SR22 Crash - plane was upside down above the runway ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going out with my sister then you are even sadder than I thought you were.
My sister is in her 70's!
My sister is in her 70's!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the prelim NTSB report is out, not much to report other than the data recorder was found about 80feet away charred. The witness was a CFI. Apparently this second attempt at landing was about 8miins after the first. The aircraft was about 40ft up when it appeared to pitch and roll over - left wing tip touched ground, it cartwheeled and after inverted impact an explosion was heard
The explosion could have been the BRS going off. Also sounds like he was in the process of another go around given that he was at 40 ft
The explosion could have been the BRS going off. Also sounds like he was in the process of another go around given that he was at 40 ft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB
I was talking to a Cirrus owner this weekend, he told me that the fuel tanks in his Cirrus are 'not protected' meaning the fuel was in his wings without a real tank.
Is this correct ? I mean they must at least put it in some sort of a bag ? Or do they have a metal fuel tank like most GA planes have ?
If they don't have any protection, isn't this a very dangerous situation in case something happens with the wing, the fuel get's loose directly ?
Is this correct ? I mean they must at least put it in some sort of a bag ? Or do they have a metal fuel tank like most GA planes have ?
If they don't have any protection, isn't this a very dangerous situation in case something happens with the wing, the fuel get's loose directly ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true that the fuel tanks in Cirri are just spaces in the wing cavity, unlike Diamonds, which have separate metal tanks, behind the wing spar. As far as I know, the only Diamond to have caught fire did so after hitting overhead power cables.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since this thread is about a cirrus plane that caught fire:
Can you explain this a little further, do you mean the cirrus has no separate sheath for fuel ? you mean not even a 'bag' ? it's just in the space in the wing ??
are just spaces in the wing cavity,
Last edited by sternone; 3rd Dec 2007 at 08:35.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's just a space in the wing with no sheath. According to NTSB reports, there have been post impact fires in 10 out of 26 of the 31 Cirrus crashes involving fatalities (5 crashes were not in the US), but I'm not leaping to any conclusions.
Last edited by soay; 3rd Dec 2007 at 10:30. Reason: Corrected stats for US-only figures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, imagine if i would jump to conclusions, some people would skin me alive!!
Could somebody tell me that is a safe solution in the Cirrus planes ??
Could somebody tell me that is a safe solution in the Cirrus planes ??
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very suprised to here about the Cirrus fuel tanks. When I watched A Plane is Born presented by Mark Evans in which he was building a Europa they showed the fuel tank being constantly run over by a Land Rover, despite being deformed it would not burst. It was a very strong tank!
To discover that a Cirrus doesn't actually have a fuel tank at all is very suprising.
To discover that a Cirrus doesn't actually have a fuel tank at all is very suprising.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to nip this one in the bud before it gets out of hand....
Integral wing tanks are very common in actual fact on all sorts of aircraft. The Cirrus has a composite wing and is sealed to form a tank inside the wing, bounded by ribs and the spar most probably.
A PA28 uses a removable section of the wing to form a tank - made from aluminium the same as the rest of the wing - it's removavble for inspection of the tank and wing but is still part of the actual wing. And no it isn't why wings are falling off PA28s left, right and centre.
New build Cessna 172s and 182s use sealed wing structure to form a tank, older 182s used a bag tank and 172s had a separate ali tank in the wing. Bag tanks dry out, crack and leak and can be very costly.
Oh and your beloved Mooney has an integral tank, just like a Ceesna or indeed the apparently pyro-Cirri - they just seal the aluminium rather than the composite structure......
PS The chances of a Land Rover running over a Cirrus wing are probably pretty remote.
Integral wing tanks are very common in actual fact on all sorts of aircraft. The Cirrus has a composite wing and is sealed to form a tank inside the wing, bounded by ribs and the spar most probably.
A PA28 uses a removable section of the wing to form a tank - made from aluminium the same as the rest of the wing - it's removavble for inspection of the tank and wing but is still part of the actual wing. And no it isn't why wings are falling off PA28s left, right and centre.
New build Cessna 172s and 182s use sealed wing structure to form a tank, older 182s used a bag tank and 172s had a separate ali tank in the wing. Bag tanks dry out, crack and leak and can be very costly.
Oh and your beloved Mooney has an integral tank, just like a Ceesna or indeed the apparently pyro-Cirri - they just seal the aluminium rather than the composite structure......
PS The chances of a Land Rover running over a Cirrus wing are probably pretty remote.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to nip this one in the bud before it gets out of hand....
It wasn't that I thought all planes had strong seperate tanks, just that I always regarded Cirrus as being very safe and was therefore suprised to find that they perhaps had a potential weakness in this area.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smarthawke, thanks for the information on the fuel tank structure of other aircraft. It prompted me to do similar searches of the NTSB database, with the following results:
- Cirrus: 26 fatal crashes with 10 post-impact fires
- Mooney: 44 fatal crashes with 7 post-impact fires
- Cessna 172: 162 fatal crashes with 3 post-impact fires
- Diamond: 4 fatal crashes with 1 post-impact fire (a DA20 that hit power lines)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any significance can be drawn from them
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh,
they sound shockingly dangerous don't they! Looking at those stats though, the most deadly aeroplanes are the Mooney and the Cessna 172 !!!!
Best I steer clear of those dangerous aeroplanes.
they sound shockingly dangerous don't they! Looking at those stats though, the most deadly aeroplanes are the Mooney and the Cessna 172 !!!!
Best I steer clear of those dangerous aeroplanes.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's another burnt out Cirrus to add to the statistics, but fortunately no casualties. According to this report, the plane crashed at the end of the runway, then caught fire after the two occupants had exited. Reportedly, the pilot said the crash "was the plane's fault". 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interestingly according to the NTSB there have been 6 fatal crashes of mooneys in 2007 so far and (excluding the greenland ferry incident) 2 in Cirrus - (that's crashes causing fatality not fatalities) there are about 8000 mooneys of all type on the register and just under 4000 cirrus
Amazing what you can do with statistics when you've got a point to make!
regardless of one's support for a particular make there should be a lot of general interest in this crash because it looks a) like a situation where we would all expect to control things (15-20kts xwind is no big deal in a cirrus) and it does look like a stall spin.
So instead of trying to blame the aircraft which would be nice and comforting (for some) we should be asking are there techniques we need to improve - there but for the grace etc ...
Amazing what you can do with statistics when you've got a point to make!
regardless of one's support for a particular make there should be a lot of general interest in this crash because it looks a) like a situation where we would all expect to control things (15-20kts xwind is no big deal in a cirrus) and it does look like a stall spin.
So instead of trying to blame the aircraft which would be nice and comforting (for some) we should be asking are there techniques we need to improve - there but for the grace etc ...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus does use a "wet" wing.
It is wrong to draw conclusions from such a small sample, however, In my view the reason for the apparent increased incidence of post impact fires in Cirrus is that the tank is entirely fibreglass/GRP, unlike for example the Diamond tank which I understand is a conventional aluminium tank contained within the wing.
I think it is likely that in a severe impact that the GRP tank in a Cirrus will burst or split, spilling fuel just where you don't want it. Even a crack will result in a fuel leak......
A conventional aluminium tank is less likely to rupture and in my view Cessnas, Pipers, Mooneys etc all use aluminium tanks for good reasons.
It is wrong to draw conclusions from such a small sample, however, In my view the reason for the apparent increased incidence of post impact fires in Cirrus is that the tank is entirely fibreglass/GRP, unlike for example the Diamond tank which I understand is a conventional aluminium tank contained within the wing.
I think it is likely that in a severe impact that the GRP tank in a Cirrus will burst or split, spilling fuel just where you don't want it. Even a crack will result in a fuel leak......
A conventional aluminium tank is less likely to rupture and in my view Cessnas, Pipers, Mooneys etc all use aluminium tanks for good reasons.
Martello,
Most Mooneys are getting fairly old now, with old style avionics. Perhaps you need to include what was the reason for the accidents of the Mooneys and Cirrus' to add wieght to your statistics.
Most Mooneys are getting fairly old now, with old style avionics. Perhaps you need to include what was the reason for the accidents of the Mooneys and Cirrus' to add wieght to your statistics.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus does use a "wet" wing.
It is wrong to draw conclusions from such a small sample, however, In my view the reason for the apparent increased incidence of post impact fires in Cirrus is that the tank is entirely fibreglass/GRP, unlike for example the Diamond tank which I understand is a conventional aluminium tank contained within the wing.
It is wrong to draw conclusions from such a small sample, however, In my view the reason for the apparent increased incidence of post impact fires in Cirrus is that the tank is entirely fibreglass/GRP, unlike for example the Diamond tank which I understand is a conventional aluminium tank contained within the wing.
First, there is the difference between a wet wing and a separate fuel tank contained in the wing, regardless of the material. If you have a wet wing in a crash, it is almost certain that the tank walls (ie. the wing surface, leading edge, spar) will take some or all of the impact forces. If you have a separate tank within the wing, the tank walls will only be impacted after the wing itself fails. I think this is inherently safer, regardless of the materials used. See double-walled oil tankers (ships) who have replaced virtually all single-walled oil tankers after the Exxon Valdez drama. Installing fuel tanks also gives the designer flexibility in offering different fuel tank sizes, like on the Diamond the long-range tank. But it has an inherent penalty in weight.
Second, there's the material that the tank is from. Slippery ice here, since aluminium and GRP/composite have different strength characteristics and depending on who you talk to and what loads are considered, either of the two can come out best. To me, what makes the most difference is the behaviour in fire. I think an aluminium tank will stay intact until reaching very high temperatures, after which it will melt. A composite tank will lose a lot of its strength at much lower temperatures and as far as I know, most composites will actually burn, instead of only melting.
Someone also mentioned the Europa tank. This tank is made from rotomoulded polyethylene, which is completely different from GRP/composite or aluminium. It is very strong but melts very easily. In fact, when opening up the tank fitting holes the factory recommends using a hot soldering iron instead of sawing/drilling. But most importantly, the Europa tank is carried in the fuselage itself, in a location where even in case of a crash, there's not going to be a lot of impact.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker,
I think you put it better than me!
What I meant to imply is that the Cirrus uses a wet wing - The primary structure of the wing makes up the fuel tank. In an accident the primary structure is easily damaged and so a fuel leak is highly likely.
In my opinion, the double skin protection afforded by an aluminium (or even another GRP tank?) contained within the wing or fuselage has to be dramatically safer in the event of an accident than the Cirrus system.
If you have a wet wing in a crash, it is almost certain that the tank walls (ie. the wing surface, leading edge, spar) will take some or all of the impact forces.
What I meant to imply is that the Cirrus uses a wet wing - The primary structure of the wing makes up the fuel tank. In an accident the primary structure is easily damaged and so a fuel leak is highly likely.
In my opinion, the double skin protection afforded by an aluminium (or even another GRP tank?) contained within the wing or fuselage has to be dramatically safer in the event of an accident than the Cirrus system.