Mooney down Los Angeles

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, bonal said:

There is, they're called bladders. I know, I know but any increase in fuel containment is a plus in my opinion 

The fuel lines still run through the cabin whether you have wet wings or bladders. The only difference is in the case of a fire you now have one more thing to burn, the bladders.

Edited February 25, 2016 by LANCECASPER

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

I've had the fuel run into the cabin and soak the rear carpet in the old C.  There's got to be a better way.  No AD required.

An aged piece of decorative fabric stands between the cockpit and the torn wing.

Best regards,

-a-

Fuel cells is a modern way.  From what I understand, they were developed during vietnam to help helicopters be a bit more resistant against exploding into flames with a single bullet.  Aren't they in race cars now too?  Remember the olden days when every car crash in the race circuit ended in a fiery crash?  I found that cirrus parachute fiery crash which I forgot about while searching for another cirrus accident where it burst into flames the moment it touched down.  They have a reputation for post crash fires and I am not sure if it is any worse than other wet wing planes.  My Diamond DA40 had fuel cells, and at least as of a few years ago when I last read, Diamond had never had a post crash fire.  The downside is that fuel cells add weight and they significantly reduce the storage capacity of fuel in the wings.  My DA40 had a 40gal total capacity for an IO360 so size and engine very comparable to an M20J, but much less fuel.

The better solution for post crash fire propensity may not be in the tanks, but in the engine.  A major benefit of switching the engine technology to diesel is that - yes better fuel economy and better availability around the world - but better fire resistance.  Diesel fuel is less prone to catch fire post crash - of course no fuel is completely fire proof by definition.

 

[bonal]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

The fuel lines still run through the cabin whether you have wet wings or bladders. The only difference is in the case of a fire you now have one more thing to burn, the bladders.

its like the other debates we love to have here and yes there is still a fuel line but that would be a very slow dispersal of fuel. If the wet wing rips open then massive fuel dump occurs. if the wing separates but the bladders don't tear then not much fuel will be spilled. As for fuel cells I'm sure they have advanced over the years but in my early race days they were nothing more than a steel or aluminium box with a (you guessed it) bladder inside. I prefer to have that second layer and I do think it makes a difference. as for the bladders burning, if there is a fire from fuel it wont matter if they burn or not you will be cooked either way.

 

[22 others]

Call me a Monday Morning Pilot, but...      Maybe the debate should center on whether tis better to crash into a busy road or the train track that runs parallel.

[ArtVandelay]

On February 24, 2016 at 3:24 PM, M20Doc said:

37 minutes ago, 22 others said:

Call me a Monday Morning Pilot, but...      Maybe the debate should center on whether tis better to crash into a busy road or the train track that runs parallel.

Guess that depends on when the next train is coming

[bonal]

44 minutes ago, 22 others said:

Call me a Monday Morning Pilot, but...      Maybe the debate should center on whether tis better to crash into a busy road or the train track that runs parallel.

Like with all landings a lot has to do with what's between you and your choice of landing spots how you make that decision you have to really be on your game when it hits the fan,  Don't know what led to this forced landing but no matter what the pilot did good on the landing.

[Shadrach]

On February 25, 2016 at 7:15 PM, mooniac15u said:

That vapor cloud is outside the tank. An uncontained vapor cloud will ignite if it finds a heat/spark source.

I was only addressing the claim that fuel tanks would explode. 

Fuel tanks can explode (though I agree it does not happen Hollywood style). As I said before, it just requires that there be very little fuel in the tank relative to its size. Your assertion that it is impossible for there to be a combustible mixture in a fuel tank is incorrect. It is however, unlikely that most tanks have a combustible mixture at impact. 

In my youth, I made a lot of makeshift explosives and projectiles using model rocket detonators. I have blown up fuel tanks, they usually split down the seams. But some

Anyway, I was just kidding Chris with my bomb comment because his F has bladders (IIRC).  I appreciate you educating me in the ways of combustion.  

[mooniac15u]

53 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 Your assertion that it is impossible for there to be a combustible mixture in a fuel tank is incorrect. It is however, unlikely that most tanks have a combustible mixture at impact. 

 

Please show me somewhere in one of my posts where I said it was impossible.

[jetdriven]

On February 25, 2016 at 8:56 AM, LANCECASPER said:

The fuel lines still run through the cabin whether you have wet wings or bladders. The only difference is in the case of a fire you now have one more thing to burn, the bladders.

The bladders may act to contain the fuel, in a crash, better than a true wet wing. It's one more thing that must be compromised in order for fuel to leak. In these airplanes, it's a bag inside the wet wing fuel tank cavity. But the rubber is pretty tough stuff and takes a bit of force to tear 

[cliffy]

Show me pictures of any Mooney that had a "crash landing" UNDER CONTROL where the wing came apart!  First and foremost, it's all up to you, the pilot, as to the outcome of an off airport landing. 

Aside from non-survivable crash attitudes (angle of impact to surface of impact, yes there are studies on this on the net), Mooneys look to me to be way better than the rest of the fleet in post crash disassembly. It's all due to basic design. Most everyone else "bolts" their wings on to the fuselage structure or center section. Ours is one piece from tip to tip, thereby not having any "weak" joints to come apart right at the fuel storage source.  

My guess?  After reading some of the aforementioned studies, if it's an acute enough angle of impact with enough energy to rupture the fuel tank in a Mooney it's probably acute enough to be non-survivable regardless of the post crash fire. 

We don't need no stinkin' bladders (for post crash fire control)  :-)  Al designed a strong wing! Be a good enough pilot to fly it.

Wheels up or wheels down in a crash is another thread discussion.

[neilpilot]

"After reading some of the aforementioned studies, if it's an acute enough angle of impact with enough energy to rupture the fuel tank in a Mooney it's probably acute enough to be non-survivable regardless of the post crash fire.  "

The subject accident was clearly survivable, with the fuel tank ruptured.  So much for your statement of fact.

[kpaul]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Show me pictures of any Mooney that had a "crash landing" UNDER CONTROL where the wing came apart!

This thread started with a controlled off airport landing where the wing came off.  Yes, it was run over by a car, otherwise I am sure it would have stayed attached (the left wing stayed attached).  Trees will shear wings off, so many times it has to do with available landing sites as much as with pilotage in the last 100'.  But I get your point, if the initial forced landing was survivable the wings are probably still attached and although the fuel tanks may be compromised and leaking.

[N201MKTurbo]

Weird mooney news...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/24/sandra-bullocks-alleged-stalker-owns-plane-crashed-l-street/80869794/

 

[cliffy]

43 minutes ago, neilpilot said:

"After reading some of the aforementioned studies, if it's an acute enough angle of impact with enough energy to rupture the fuel tank in a Mooney it's probably acute enough to be non-survivable regardless of the post crash fire.  "

The subject accident was clearly survivable, with the fuel tank ruptured.  So much for your statement of fact.

There are no studies that I have seen that include a "secondary input force "  such as a car running over the wing at the same time a landing is accomplished. This is truly a unique experience with this particular incident. The studies I have read dealt with the airplane only and the angles at which the airframe impacted the plane of the surface it came in contact with. In the OP crash the the tank would not have ruptured in the manner it did had it not been for the input of a secondary force (car) at the same time of the contact with the ground. The tank did not rupture from the impact of the landing only from the secondary force of being run over and crushed by the car thereby compromising the wing structure in force lines not attributable to the primary crash vectors. Now this secondary input may well have been beneficial to the ultimate outcome of the crash as it dissipated energy over a longer period of time as opposed to hitting a solid immovable object such as a wall or tree. The pilot walked away basically unhurt

As noted in a previous post, wings can shear off on trees etc but the forces involved in doing so in many if not most cases render the accident unsurvivable regardless of post impact fire. Post impact fire is not the big issue in an unsurvivable accident, in most cases, with light aircraft from what I have read. .  It is actually very interesting to read how little of an impact angle and at what little speed it takes to render an accident non-survivable (no post impact fire involved). Once you get above the area of 70 kts impact speed the angle of impact  becomes very shallow for survivability. In one study I read, shoulder harnesses actually played a much smaller role in survivability than most would tend to believe. Their "window of help" was fairly narrow. 

I ask again, how many off airport landings that are survivable resulted in non-survivable fires in Mooneys from ruptured fuel tanks? Not many, if any, but I'm looking for more data and if I find data that shows that post impact fire in Mooneys is a serious factor in survivable accidents, I'll change my mind on the subject.  

The point I was trying to make was that we have a stronger wing than any other plane out there and by the time the wing fails in a "normal" crash scenario and the fuel tank ruptures most likely we are in a world of hurt (probably dead already) and the post crash fire will make no difference. 

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Weird mooney news...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/24/sandra-bullocks-alleged-stalker-owns-plane-crashed-l-street/80869794/

 

Yeah, I was surprised no one had mentioned it. My wife was familiar with the stalker story and thought it funny that the creep turned out to be a Mooney owner.

[takair]

12 minutes ago, cliffy said:

There are no studies that I have seen that include a "secondary input force "  such as a car running over the wing at the same time a landing is accomplished. This is truly a unique experience with this particular incident. The studies I have read dealt with the airplane only and the angles at which the airframe impacted the plane of the surface it came in contact with. In the OP crash the the tank would not have ruptured in the manner it did had it not been for the input of a secondary force (car) at the same time of the contact with the ground. The tank did not rupture from the impact of the landing only from the secondary force of being run over and crushed by the car thereby compromising the wing structure in force lines not attributable to the primary crash vectors. Now this secondary input may well have been beneficial to the ultimate outcome of the crash as it dissipated energy over a longer period of time as opposed to hitting a solid immovable object such as a wall or tree. The pilot walked away basically unhurt

As noted in a previous post, wings can shear off on trees etc but the forces involved in doing so in many if not most cases render the accident unsurvivable regardless of post impact fire. Post impact fire is not the big issue in an unsurvivable accident, in most cases, with light aircraft from what I have read. .  It is actually very interesting to read how little of an impact angle and at what little speed it takes to render an accident non-survivable (no post impact fire involved). Once you get above the area of 70 kts impact speed the angle of impact  becomes very shallow for survivability. In one study I read, shoulder harnesses actually played a much smaller role in survivability than most would tend to believe. Their "window of help" was fairly narrow. 

I ask again, how many off airport landings that are survivable resulted in non-survivable fires in Mooneys from ruptured fuel tanks? Not many, if any, but I'm looking for more data and if I find data that shows that post impact fire in Mooneys is a serious factor in survivable accidents, I'll change my mind on the subject.  

The point I was trying to make was that we have a stronger wing than any other plane out there and by the time the wing fails in a "normal" crash scenario and the fuel tank ruptures most likely we are in a world of hurt (probably dead already) and the post crash fire will make no difference. 

 

i don't have hard facts on the subject of survivable crashes becoming fatal due to fire, but I seem to read about them far too frequently.  i even seem to recall a recent 201 accident where there were survivors, but not enough time to get the pilot out.  I had an instructor who barely survived a post crash fire in brand P.  The accident was survived by he and the student, but he was knocked out and it was only because a brave bystander took the effort to run in before fire consumed the plane.  I think you will find numerous stories where the fire killed the crash survivors.  I have bladders in my plane because I did not want to deal with another re-seal.  I hate the fact that I lost some precious useful load.  I asked the question because it seems to me that in the "survivable" crashes, anything to slow down the escape of fuel may give extra seconds.  It is hard for me to believe that the bladder makes it worse...perhaps once a fire starts to consume them...but not during the initial event. My question is, can it slow down the onset or spread of fire.  I would think there is a benefit. It bothers me that the first step out of our planes is onto a fuel tank.  

[Marauder]

Weird mooney news...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/24/sandra-bullocks-alleged-stalker-owns-plane-crashed-l-street/80869794/

 

That's old news! I posted the news report that shows the owner of the plane in his prison garb. It was his father who flew the plane.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said: Weird mooney news...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/24/sandra-bullocks-alleged-stalker-owns-plane-crashed-l-street/80869794/

 

Yeah, I was surprised no one had mentioned it. My wife was familiar with the stalker story and thought it funny that the creep turned out to be a Mooney owner.

Probably because most of us have skeletons in our closet

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

 

2 hours ago, takair said:

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

12 minutes ago, cliffy said: There are no studies that I have seen that include a "secondary input force "  such as a car running over the wing at the same time a landing is accomplished. This is truly a unique experience with this particular incident. The studies I have read dealt with the airplane only and the angles at which the airframe impacted the plane of the surface it came in contact with. In the OP crash the the tank would not have ruptured in the manner it did had it not been for the input of a secondary force (car) at the same time of the contact with the ground. The tank did not rupture from the impact of the landing only from the secondary force of being run over and crushed by the car thereby compromising the wing structure in force lines not attributable to the primary crash vectors. Now this secondary input may well have been beneficial to the ultimate outcome of the crash as it dissipated energy over a longer period of time as opposed to hitting a solid immovable object such as a wall or tree. The pilot walked away basically unhurt

As noted in a previous post, wings can shear off on trees etc but the forces involved in doing so in many if not most cases render the accident unsurvivable regardless of post impact fire. Post impact fire is not the big issue in an unsurvivable accident, in most cases, with light aircraft from what I have read. .  It is actually very interesting to read how little of an impact angle and at what little speed it takes to render an accident non-survivable (no post impact fire involved). Once you get above the area of 70 kts impact speed the angle of impact  becomes very shallow for survivability. In one study I read, shoulder harnesses actually played a much smaller role in survivability than most would tend to believe. Their "window of help" was fairly narrow. 

I ask again, how many off airport landings that are survivable resulted in non-survivable fires in Mooneys from ruptured fuel tanks? Not many, if any, but I'm looking for more data and if I find data that shows that post impact fire in Mooneys is a serious factor in survivable accidents, I'll change my mind on the subject.  

The point I was trying to make was that we have a stronger wing than any other plane out there and by the time the wing fails in a "normal" crash scenario and the fuel tank ruptures most likely we are in a world of hurt (probably dead already) and the post crash fire will make no difference. 

 

 

I think every accident has environmental factors that will influence, if not dictate, the outcome. We lost a MooneySpace member a couple of years ago who perished taking off. He died of blunt force trauma, the front seat passenger died to the ensuing fire and the third passenger was able to climb out a rear window.

I think Hoover's advice of flying it into the crash and hope that one of those environmental factors don't come into play is the best advice & situation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[takair]

Feel like a party crasher going back to bladder discussion after the latest discovery in this odd accident...

i did a quick Google search and the first item to pop up seems to support the bladder in the bladder vs non-bladder discussion.  Not quite the same as a Mooney, but the concept is similar.   http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-14-001.pdf

Not trying to start another LOP vs ROP debate and I'm not trying to say every Mooney needs a bladder, but I think it is worth exploring anything that gives us a better chance of survival in these off airport landings.  Can't count on a car cleanly removing your wing every time.

[LANCECASPER]

23 minutes ago, takair said:

Feel like a party crasher going back to bladder discussion after the latest discovery in this odd accident...

i did a quick Google search and the first item to pop up seems to support the bladder in the bladder vs non-bladder discussion.  Not quite the same as a Mooney, but the concept is similar.   http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-14-001.pdf

Not trying to start another LOP vs ROP debate and I'm not trying to say every Mooney needs a bladder, but I think it is worth exploring anything that gives us a better chance of survival in these off airport landings.  Can't count on a car cleanly removing your wing every time.

That link makes a good point on bladders - a great subject to explore on another post. However on the crash in L. A. I think it's a moot point since it looks like he ran out of usable fuel.

[jetdriven]

in the words of a now-obscure FAA crash investigator "Good thing there was no fuel left onboard, or else there's been a helluva fire."

[Shadrach]

On February 27, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Marauder said:

Probably because most of us have skeletons in our closet

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

On February 27, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Marauder said: Probably because most of us have skeletons in our closet

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Awesome!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alan Fox]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 10:10 AM, aviatoreb said:

Fuel cells is a modern way.  From what I understand, they were developed during vietnam to help helicopters be a bit more resistant against exploding into flames with a single bullet.  Aren't they in race cars now too?  Remember the olden days when every car crash in the race circuit ended in a fiery crash?  I found that cirrus parachute fiery crash which I forgot about while searching for another cirrus accident where it burst into flames the moment it touched down.  They have a reputation for post crash fires and I am not sure if it is any worse than other wet wing planes.  My Diamond DA40 had fuel cells, and at least as of a few years ago when I last read, Diamond had never had a post crash fire.  The downside is that fuel cells add weight and they significantly reduce the storage capacity of fuel in the wings.  My DA40 had a 40gal total capacity for an IO360 so size and engine very comparable to an M20J, but much less fuel.

The better solution for post crash fire propensity may not be in the tanks, but in the engine.  A major benefit of switching the engine technology to diesel is that - yes better fuel economy and better availability around the world - but better fire resistance.  Diesel fuel is less prone to catch fire post crash - of course no fuel is completely fire proof by definition.

 

Eric  diesel (jet A) is more combustible than avgas , It is harder to ignite as a liquid , but as you know pretty much every jet that crashes explodes , because during most crashes the tanks are compromised , and the fuel disperses almost instantly , and as a vapor....As a vapor , Jet A holds much more thermal energy than 100LL ....