Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a coincidence....2 of these ol' birds lost the same day. JACDEC - Current News
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, this is the aircraft that crashed with the loss of two lives ...
Neptune Aviation Services Lockheed P2V Neptune N14447 / "Tanker 11" ,
Neptune Aviation Services Lockheed P2V Neptune N14447 / "Tanker 11" ,
Only hint of cause so far in the fatal Utah crash is a mention by local sheriff that a wingtip may have grazed the ground/wall in a canyon.
Investigator scours site of Utah tanker crash | ajc.com
My hat's off to the folks who fly these birds.
Investigator scours site of Utah tanker crash | ajc.com
My hat's off to the folks who fly these birds.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CY??
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ Looks like a line of retardant leading into the debris trail. How does the emergency dump work on the P2V - would it leave a line, or a splodge? Could it have been just a simple CFIT?
Immaterial, I guess, compared to the loss that two families must be feeling today.
Condolences and thoughts from CYGM ATB.
Immaterial, I guess, compared to the loss that two families must be feeling today.
Condolences and thoughts from CYGM ATB.
"Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission."
I fail to see what is remotely clear from what we know that causes you to make such a ridiculous and crass statement.
I fail to see what is remotely clear from what we know that causes you to make such a ridiculous and crass statement.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many ways the Neptune airframe is very well suited to the firebombing mission.
It is heavily built with a big wing and good low speed characteristics and excellent visibility from the cockpit. Its Achilles heel is the temperamental R 3350 engines. They don't really have enough power now that purple gas is long gone and these engines are getting harder and harder to maintain.
What is needed is a program to refurbish the airframe and then fit 4000 hp Alison 501 Turbo prop engines. Now that would be kick butt tanker.
Instead everyone seems all hot to tank BAE 146's an program to me that just makes no sense.
It is heavily built with a big wing and good low speed characteristics and excellent visibility from the cockpit. Its Achilles heel is the temperamental R 3350 engines. They don't really have enough power now that purple gas is long gone and these engines are getting harder and harder to maintain.
What is needed is a program to refurbish the airframe and then fit 4000 hp Alison 501 Turbo prop engines. Now that would be kick butt tanker.
Instead everyone seems all hot to tank BAE 146's an program to me that just makes no sense.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell M
I assume from your comment that you have extensive experience in operating or maintaining R3350s and /or Neptunes?
If no, what qualifies you to comment?
Wunwing
I assume from your comment that you have extensive experience in operating or maintaining R3350s and /or Neptunes?
If no, what qualifies you to comment?
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 13th Jun 2012 at 06:33.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing, was your comment aimed at Shell Management or Big Pistons Forever? The R3350's can be cantankerous and they do go well on 145 Octane fuel which is no longer around. The Power Recovery Turbines are problematic, as the RAAF sadly learned in about February of 1959.
Last edited by Old Fella; 13th Jun 2012 at 08:02. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella, my comments were to Shell Management.It would be interesting to see what information and experience he bases his comments on.
I'm a current FE on a Lockheed C121/Connie so I have some experience in running 4 X R3350s on lower octane fuel. Our operation has so far not had any dire problems with either our 1049 or Neptunes with power recovery turbines.We also don't use high blower.Biggest problem and the only reason for any engine shutdowns for us has been fouled plugs. Two fouled on one cylinder is a mandatory shutdown. Both the Neptune and L1049 are fitted with an engine analyser so all 36 plug conditions are readily observed.
The trick with these engines seems to be to follow the procedures exactly and never allow them to be negatively torqued, landings being the exception.
On the Neptunes including both recent accident aircraft (from the photos) except for low fuel, there is always the emergency option of using the jets to get you out of trouble.
I do agree that the Neptune with propjets would be an interesting fire bomber.Probably a bit lighter as well because it would allow the removal of the jets.
It is interesting that the Canadians are moving to Electras and CV 580 propjets as the US is going British jets.
Wunwing
I'm a current FE on a Lockheed C121/Connie so I have some experience in running 4 X R3350s on lower octane fuel. Our operation has so far not had any dire problems with either our 1049 or Neptunes with power recovery turbines.We also don't use high blower.Biggest problem and the only reason for any engine shutdowns for us has been fouled plugs. Two fouled on one cylinder is a mandatory shutdown. Both the Neptune and L1049 are fitted with an engine analyser so all 36 plug conditions are readily observed.
The trick with these engines seems to be to follow the procedures exactly and never allow them to be negatively torqued, landings being the exception.
On the Neptunes including both recent accident aircraft (from the photos) except for low fuel, there is always the emergency option of using the jets to get you out of trouble.
I do agree that the Neptune with propjets would be an interesting fire bomber.Probably a bit lighter as well because it would allow the removal of the jets.
It is interesting that the Canadians are moving to Electras and CV 580 propjets as the US is going British jets.
Wunwing