Posted on 02/10/2024 3:40:23 PM PST by xxqqzz
I found the description odd too. A 172 is “small”.
When I think of small planes, I generally picture small prop planes. While compared to an airliner, the twin jet that crashed is small, but I’d probably describe it as a business jet, not a small plane. It can be configured to hold up to 19 passengers plus pilot and co-pilot.
Judging by the picture of the resulting fire after the crash, the fuel level was down to the tank standpipes. Appears there was only about 10 gallons of fuel left in the tanks. Similar to the Korean Air Heavy that crashed at SFO a few years ago, both engines were ripped off and no fire when they hit the rockwall.. They ran out of fuel on final approach and couldn’t maintain the glide slope on short final. No fire, no fuel when the center tank is ripped open and engines are taken off.
Based on a news report of the section of the Interstate that was closed following the crash, it looks like there are a lot of subdivisions in the area. Looks like they were trying for Naples airport rather than Southwest Florida. There were some golf courses to the west, but none of them look like they have a viable option.
If they ran out of gas, then major errors by the ground crew and both pilots not to catch it. Maybe it was liters instead of gallons.
I used to repair and test-run the original turbofans on the Challengers before they switched to GE engines.
Whether they were GE or Lycoming engines, they don't just cut out.
(Those original engines were basically Chinook gas turbines with a turbo-charged high-bypass fan bolted to the front).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.