The pilot reported that, during initial climb after takeoff, the amateur-built airplane’s engine experienced a partial loss of power.
As he attempted to return to the airport in Canon City, Colorado, the engine lost total power.
He conducted a forced landing on rough terrain, during which the right wing and fuselage sustained damage.
Post-accident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel hose from the left wing tank had deteriorated from the inside, which would have restricted the flow of fuel to the engine and led to fuel starvation and the subsequent loss of engine power.
Probable cause: Fuel starvation due to the deterioration of a fuel hose.
NTSB Identification: CEN17LA236
This June 2017 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
This aircraft was built in 2014 , so being only 3 years old at the time of the crash leads me to think that the hose was not rated for fuel, or he used some old hose.
The CH701 has 2 fuel tanks, so it should have been able to draw fuel from the right tank.
Also, the 701 is a stol, bush a/c and a competent pilot should be able to drop the a/c into a small patch without damage.
For my past and present projects it was Teflon with stainless steel braid outer covering for all of the fluid lines and no hose bard hose clamp connections. To me it was just cheap insurance using that material in spite of what the plans showed. It bothers me to see so many aircraft that do not follow that approach but it is up to the builder to decide what is good enough, even if a kit supplier does not provide or recommend such quality fluid lines. You can say that those materials have been good enough for decades and some of them have AN/MS designations and even fit a Mil spec but materials science has progressed a bit since WWII and we should take advantage of that and not settle for Good Enough.
Avgas is composed of a high amount of solvents to keep the octane rating up where it needs to be. Lead was removed, and now we have a situation where the solvents are “drying out” the rubber liner of the fuel hose. As an IA, I change fuel hoses out after 10 years of service. This advice was given to me by a manufacturer of fuel cells for aircraft. There is a life limit on them too.
Read the NTSB stuff and this question is one of pure speculation: The fuel hose in use by this builder for this airplane — is it known to be able to handle gasoline with methanol?
In looking at other aircraft that are designed for MOGAS, they state that one should not leave methanol containing fuel in the system for any length of time — one should run enough of an Avgas (w/ or w/o TEL) to clear the system.
So if one does use Mogas, where the state forces methanol, then perhaps different fuel lines need to be used that are not affected.
Not saying that this is the problem here, but one worth thinking about.
I would never burn fuel containing ethanol in an aircraft. Luckily, we have ethanol-free mo-gas available at some stations here in Louisiana. I always check it for alcohol anyway. It runs about 60 cents a gallon higher that regular 10% ethanol gas does. We have a lot of marine activity here and alcohol is not good to use in boat tanks as the alcohol will collect water and maybe ruin a good day of boating. My brother got some gas with ethanol in it out in Texas and his engine quit just as he got off the ground in an Aeronca. He just landed on the remaining runway. The engine would only run at idle. The rubber tip of the float needle in the carburetor was swollen up like a pregnant cow(his words). This was many years ago and those float needles have all been changed. We are assuming that this person was burning Mo-Gas with ethanol in his homebuilt, Most likely this was some old hose. There is usually a date code on hose.