Went over and looked at the Cessna. Pictures are from my cheap Android cellular telephone...













http://www.kitv.com/clip/12193113/cessna-retrieved-from-keehi-lagoon

Any input on the decision to put it in the water as opposed to a gear up on dry land?

1:1 Scale wrote:Any input on the decision to put it in the water as opposed to a gear up on dry land?

There's another thread on here with discussion about that topic. But, in my opinion, he was making certain that the plane was a total. I can't imagine any realistic logic that would risk a water egress vs a gear up runway landing at an airport like HNL.

Opinions are great, however. Too bad....a P-337 is a pretty good airplane.

MTV

Getting more interesting...

A Moore Air mechanic told me the emergency landing gear retract system worked. "The gear came right down after the ditching in the hangar..."

The headset survived! It was on the front seat.

Forward exhaust pipe was sheared off. Both propellers (fore and aft) were horizontal on impact and looked straight.

Saltwater still on hangar floor, oil...

More discussions... https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/cessna-337-ditches-in-hawaii-islands-18690

No need for 2 threads on the same accident. Please choose one subforum or the other. Usually Live to Tell is for your own stories of dodging bullets.

The primary reason for the subforum taxonomy is to allow forum browsing by topic, but not everyone pays attention to it and two threads of the same name cause confusion.

Zzz wrote:No need for 2 threads on the same accident. Please choose one subforum or the other. Usually Live to Tell is for your own stories of dodging bullets.

Yep. Thank you for your guidance. It even confused me and I started the thread.

I still don't bring up the flaps on landing if they are electric.........

Headoutdaplane wrote:I still don't bring up the flaps on landing if they are electric.........

I turn off my master switch on final below 200' AGL so I do not accidentally raise the electric flaps on landing.

This 337 looks a lot better than most planes retrieved from the water. Usually the recovery crew causes more damage than the landing.

I am sure salt water did not do anything in the plane any favors. As pointed out, it possibly is a total loss, but no metal or bodies bent in the landing.

Wasn't there so I am not going to second guess the pilot's decision.

TD

TomD wrote:This 337 looks a lot better than most planes retrieved from the water. Usually the recovery crew causes more damage than the landing.

I am sure salt water did not do anything in the plane any favors. As pointed out, it possibly is a total loss, but no metal or bodies bent in the landing.

Wasn't there so I am not going to second guess the pilot's decision.

TD

My first impression after I got the key to the hangar and opened up was it really looked great. Mark, the owner, asked me not to touch it because of the possible FAA, NTSB, insurance, State inquires, etc... It would fly again in my opinion but, for how much money remains to be answered.

Amazingly well done salvage job.

Repair of front engine, overhaul of aft engine, overhaul of both props, Avionics and systems that will need to be replaced due to salt water exposure exceed the hull value of the airplane more than likely.

Then, there's the airframe. There is simply no way I'd try to salvage that airframe now that it's been exposed to air. The way you salvage a salt water soaked airframe is immediately immerse it in FRESH water. And, leave it there for as long as possible. And, even then, you're looking at probable serious corrosion issues down the road, and not far.

Consider that this plane has a lot of systems, such as oxygen and pressurization, which are going to take a lot of work. This is not a simple airplane.

MTV

mtv wrote:Consider that this plane has a lot of systems, such as oxygen and pressurization, which are going to take a lot of work. This is not a simple airplane.

MTV

This plane has no pressurization and may or may not have oxygen but your points are valid. All electrical should be toast.

"...Survey says..."
To much work and money. "TOTAL LOSS". Hawaii is an expense place too.


* Plan "B":
Part it out. Rinse pieces with fresh water, preserve with T-9, put the pieces on "Barnstormers", eBay etc.

* Plan "C"
Ship it back to a salvage yard on the mainland

Plan "C" will probably win?

If they ran the engines as soon as they could my guess is they would still make good cores. Seems to be quite a bit of this kind of "salvage" out there these days. I'm sure we will all see changes to our policies in the future as far as legal talk and price increases.

Tim

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

mtv wrote:Consider that this plane has a lot of systems, such as oxygen and pressurization, which are going to take a lot of work. This is not a simple airplane.

MTV

This plane has no pressurization and may or may not have oxygen but your points are valid. All electrical should be toast.

Sure looks like a P-337 to me......non pressurized 337s have "standard" Cessna type side windows. And the interior shots show what appears to be a pressurization controller......

And, by the way, the accident database shows three previous gear up landings for this airplane......

MTV

mtv wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

mtv wrote:Consider that this plane has a lot of systems, such as oxygen and pressurization, which are going to take a lot of work. This is not a simple airplane.

MTV

This plane has no pressurization and may or may not have oxygen but your points are valid. All electrical should be toast.

Sure looks like a P-337 to me......non pressurized 337s have "standard" Cessna type side windows. And the interior shots show what appears to be a pressurization controller......

And, by the way, the accident database shows three previous gear up landings for this airplane......

MTV

+1. Looks pressurized.

CW

That would be right! an Australian pilot! What was the co owners thoughts on the Aussies actions if you dont mind me asking Ted? And does he want me to swing around and say "gday" to his knee caps for him? haha

mtv wrote:Sure looks like a P-337 to me......non pressurized 337s have "standard" Cessna type side windows. And the interior shots show what appears to be a pressurization controller......

clippwagon wrote:+1. Looks pressurized.
CW

All 337's were built with porthole windows in the rear starting in '73 I believe. The pressurized model had four, the non pressurized had 2 and an extended window for the pilot/copilots like the accident plane - N22DG, listed as a 337 not a P337.

Only relevance being the Pressurized model would likely have a higher scrap value. I still wonder if this gear failure didn't happen in the backshop of the owners FBO but we shouldn't speculate on the inter web

This would be a great airplane for an A&P school. They could address corrosion issues as well as other issues.

DrifterDriver wrote:That would be right! an Australian pilot! What was the co owners thoughts on the Aussies actions if you dont mind me asking Ted? And does he want me to swing around and say "gday" to his knee caps for him? haha

The American "co-owner" said to me "Just glad nobody got hurt!" My friend who signed the last inspection said the gear came down "OK" in the hangar.

I have know idea who the Aussie co-owner was? I never knew he owned part of it? He is back "safe" in Australia I believe.

We need to see how this story is going to end... !!!