1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
the
power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.

Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
Try it and see how your results change.

To split hairs, idle power on a recip is really much less applied drag.

However your point is well taken. And the difference would be radically
more pronounced with a constant speed prop--as on a Turbo 210!

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. As it is, "if you want to make omelet, you have to break eggs"
and I suspect that we are "breaking fewer eggs" with the current small
number of poorly handled engine failures than would be the case if we
attempted to train more intensively. The acrobatic/airshow guys do an
amazing job, but also encounter the problem more often.

"Peter Dohm" wrote

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. \

How about idle power and a small parachute mounted on a quick release line?
--
Jim in NC

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
the
power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.

Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
Try it and see how your results change.

I recall pulling the mixture on a newly overhauled A-65 Continental on a
little airplane. It had a wooden prop. I pulled the mixture and the prop
didn't have enough inertia to overcome the compression on the fresh overhaul
and the prop stopped. Since the A-65 doesn't have an electrical starter the
only way to get a restart was to get out and flip the prop. It seemed to me
that do so would require me to land first! The stopped prop had
considerably less drag than the engine at idle.

By the way, any multiengine instructor can tell you that an engine at idle
has less than nuetral thrust and does NOT contribute any thrust. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The 10th annual Pinckneyville RAH Flyin is coming up May 19, 20, and
21. Plan now to attend. Send Mary a note at or there may
not be enough food for you! :-)

Al wrote:
I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
altitude...quickly.

I lost an engine on a C210 at about 300 ft, on departure. The thing quit
like someone had pulled the throttle, which turned out to be very close to
reality. In the shock of the moment, I thought about trying a turn, but
decided to plant it off the end of my departure runway(I was 3000' down a
4000' runway), instead. The clearway at the end was level and had no large
trees. I had already cleaned up the departure flaps, was climbing at 80kts,
and the gear doors were just closing when the thing quit. I immediately
selected the gear back down, and was flat amazed at the sink rate that
developed, no power, windmilling, with the gear in transit. At about 20',
still over the runway, I had to hold it off using flaps, to wait for the
gear to finish extending. The main gear came over center in the saddles,
just as I ran out of elevator, we touched down on the mains, and had to hold
the nose gear off long enough for it to extend. I slid onto the numbers at
the far end with the gear pump still running to close the doors, and got it
stopped. The engine lit off, and we taxied back to the tiedown, and
deplaned.
It turns out that this aircraft had recently come out of 100hr., and for
some reason they had the Airquipt(sp?) hose that runs from the air cleaner
to the turbo-charger off. When the mechanic put it back on, he didn't know
what to do with the ends of the metal wire that winds around the inside of
the hose. He bent each wire end into a little "U" shape, and hooked them
together in the middle of the hose. (They should have been placed under the
hose clamp at each end) A couple of hours later, with vibration, the glue
holding the wire failed, and hooked in the middle the wire collapsed like a
slinky, allowing the hose to collapse, shutting off all air to the turbo.
What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away.
When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
thousand feet.

Al CFIAMI


"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

JJS wrote:
The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had
what the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply
program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one
dead-stick due to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a
fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway. After
some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the
subsequent flights weeks later lost power very low, and tried to make
another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.

Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
lifetime of reading
I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
turn back to a runway I

I just read (somewhere fairly recently) that Will & Wileys floats were
leaking,took on enough water that ran to the rear on take-off creating
a BAD rear CG, that they couldn't recover from. (sounds reasonable to
me, they could have been getting by with it, draining the floats after
they were airborne each time)


when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
making. What do some of you actual pilots think?

Harold
KD5SAK

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
lifetime of reading
I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
turn back to a runway
when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
making. What do some of you actual pilots think?

Harold
KD5SAK


It seems to me that when I learned to fly the normal landing was a "power
off" landing. You always cut the power on the downwind leg heading away
from the airport and from the end of the runway. Then, after a little
while, you proceeded to make a 180 degree turn back to the airport and
landed. This was done with the engine cut to idle. Sometimes, they cut
even beyond idle and quit completely! :-) It was called a normal landing
and you were supposed to do all of them that way.

Clearly there is some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where
a "turnback" type maneuver is no problem at all, and actually closely
approximates the normal landing of my youth. Equally clearly there is also
some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where such a
"turnback" maneuver is clearly impossible. Obviously the trick is knowing
exactly where in the range between A and B that you are at the moment the
engine quits and behaving accordingly. Most flight instructors cop out
totally and just say "Go straight ahead."

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
"straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
"turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
creative! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )


Hmmm, I imagine one could add a bank left or right and center the bubble,
what was the right choice when neither turn back or go straight was correct?
You have my curiosity
itching something fierce.

Harold
KD5SAK

Highflyer wrote:

snipped

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
"straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Hi, my name is HF, and I'm an airplane adict...



Come on, Confess!
It's "I learned about flying from that" time.



Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )


BTW, where ya been?


Richard

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
"turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
creative! :-)

ok, now fess up!

add my name to the list of those who want to know.

I guess you did something that violates have a dozen rules, otherwise you'd
say so. forced spin? a outside loop? immelman? stall-drop?

The informal group also found that he was significantly aft CG.

"Dave S" wrote in message nk.net...

The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had what the rotary community believes was an
intermittent fuel supply program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one dead-stick due to
what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but
off-runway. After some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the subsequent flights weeks
later lost power very low, and tried to make another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.

The rotary powered aircraft community participated in both the NTSB investigation and afterwards several purchased
the airframe from the widow and did additional information gathering. Nothing definitive was determined from a
cause standpoint, but one of the fuel injectors (which was used, not new) was found to be faulty from a flow
standpoint.

Dave S

It makes me feel bad that I can't recall his name. I tried a Google search of the newsgroup archives and didn't find
it.

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----