Fires and Super Cub Accidents

Having discussions with a fellow regarding the header tank versus no header tank issue.

One claim is apparently that there have been some Cubs caught on fire after relatively minor accidents, like ground loops, when the header tanks ruptured, and spilled gas on the radios under the panel.

I certainly wouldn't suggest this isn't possible, but I'm looking for actual information on the subject.

Does anyone on the list actually have any knowledge of, or links to such accidents, or any other Cubs catching on fire type accidents?

And, NO, I am not an attorney looking for free research. Just trying to see through some of the sales hype.

Thanks,

Mike Vivion

Try searching the NTSB database http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm and in addition to the usual information in the blank on the query form where it says to "insert your word string below" insert the word or words that should be in the NTSB report to answer your question. For example I searched the database from 1960 to the present for Piper, PA-18 and for the word string I used the word, header. That query returned four reports all of which mentioned "header" but none which found that a header tank leak was the cause of the incident or contributed to the final result.

BTW, in rebuilding my cub we removed the header tanks and went with the Cessna type system. It may be safer (relatively speaking since a cub pilot has a 18 gallon tank at each shoulder and is sitting on 18 or 32 gallons of gas if there is a belly tank) and it does allow more room behind the panel for whatever that is worth.

Have fun.

I've always disliked having a quantity of fuel in my lap, just behind electrical wires, fuses and switches, and a couple of feet away from mags and exhaust (even if there is a firewall in between).

For this reason, a headerless system makes lots of sense to me. But... It's hard to beat a header as an unporting insurance. Dilemma. And lengthy debates on the topic on many flying sites.

I'd like to have FACTS about fires started post-crash, even potentially minor accidents like a grounloop, due to the header tank.

Can't find much in the NTSB database. Maybe also because a header fire is usually a consequence, and not a cause of a crash.

The question is: Headers are located where they can be a great fire hazard. But do they really get people burned, more than a headerless system?

If you know about instances of headers causing fires, please contribute...

Thanks

Mike.......
This is second hand information so take it for what it's worth. I knew a cropduster years back that used supercubs for his spraying business. At one time he had eight or nine of them and said he suffered his share of accidents. Never a fire, but most of his losses were due from his pilots running into the ground while spraying or not pulling up in time on the approach to the spray run..........in which case he claimed the fuselage would bend and would break both legs on the pilot. OUCH!

ouchies....

Sooooo, install the cubcrafters welded aluminum header tanks, like I did years ago.... The leg breakage problem has to be solved with extra tubes welded into the nose, under the boot cowl.

Supercub wings fold pretty easily. Whichever fuel tanks you have, the fittings that connect the tanks to the airframe are more suspect than headers. Aluminum tubes with rubber hoses are a reality we all share. Atlee's headers are tougher than either. Convince yourselves you're safer without headers if you want, but show me the proof. My bet is that there isn't any. If you crash a Cub you have to worry about fuel and fire risks, regardless of the system you chose.

Charly Center fitted my 12 with a L/R/Both system with 2 headers. He's smarter than me when it come to building airplanes.

What's the answer???????????

Don't crash.

SB

I am wrestling with the same decision.

For what it is worth, when I crashed my PA-18, the wings indeed came off. One of the cables that was pulled very tight in that process before ultimately breaking ruined the rear header tank. While mine did not rupture, it is easy to see how it could happen.

Since it was a departure, I had tons of fuel on board -- 36 gallons in the wings and 32 in the belly. It all ended up on the ground within a very short time. I am not sure if the gas in the headers would have made a difference or not.

Since I was in a suburban neighborhood, the firemen were there right away (less than 5 minutes) and they covered my bird with foam.

Thanks, guys. This is kind of the information I've always suspected. I do think that Atlee's header tanks are a good idea, but I'm still suspicious of the no header tank configuration, maybe for no good reason.

In any case, I was just trying to see through some of the salesmanship.

Stewart has the ultimate best answer: Don't crash--no worries.

MTV

headers

Might be wrong, but isn't the purpose of the header tank to prevent fuel starvation on long descents with low fuel? The original tanks had only one outlet in the rear of the tank or some had two in the left tank only(left tank only for take off & landing). All aftermarket tanks that I am aware of have outlets front & rear now allowing for the elimination of the header tanks. :roll:

Back in '92, when I replaced my headers, I recall that the rationale in doing so was a guy who ruptured the front header when veering off his farm strip, and two quarts of gas wound up in his lap and ignited, burning him badly enough, that he died later. I'm starting to distrust search engines.....