PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012 (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/487180-air-tanker-crash-utah-3-june-2012-a.html)

Yankee Whisky 4th Jun 2012 13:44

Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012
 
Air tanker crash kills 2 in Utah - CNN.com

DaveReidUK 4th Jun 2012 14:00

Report suggests a P-2 (Neptune).

gwillie 4th Jun 2012 14:03

Quite a coincidence....2 of these ol' birds lost the same day. JACDEC - Current News

DaveReidUK 4th Jun 2012 15:43


Quite a coincidence....2 of these ol' birds lost the same day.
Happily the crew walked away from the other one:

http://www.mynews4.com/media/lib/167...d/Original.jpg

Flame 5th Jun 2012 22:32

Sadly, this is the aircraft that crashed with the loss of two lives ...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8145/7...4b607ec82f.jpg
Neptune Aviation Services Lockheed P2V Neptune N14447 / "Tanker 11" ,

pattern_is_full 6th Jun 2012 15:26

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.

Wiggly Bob 6th Jun 2012 20:28

Video here of the Minden emergency landing.


Machaca 6th Jun 2012 22:50

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...HITEROCK00.jpg

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...HITEROCK03.jpg

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...HITEROCK01.jpg

North Shore 7th Jun 2012 02:19

^ 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.

Shell Management 7th Jun 2012 20:53

Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.

Raikum 7th Jun 2012 21:55

"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.

CharlieOneSix 7th Jun 2012 22:08


Originally Posted by Shell Management (Post 7232384)
Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.

Clearly time for this elderly pseudo Shell manager and his ridiculous comments to retire from PPRuNe.

Big Pistons Forever 7th Jun 2012 22:17

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.

Huck 8th Jun 2012 01:29

If they have engine problems now, just wait 'til the Bring Another Engine arrives....

You know why it has four? They couldn't fit five.

Ejector 8th Jun 2012 02:02

146's have 5 APU's in formation :ok:

stepwilk 9th Jun 2012 00:47


Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.
This person--man? woman? child?--is a classic troll.

TWOTBAGS 9th Jun 2012 04:18

BAe 146 ----> 5 Oil Leaks connected by an electrical fault.

Wunwing 13th Jun 2012 06:32

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

Old Fella 13th Jun 2012 07:59

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.

Wunwing 13th Jun 2012 10:22

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:27.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.