure of the fuel status." Lessons may be in that final sentence.
Swissair ditched a 240 in the English Channel off Folkstone en-route Geneva - London on June 19th, 1954 due fuel exhaustion. Accident attributed to negligence on the part of both pilots, who had forgotten to 'fill her up' in London.
Forgotten? Or fallen afoul of John Deakin's warning? Fuel exhaustion does seem to be prominent feature.
Last edited by megan; 15th Jan 2017 at 05:31.
The NTSB report states that the "fuel dump"valve was closed. Did the CV-240 have a fuel dump system?
The report also states that the fuel crossfeed lever was found in the off position and both left and right fuel tank selector switches were "closed". Would fuel cross feed be available with these switch settings?
The report also states that the fuel crossfeed lever was found in the off position and both left and right fuel tank selector switches were "closed". Would fuel cross feed be available with these switch settings?
CV-240s have a cross feed handle in the overhead you twist to open or close the valve. There was some issue with the valve being hard to operate due to wing flex but I can't remember the particulars. With the x-feed valve closed you are not going to have any fuel transfer.
Must have been when it was fitted with the -17 Dave, the -16 is listed on the TCDS. Approved engines for the 240,
CA3, CA15, CA18, or R2800-83AM3, -83AM4A or -83AM9
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing); or CB3, CB16, R2800-83AM5, -52WM1 or -99W
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing). Note: R2800-97W is equivalent to R2800 CA-18
CA3, CA15, CA18, or R2800-83AM3, -83AM4A or -83AM9
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing); or CB3, CB16, R2800-83AM5, -52WM1 or -99W
(20:9 propeller reduction gearing). Note: R2800-97W is equivalent to R2800 CA-18
The CV-300 was a marketing designation (ie not on the Type Certificate)
Fuel dump was optional on 580s and 640s. Don't see any reference to it in 240 or 600 manuals.
The aircraft was not with Pan Am. It was only the third production 240, new as the first of Western's fleet (N8401H) at the end of 1948, traded in after 10 years to Lockheed for a turboprop Electra. Lockheed passed it on to major dealer California Airmotive (apparently the first ever aircraft this later well-known organisation handled) who put the engines of the -300 mod onto it, and fitted the exec interior. It never ran for an airline again but spent the next 20 years operating with a whole range of corporate operators and registrations. This was quite usual with older small airliners at the time, before executive jets were common. Probably didn't accumulate a lot of hours compared to an airline, such aircraft don't. However, by 1977 it would definitely be at the bottom of the exec charter market. It seems to have been the operator's only Convair. They had had it for just 4 months. Operator was L&J Company, you will have to look them up. Probably Len and Jeff or similar. What were the accident aircraft's pilots' names ?
If you want further examples of how organisations not particularly savvy with the exec charter market go for the low bidder (and thus their experience/capability), look no further than the recent loss of the Brazilian football team in Colombia, with an inappropriate aircraft for the task. Or closer to home, the Buddy Holly and colleagues accident with a decidedly flimsy aircraft and pilot for the winter night task.
Yes, chartering your own multi-engine aircraft is expensive. And you get what you pay for.
I presume you've read this Forbes Welcome . No idea how accurate it is. Note that although the two pilots lost their lives, 20 of the 24 passengers survived. For so many to get away with it in a deadstick landing at night into a totally forested area, those here can draw their own conclusions. There was apparently no flight attendant. This would be unusual on an executive charter of this scale, unless, again, minimum cost was all.
If you want further examples of how organisations not particularly savvy with the exec charter market go for the low bidder (and thus their experience/capability), look no further than the recent loss of the Brazilian football team in Colombia, with an inappropriate aircraft for the task. Or closer to home, the Buddy Holly and colleagues accident with a decidedly flimsy aircraft and pilot for the winter night task.
Yes, chartering your own multi-engine aircraft is expensive. And you get what you pay for.
I presume you've read this Forbes Welcome . No idea how accurate it is. Note that although the two pilots lost their lives, 20 of the 24 passengers survived. For so many to get away with it in a deadstick landing at night into a totally forested area, those here can draw their own conclusions. There was apparently no flight attendant. This would be unusual on an executive charter of this scale, unless, again, minimum cost was all.
Last edited by WHBM; 16th Jan 2017 at 17:49.
Thread Starter
Thanks to all for their contributions.
The names of the accident crew are in the NTSB report, they do not appear to be the owners of the charter company.
TWB
The names of the accident crew are in the NTSB report, they do not appear to be the owners of the charter company.
TWB
Last edited by twb3; 17th Jan 2017 at 21:04.
One of the reasons that 20 of the 24 passengers survived is that there was no post-crash fire, because there was no fuel left in the tanks.
