Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,626
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Really? If it ran, I'd fly it right back out.Glad he didn't get hurt. I wonder if he flew that plane out of there once they got it out of the river. I sure wouldn't.
Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.That explanation makes no sense. If the fuel is pumping into the tank, running the pump dry wouldn't matter.
Kind of a dangerous situation, but there likely isn't another way to run fuel into the tank without carving a new hole.Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.
I’d be worried there was soot and sand in the engine and oil through the exhaust and breather . Also figured my luck was running thin.Really? If it ran, I'd fly it right back out.
I’d be worried that there was water soot and sand in the engine through the exhaust and breather. Also figured my luck was running thin.
...All that said, if it ran up OK, I'd probably fly it out.
So what am I missing here?
If the water was deep enough to create sufficient drag on those big "flotation" tires as they sank below the surface to put the plane on its nose, why wouldn't there still be too much depth/drag to prevent a takeoff?
Looked to me like only the nosebowl got wet. I'd worry about water in the carb (assuming it had one), but the exhaust isn't a concern. I would pull the bottom plugs and turn the engine over, just in case. My real concern would be any impact damage on the crank, crankcase, etc.
All that said, if it ran up OK, I'd probably fly it out.
He said it pumps into the tank. And he was showing bubbles on the left but talking about the right tank.Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.
I wonder if he flew that plane out of there once they got it out of the river. I sure wouldn't.
It is all about risk assessment. After a thorough post incident checkout and everything checked out Ok, I would not hesitate.
However, I would not try to talk someone into flying the plane out if that person had any doubts whatsoever. I would accept that persons decision.
The incident illustrates the fact adherence to checklists and procedures are paramount to safe operations.
That fact, along with a careful inspection of the propeller, must have verified it did not impact the river bottom. That knowledge made flying the aircraft out much less risky than one might suppose.