Twin Commander down at VGT

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:n7bEe.40522$DC2.15350@okepread01...



Says alot for the engines installed in the airplane though. Takes a lick'n
and keeps on tick'n.


It seems more likely that the engine suffered no trauma at all. Certainly,
with the nose hitting first, and the plane resting on the *right* wing and
fuselage, there's no reason to necessarily believe that the left engine or
propeller had any significant contact with the ground at all.

So, I'd say this accident says very little about the engines installed in
the airplane.


I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it

As an aside, what do you think the G load was on that engine at the
time the plane hit the ground?

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing...and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong

"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it

Did it? I watched the video and didn't see any coverage of the actual
engine-stoppage process. In any case, the airplane should be able to fly
through pretty heavy rain at high speeds. I would certainly *hope* it would
take awhile to stop the engine spraying water and foam on it (depending, of
course, on where the water and foam is sprayed).

As an aside, what do you think the G load was on that engine at the
time the plane hit the ground?

Hard to say. The nose of the airplane clearly took most of the deceleration
forces. We don't know how far the airplane slid after impact, nor do we
know how much of the remaining force not absorbed by the nose was absorbed
by airframe and wing deflection.

I'd say there's a good chance it was under 10G, maybe even under 5G.

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing...and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong

The juxtaposition was striking, I'll agree (maybe "amusing" isn't exactly
the word I'd use, but that's just me). I'm just not convinced that there's
any reason to believe that the engine *should* have stopped, or that this
accident shows any unusual characteristics of these engines compared to any
other engine used in aviation.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it


Did it? I watched the video and didn't see any coverage of the actual
engine-stoppage process. In any case, the airplane should be able to fly
through pretty heavy rain at high speeds. I would certainly *hope* it wo=
uld
take awhile to stop the engine spraying water and foam on it (depending, =
of
course, on where the water and foam is sprayed).


mmmm....well from the tone of the voice of the reporter ("they
*FI*nally got the engine to stop"...or words to that effect) seemed to
indicate that it took longer than expected to stop the engine. Of
course, I'm going under the probably erroneous assumption that the
reporter had good information about how long it should have taken for
the engine to be stopped using this method. To me, this method of
stopping the engine sounds almost akin to someone saying, "Hey Bob,
hold this metal rod in the path of the spinning prop.." AFA the
"keeps a-licking part...remember that it's not just the water and foam,
but also the fact that the airframe had just been through a "sudden
deceleration caused by imapact with terrain" event.

snip WAGs about G-load ...it is an aside and an interesting
point....for a physicist perhaps g...and I have to take a look
again, and after thinking about this I am most likely wrong, but some
of the angles of the video made it appear that the tail was rightside
up whilst the wings were upside down...

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing..=AD.and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong


The juxtaposition was striking, I'll agree (maybe "amusing" isn't exactly
the word I'd use, but that's just me). I'm just not convinced that there=
's
any reason to believe that the engine *should* have stopped, or that this
accident shows any unusual characteristics of these engines compared to a=
ny
other engine used in aviation.


mmmm...about my word choice, I sometimes use the term "amusing" to mean
something that diverts my attention...after looking it up I see that it
is an archaic/obsolute usage.....as for the rest....see above....

"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
mmmm....well from the tone of the voice of the reporter ("they
*FI*nally got the engine to stop"...or words to that effect) seemed to
indicate that it took longer than expected to stop the engine.

Even if you could rely on a reporter's tone of voice for information, the
emphasis on the word "finally" could just as easily have referred to the
length of time after the crash until the engine finally was stopped, rather
than the duration of sprayed water and/or foam on the engine.

Personally, I find that interpretation much more likely. But even if you
don't, using that as a source of reliable information seems like a poor plan
to me.

[...]
snip WAGs about G-load ...it is an aside and an interesting
point....for a physicist perhaps g...and I have to take a look
again, and after thinking about this I am most likely wrong, but some
of the angles of the video made it appear that the tail was rightside
up whilst the wings were upside down...

I suspect you're just unfamiliar with the type of airplane. The engines on
the Commander hang below the wing, with the exhaust on top. In the video,
the engines were still hanging below the wing, and the exhaust was still
visible on top. In other words, other than the massive damage to the nose
of the airplane, the airframe was substantially intact (if a bit bent).

Pete