According to an FAA inspector, the pilot, who was not the builder of the 5151 Mustang, had recently overhauled the engine carburetors and modified the airplane’s fuel system. The overhaul of the carburetors and the fuel system modification were not recorded in maintenance records.
When the pilot purchased the airplane, it was equipped with an airframe ballistic parachute, which he removed, and installed a fuel tank in its place. The pilot calculated that the weight of the parachute was equal to the weight of the fuel tank and two gallons of fuel.
Before the accident flight, the pilot tied the tailwheel of the airplane to an anchor point and ran the engine at a high power setting for about 28 minutes to test the modifications he had made to the fuel system. He also adjusted the ground-adjustable propeller to obtain 6,200 rpm.
After the ground run, he decided to test fly the airplane.
During takeoff, with the newly-installed fuel tank selected, the engine only attained 6,100 rpm. He suspected something was wrong.
There was another aircraft close to the airport in Hector, Minnesota, so he radioed the other aircraft notifying the pilot of engine issues and asked the other aircraft for its position from the airport.
The other aircraft responded that it was about three miles from the airport. The Mustang pilot told the other aircraft to go ahead and land and that he would land behind him.
As he turned toward the runway, the engine lost total power and the pilot was unable to glide the airplane to the runway. It touched down in a soft field about 250 feet from the end of the runway.
The airplane sustained substantial damage that included damage to the wing rib and lower spar cap at left main gear attach point.
The pilot recovered the airplane and placed it in a hangar without the knowledge of or permission from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or FAA. He also didn’t submit the NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report, form 6120.
The NTSB was notified about the accident by someone other than the pilot and an investigation began.
Post-accident examination of the engine by an FAA inspector revealed that the front carburetor was out of its mounting flange and the clamp securing it was loose enough that the carburetor could be placed back in the flange and removed without loosening the clamp.
A portion of the left side engine cowl, near the carburetor, was torn outward and aft due to impact forces during landing. There were no other engine anomalies noted during the examination.
The pilot stated that he thought the loss of engine power was due to fuel starvation and that there may have been a problem with the vent of the newly installed fuel tank.
The previous owner and builder of the airplane did not make the required logbook entry for completing Phase 1 flight testing, therefore operation of the airplane was limited to the flight test area listed in the operating limitations of the airworthiness certificate (within 25 nautical miles of Bateman Field, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, excluding class C airspace).
The accident flight occurred outside of the flight test area.
Probable Cause: A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of the pilot’s modifications to the fuel system. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to continue the takeoff despite observing lower than anticipated propeller RPM, his decision to delay his precautionary landing to allow another airplane to land, and his decision to conduct flight testing of the airplane following multiple modifications.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This May 2023 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.
There seems to be a problem with what the NTSB (?) said about this aircraft in the associated reports:
“The previous owner and builder of the owner made the required logbook
entry for completing phase 1 flight testing, therefore the aircraft was still in phase 1
testing and would have been limited to the flight test area listed in the operating
limitations of the airworthiness certificate (Within 25nm of Bateman Field, Chippewa
Falls, Wisconsin, excluding class C airspace). The entire accident flight occurred
outside of the flight test area. ”
The above indicates that Phase 1 was completed, but then they say that Phase 1 was not completed.
Next, it is not said whether or not the new owner was or was NOT an A&P mechanic. The implication is the new owner was NOT an authorized repairman for this aircraft and was making changes. And I am also suspecting that they had no idea that the needed to contact a DAR to ask about modifications that would put them back to Phase 1 if the changes they were making required re-doing phase 1.
Then there was the Pilot not reporting the crash and removing the aircraft…. I don’t think this was the end of this story.
The correct quote is:
“The previous owner and builder of the airplane did NOT make the required logbook entry for completing Phase 1 flight testing,”
Your quote is wrong. I copied and pasted the above.
I copied it from the NTSB reporting.
I’m not sure I’d be bothered by a 100 rpm lower take off rpm, but all of the other anomalies and disregard for regulations by both the original builder and the owner are bothersome. It’s folks like these who give the experimental community a bad name.
Let me get this straight. Because the engine was 100 RPM’s less than normal….something is wrong?