Mooney successfully belly's in

Dan Truesdell wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
@ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:

I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:

1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
(with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
crash units on the field (I presume).

2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?

I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
was
just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.



I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
turning. I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
shaft.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Dan Truesdell wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
@ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:

I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:

1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
(with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
crash units on the field (I presume).

2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?

I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
was
just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.



I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
turning.

That's true, but the engine won't be developing power, which is still better.

I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
shaft.

All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the magnetos
rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster, and
might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you won't
be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
engine with the magnetos.

As I under stand it.. a "sudden stoppage" requires tear down.. whether the
engine was developing power or not.. the only hopeful out come is that the
crankshaft is not damaged with no power..

I've also been told, that even if the propeller is stopped, a bent blade
requires tear down because of loads places on the propeller hub transferred
to the crankshaft.

BT

"Jack" wrote in message
...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Dan Truesdell wrote in
news:40BCCA76.8090409
@ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:

I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken
plane,
but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:

1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
(with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast).
Military
crash units on the field (I presume).

2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?

I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
was
just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.



I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
turning.

That's true, but the engine won't be developing power, which is still
better.

I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
shaft.

All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the
magnetos
rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster,
and
might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you
won't
be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
engine with the magnetos.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:39:51 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote:

As I under stand it.. a "sudden stoppage" requires tear down.. whether the
engine was developing power or not.. the only hopeful out come is that the
crankshaft is not damaged with no power..

I've also been told, that even if the propeller is stopped, a bent blade
requires tear down because of loads places on the propeller hub transferred
to the crankshaft.

BT

Someone posted either here, or perhaps another group, that if the
engine is not making power when a prop strike occurs, then engine tear
down is not necessarily mandated. Don't know how you'd check the
engine to make sure though.

Corky Scott

wrote

Someone posted either here, or perhaps another group, that if the
engine is not making power when a prop strike occurs, then engine tear
down is not necessarily mandated. Don't know how you'd check the
engine to make sure though.

Corky Scott

That was talking about the large radials, with their stocky, strong con rods
and crank. Opposed engines still rate a teardown, as I recall.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

"Jack" wrote in message
...
All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the
magnetos
rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster,
and
might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you
won't
be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
engine with the magnetos.

Beyond the short delay it takes for the fuel already enroute to the
cylinders to be exhausted, there's no difference between using the mixture
and using the mags. This difference couldn't possibly be important in
flight, simply trying to shut the engine down for a gear-up landing. The
other difference is that if you *don't* cut the mixture, you wind up with
unburned fuel in the engine, exhaust and possibly elsewhere, adding risk of
fire to your existing troubles.

If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with the
mags grounded. Plus, there IS a reason to not stop the engine with the
magnetos (unburned fuel), and so I would use the mixture.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with the
mags grounded.

Not necessarily true.

Plus, there IS a reason to not stop the engine with the
magnetos (unburned fuel), and so I would use the mixture.

True. I would use both, killing the engine with the mixture for the reason you
mention and cutting the mags and master before touchdown.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with
the
mags grounded.

Not necessarily true.

What makes you say that? What motivating force are the magnetos providing
that keep the engine windmilling with just the mixture cut off, and which is
absent when you ground the mags?

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with
the
mags grounded.

Not necessarily true.

What makes you say that? What motivating force are the magnetos providing
that keep the engine windmilling with just the mixture cut off, and which is
absent when you ground the mags?

Windmilling? I took you to mean that the engine that continued to run with the
mixture at cutoff would also continue to run with the mags off.

Yes, if it's windmilling at idle cutoff it'll windmill with the mags off.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Windmilling? I took you to mean that the engine that continued to run with
the
mixture at cutoff would also continue to run with the mags off.

Since we're talking about cutting the engine prior to a gear-up landing, I
didn't think it necessary to point out the obvious context. I had even
specifically referred to the context in my own post.