Taylorcraft down California

This video is interesting if only because the host interviews an A&P who got his tailwheel in that airplane and also did a couple of annuals for it up until a couple of years ago.

 
Interesting that he had fuel and altitude and never attempted an engine restart ...
 
CaptainXap said:
This video is interesting if only because the host interviews an A&P who got his tailwheel in that airplane and also did a couple of annuals for it up until a couple of years ago.

Click to expand...
"Trevor Jacob told the sellers of the Taylorcraft that he was 'going to do something special with the plane.'"

i'm sure he's going to say that he meant flying it to Mammoth to spread his buddy's ashes, but why couldn't he do that in his plane exactly? can't make this up
 
Given that we can now be fairly sure it crashed while still containing several gallons of fuel, it seems quite lucky there wasn't a fire. I guess the engine had been air-cooled a lot by the time it hit, but there still could have been a spark or two on impact.
 
Does anybody have an understanding of the fuel system and that dangling hose/selector? I have seen people reference it and say things like "why is it just hanging there not hooked into the tank?" or that it "clearly has fuel" but I don't understand the indicators or what's going on.
 
GaryM said:
He chartered a helicopter and moved the wrecked Taylorcraft to an unknown location, according to the article.

Not suspicious at all!
Click to expand...
If he chartered a helicopter, we can likely check the ADS-B and know its destination, right? Of course, all "evidence" is now gone.
 
CaptainXap said:
Given that we can now be fairly sure it crashed while still containing several gallons of fuel, it seems quite lucky there wasn't a fire. I guess the engine had been air-cooled a lot by the time it hit, but there still could have been a spark or two on impact.
Click to expand...

Why is fire always assumed? Most crashes with fuel still remaining don’t involve a fire. If the engine is off and there is no electrical system there isn’t much there to ignite any remaining fuel. A single spark in also unlikely to light off leaking fuel unless it is perfectly vaporized and close to that spark.
 
Nate9191 said:
Does anybody have an understanding of the fuel system and that dangling hose/selector? I have seen people reference it and say things like "why is it just hanging there not hooked into the tank?" or that it "clearly has fuel" but I don't understand the indicators or what's going on.
Click to expand...

The fuel tank in that plane is in front of the instrument panel - you can see one in this picture of someone restoring one:
http://www.taylorcraftbc-65.com/uploads/3/4/3/7/34378036/5452075_orig.jpg

As I understand it there is a auxiliary tank in the wing, and once the main tank is half empty you can normally drain the aux tank in to the main tank. It looks like the aux tank is not connected.
 
CaptainXap said:
The fuel tank in that plane is in front of the instrument panel - you can see one in this picture of someone restoring one:
http://www.taylorcraftbc-65.com/uploads/3/4/3/7/34378036/5452075_orig.jpg

As I understand it there is a auxiliary tank in the wing, and once the main tank is half empty you can normally drain the aux tank in to the main tank. It looks like the aux tank is not connected.
Click to expand...
In the post crash pics it looks suspiciously like there is no right wing tank (anymore). You can see the hole in the wing but no filler neck or cap.
 
Daleandee said:
Push the nose over and the prop will spin ...
Click to expand...

Normally, it won't even stop windmilling unless you slow it right to the edge of stall speed and hold it there for awhile.

CaptainXap said:
The fuel tank in that plane is in front of the instrument panel - you can see one in this picture of someone restoring one:
http://www.taylorcraftbc-65.com/uploads/3/4/3/7/34378036/5452075_orig.jpg

As I understand it there is a auxiliary tank in the wing, and once the main tank is half empty you can normally drain the aux tank in to the main tank. It looks like the aux tank is not connected.
Click to expand...

Correct, the engine runs on the main tank and the optional wing tank fills the main. It looks like the wing tank was disconnected for whatever reason, but it won't affect the main tank. The plane looked like it needed other work as well.
 
aftCG said:
In the post crash pics it looks suspiciously like there is no right wing tank (anymore). You can see the hole in the wing but no filler neck or cap.
Click to expand...
Well, that would explain why it wasn't connected!
 
Dana said:
Normally, it won't even stop windmilling unless you slow it right to the edge of stall speed and hold it there for awhile.
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to tell from the video but it appears that's what he did, perhaps to make it apparent that the engine was not running.
 
CaptainXap said:
The fuel tank in that plane is in front of the instrument panel - you can see one in this picture of someone restoring one:
http://www.taylorcraftbc-65.com/uploads/3/4/3/7/34378036/5452075_orig.jpg

As I understand it there is a auxiliary tank in the wing, and once the main tank is half empty you can normally drain the aux tank in to the main tank. It looks like the aux tank is not connected.
Click to expand...
what is the capacity of the standard single tank behind the panel? also, the on the "Taking Off" youtube guy's channel they are saying it's obvious there was fuel in the plane and i'm not sure i understand how they can tell
 
man i just watched this mess again. from the time he stops the prop until he jumps is like a minute at best. it's the most damning piece of this, in my opinion. he really didn't even try at all to get it restarted and really forced it to make the prop stop. he could have spent 2-3 minutes troubleshooting it and still had plenty of time to bail.
 
I suppose one must allow for the (remote) possibility that the engine might have seized, stopping the prop. But the erudite demographic that watches drivel like this would never believe the engine had quit if the prop were still windmilling, so the script called for a stopped prop.
 
I remember when studying for my private written there was a question about when was it acceptable to move airplane wreckage and that list was small. It was like when necessary to rescue a crew member or to preserve the wreckage from further damage so it could be inspected, etc.
 
Lindberg said:
As it did on it's own before crashing.
Click to expand...

Yep. So we can conclude that the engine was not seized. It is believed to have fuel (see Dana's post # 216), and he appears to have enough altitude to attempt at least one restart. If he did attempt a restart it wasn't in the video. He does work the elevator pretty good right before exiting the plane. It could be argued that he wanted the plane as close to stall as possible to make it easier to open the door and for a safer egress.
 
He had the altitude to attempt many restarts. He was also flying quite a bit higher than most cruise in that type of aircraft. He made no attempt to look for a suitable landing spot. No one jumps from a controllable aircraft with plenty of altitude without attempting a restart and looking for a suitable place to land. It’s also odd that he hikes to the aircraft first to retrieve the cameras and carries his chute with him the entire time despite claiming he was near collapse from lack of water.
 
In a plane like that with the prop still windmilling (before he stopped it by stalling the plane) there's not much to do to restart, other than pulling carb heat, maybe wiggling the mag switch, pumping the throttle, and making sure the fuel valve is still open.
 
Dana said:
Normally, it won't even stop windmilling unless you slow it right to the edge of stall speed and hold it there for awhile.



Correct, the engine runs on the main tank and the optional wing tank fills the main. It looks like the wing tank was disconnected for whatever reason, but it won't affect the main tank. The plane looked like it needed other work as well.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the ferry permit, then ...
 
The one thing I wonder is that if it really was premeditated, what did he expect to happen when he landed? Wouldn't you pack some water? He mentions there being water in the plane, perhaps he forgot to bring it with him? I wondered when watching it whether he took his parachute with him to make a little tent with if he ended up needing to spending a night out there.

I also wonder if he severely underestimated how long it would take to get to the riverbed. He claims it took him five hours, and the distance of the riverbed from the crash site is only about 1.5 miles.
 
CaptainXap said:
The one thing I wonder is that if it really was premeditated, what did he expect to happen when he landed? Wouldn't you pack some water? He mentions there being water in the plane, perhaps he forgot to bring it with him? I wondered when watching it whether he took his parachute with him to make a little tent with if he ended up needing to spending a night out there.

I also wonder if he severely underestimated how long it would take to get to the riverbed. He claims it took him five hours, and the distance of the riverbed from the crash site is only about 1.5 miles.
Click to expand...
We don't know if he was swilling water all the way, off-camera. I believe nothing this guy says anymore.
 
CaptainXap said:
The one thing I wonder is that if it really was premeditated, what did he expect to happen when he landed? Wouldn't you pack some water? He mentions there being water in the plane, perhaps he forgot to bring it with him? I wondered when watching it whether he took his parachute with him to make a little tent with if he ended up needing to spending a night out there.

I also wonder if he severely underestimated how long it would take to get to the riverbed. He claims it took him five hours, and the distance of the riverbed from the crash site is only about 1.5 miles.
Click to expand...
So you're saying he may have exaggerated some aspects of the incident?
 
CaptainXap said:
The one thing I wonder is that if it really was premeditated, what did he expect to happen when he landed? Wouldn't you pack some water? He mentions there being water in the plane, perhaps he forgot to bring it with him? I wondered when watching it whether he took his parachute with him to make a little tent with if he ended up needing to spending a night out there.

I also wonder if he severely underestimated how long it would take to get to the riverbed. He claims it took him five hours, and the distance of the riverbed from the crash site is only about 1.5 miles.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume anything he said or portrayed in the video was true?
 
Jim K said:
This goes here:

This is another reason I prefer pipers... much harder to get sucked out of.
Click to expand...

Would be real funny if Trevor changes his story after seeing this. Great way to spin it ... :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Lindberg said:
Why do you assume anything he said or portrayed in the video was true?
Click to expand...
Well... I guess it's just that he's done such a bad job of faking the engine out parts of the video, it'd be weird if there weren't very obvious errors he'd made in the other parts if he was faking much of that as well. I realize he's done a lot of chopping and changing with the sequence and timing of parts of it, but if you look on Google earth you can find the bit where he follows the canyon down and gets stuck at the cliff. He may well be exaggerating the time taken in the video, but at the same time, I suspect hiking down from the crash site carrying your parachute is probably harder than it looks.

It wouldn't surprise me if the 'waaah I've got no water' thing wasn't true, but then at the same time he doesn't seem like the sharpest tack in the box, so I feel like he might also have decided that he'd be out of there in two hours and wouldn't need it.
 
“The suction goes all the way to the ground.”
Lol. Skydivers say there is no gravity, the earth sucks. I guess it’s true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top