>Not only did this plane have a full factory tank of fuel, Ken,much
>to my dismay, also had 1 or 2 aux plastic Evinrude tanks that
>erupted upon impact
Finklea - I am very sad to hear that an experienced pilot was
persuaded to be aboard an aircraft with such a dangerous-sounding
fuel arrangment.
The likelihood of surviving a low-level stall-spin incident is low at
the best of times; I would not care to stack the odds against myself
by adding a potential bomb to my baggage.
Was the Evinrude tank restrained & plumbed-in in a way that minimised
any possibility of fuel spillage on impact? I've not looked at the
factory-supplied long range tank, but I'm sure it addresses these
concerns. If you choose a different route to provide more fuel on
board, you're conducting an experiment, the result of which, by
definition, is unknown.
What was the gross weight & CG of the aircraft at departure? Two
adults (how heavy?) plus the extra fuel tank(s) might have put it
over-gross or out of balance; maybe there was some baggage aboard
too. Did the Pilot-in-Command conduct a weight and balance
calculation before departure? Did the PiC review the options for
dealing with engine-failure-after-takeoff before depature?
I've just be re-validating my licence in C152s (a factory-built type
with a fairly good safety record); much of the dual time was spent,
not seeing if I could keep the dirty side down or find some distant
waypoint, but on exploring my ability (a) to make sure the aircraft
and its systems were fit for flight before committing to takeoff, and
(b) to make decisions that would contribute to my survival in the
event of unexpected failures. It was not assumed that this simple and
basically safe type would refuse to bite if the pilot took his eye
off the ball, and the same is true of all aircraft types.
regards
Rowland
--
| Rowland Carson PFA #16532 http://home.clara.net/rowil/aviation/
| 760 hours building Europa #435 G-ROWI e-mail <rowil@clara.net>
|