"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Despite the fact that a propellor is putting out enough "wind" to pull
a 3000 pound aircraft across a grass field, I can stand literally
nose-to-nose with the spinner, and NOT get "sucked in" to the prop.

I hope this is just a that you don't understand the meaning of the word
"literally" (perhaps you meant "virtually"?), and that you were NOT actually
nose-to-nose with an operating airplane.

If you were "literally nose-to-nose", then I'd say all the other discussions
about instrument ratings, preflight inspections, etc. are moot. You just
have a death wish.

[...]
This seems counter-intuitive, though, and a casual observer would think
that the "suction" should equal the "out-flow". (Of course, it *does*
-- the air just isn't all coming in from directly in front of the prop
arc.)

Precisely. Note, of course, that depending on how much inflow there is,
there can still be a lot of "suction". Enough people have gotten sucked
into turbine engines to show that (I think you even have one or two on your
web site).

At my airport our taxiway is in sad shape, and it's due to be repaved
this summer. We pick up new prop chips on most flights, despite NEVER
taxiing above 1000 RPM, and being extremely careful about where we
taxi. This seems to show that props DO suck rocks into them,
somehow...

I have to admit, I'm a bit spoiled what with having the engine on top of the
airplane and all.

And yes, it is always theoretically possible for a rock to wind up hitting
the prop, by whatever means. That doesn't change the fact that Newps is
right, the greatest risk is during the run-up (I know some pilots do a
rolling runup when space permits, to try to minimize this issue), and that
it's not normally a big problem for landing (when the throttle is at idle,
the nose is high off the ground, and the airplane is moving forward).

Pete