| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
..
11 |
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hook
Refueled in San Felipe AND Calexico? Is that common? They are so close. |
There's an old Baja flying axiom that you never miss an opportunity to top off your tanks so it's not uncommon.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ken Bondy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hook
Refueled in San Felipe AND Calexico? Is that common? They are so close. |
There's an old Baja flying axiom that you never miss an opportunity to top off your tanks so it's not uncommon. |
Ken-----You are so right!!!! And in the "old days" that applied to the groundbased vehs. too, in Baja. You just never know for sure whats next.
I was wondering if somehow the plane developed a fuel leak that was not readily apparent------Calexico to the destination is not that far, even with a
strong headwind, is it ?!?!?!?!
Barry
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
Landing in the shallows of Back Bay??? At low tide, much of the bottom is exposed. I assume he wanted to be close to shore.
What a tragedy.
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Ken-----You are so right!!!! And in the "old days" that applied to the groundbased vehs. too, in Baja. You just never know for sure whats next.
I was wondering if somehow the plane developed a fuel leak that was not readily apparent------Calexico to the destination is not that far, even with a
strong headwind, is it ?!?!?!?!
Barry |
No it's not. Calexico to Torrance is about 190 nm. The Musketeer has a range of 676 nm (it cruises at 102 knots and carries 58 gallons of fuel,
burns about 9 gal/hr). Even with a constant 50 knot wind on the nose it would have had more than 2 hours of reserve to get to Torrance (assuming it
took off full out of Calexico). Very puzzling.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
As mentioned earlier, the maximum allowable gross weight would have precluded filling the tanks with three adults and baggage, so the range was
shortened considerably from its maximum. This was a stricture that existed for the entire trip, from its inception. "We can travel only so-and-so
before refueling is necessary" (Note; FAR's require a reserve be added when computing time enroute)
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sidamone
As mentioned earlier, the maximum allowable gross weight would have precluded filling the tanks with three adults and baggage, so the range was
shortened considerably from its maximum. This was a stricture that existed for the entire trip, from its inception. "We can travel only so-and-so
before refueling is necessary" (Note; FAR's require a reserve be added when computing time enroute) |
Not necessarily Sidamone. Gross weight of the Musketeer is 2400# and empty weight is 1375#. With full fuel (348#) the useful load would have been
677#. That seems reasonably adequate for three male adults, about 100# of luggage, and full fuel. Again, we are all speculating but it doesn't sound
unreasonable to me that they would have left Calexico with full fuel.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Payload 700#, empty weight a/c, 1375#, for a total of 2075, leaving 325# for fuel and oil (15# ). 310# fuel at a burn rate of 54#/hr gives 5.74 hrs
endurance. To travel 190nm. If completed, the flight would have averaged 33kts. As it didn't complete, that makes the average groundspeed all the
slower. Slow enough to produce alarm in anyone, and all verified by sinking gas gauge needles. The Feds will be able to determine groundspeed with
radar data, but more's the pity, no data exists for the decision making process used.
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Sidamone]
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Sidamone]
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sidamone
Payload 700#, empty weight a/c, 1375#, for a total of 2075, leaving 325# for fuel and oil (15# ). 310# fuel at a burn rate of 54#/hr gives 5.74 hrs
endurance. To travel 190nm. If completed, the flight would have averaged 33kts. As it didn't complete, that makes the average groundspeed all the
slower. Slow enough to produce alarm in anyone, and all verified by sinking gas gauge needles. The Feds will be able to determine groundspeed with
radar data, but more's the pity, no data exists for the decision making process used.
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Sidamone]
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Sidamone] |
I am bewildered by your calculations. Are you actually saying that you think the flight was in the air for 5.74 hours between Calexico and Newport
Beach?
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Ken Bondy]
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Which part is bewildering?
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sidamone
Which part is bewildering? |
Your conclusions.
Barry
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Either the tanks were filled and the aircraft was airborne for almost six hours, or they weren't filled. I believe it's already been stated this is
all speculative, by us who have no knowledge of what time or to what extent they were re-fueled, nor how they spent the intervening time leading up to
5:30 or thereabouts.
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Sidamone]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Yes, thats a "given" sidamone. That is what we are doing----speculating!!! We were just pointing out that this scenario is puzzleing, considering
what we know at this time, that is all.
We will have to wait and see what the "facts" reveal, if ever known.
As pilots, Ken and I are curious.
Barry
[Edited on 11-25-2010 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Actually, you pointed out my calculations, which you called conclusions, were bewildering. Which bewilders me, was there an error?
|
|
|
Juan del Rio
Senior Nomad
Posts: 560
Registered: 6-8-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Carlos Fiesta's Baja Memorial
A group of friends and local residents are planning a paddle- out/memorial service for Carlos Fiesta in San Juanico on Sunday, November 28th at 3:30
pm. This will coincide with a fly-over at Torrance Beach from the local, "Yak" Flying Club. In San Juanico, the lowering of JyJ’s "wind flag" that has
been flying at half mast since Monday at Juan y Juan's, will follow. The flag will be given to his wife. Shots of Tequila will flow after that. If you
are in the area, please stop by and raise your shot glass and toast a true Baja Nomad!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Sidimone-------Go back to Ken's last post--------I think that will end your bewilderrnent.
Barry
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Sidimone-------Go back to Ken's last post--------I think that will end your bewilderrnent.
Barry |
Do you have anything to posit yourself. Since you're a pilot and all?
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
Sidamone
As Barry pointed out, I think I clearly explained my bewilderment in my last post - your assumption that the aircraft was in the air for 5.74 hrs
after it left Calexico. Don't understand why you are getting so snippy.
++Ken++
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Who's snippy? He chimed in and professed bewilderment, without so much as a word stating any facts. I asked if he had anything to contribute. Where's
the bewilderment coming from? I used your data to state an irrefutable fact; that if the airplane was full as you assumed it to be, that it had an
endurance of over five hours.
Good to hear you re-join the discourse. If the airplane wasn't in the air, where do you suppose it was, since the people had informed their families
they were headed home?
|
|
|
rv6mike
Newbie
Posts: 13
Registered: 10-1-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Y all the BS. or speculation. If he had the fuel regardless of headwinds this would be a no brainer, Could have stopped in Oceanside or Carlsbad. If
It was a mechanical problem it is a sad ending, The NTSB has the last word. The news report said he was in contact with OC tower, any idea what was
said???? RIP!!
[Edited on 11-26-2010 by rv6mike]
[Edited on 11-26-2010 by rv6mike]
|
|
|
Sidamone
Junior Nomad
Posts: 67
Registered: 8-8-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rv6mike
Y all the BS. or speculation. If he had the fuel regardless of headwinds this would be a no brainer, Could have stopped in Oceanside or Carlsbad. If
It was a mechanical problem it is a sad ending, The NTSB has the last word. The news report said he was in contact with OC tower, any idea what was
said???? RIP!!
[Edited on 11-26-2010 by rv6mike]
[Edited on 11-26-2010 by rv6mike] |
A TV reporter in a link supplied here, said the pilot reported "fuel problems" to tower.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
..
11 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
