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

"Al" wrote in message
...
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


I never tried it "for real", but had the experience on one "simulation"
about 25 years ago.

I was a student pilot in a Cessna 150M, with an instructor. And, I suppose
that I had always been visibly nervous regarding the "what if the engine
quits" scenario.

In any case, we took off into a head wind of around 12 knots (on the ground)
from a 3000 foot paved runway on a little "training only" airport. The
instructor said to climb until I believed that I could make it back to land
on the reciprocal, then pull the power and try it. I really doubt that such
a demonstration was approved, much less encouraged, even then; and it may
have been my first attempt at a down wind landing as well!

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. As I
mentioned, I had heard all of those horror stories about how it was suicidal
to attempt a turn greater than 90 degrees; and this required a turn or at
least 225 degrees, a short straight glide, and then about 45 degrees back
the other way--all before the final glide, flap extension, and flare. I did
not simulate the customary 4 seconds of disbelief, nor did I simulate a
reasonable period of indicision regarding what to do next--to turn or not to
turn was never the question--I just applied the carburetor heat, pushed the
nose over, and cranked it into the turn ... and the limitations of my chosen
procedure only gradually became apparent.

Now, I should mention that I am not really a fan of high winged aircraft. I
admit that they have their practical side--lighter structure for a given
strength, ease of undercarriage inspection, and the wing is well clear of
most of the "stuff" on an narrow and unimproved runway. Still, as I said, I
am not a fan. A wing is really a think that one should sit upon; it is not
a thing that one should attempt to look through.

So, I continued around the turn, still at a safe altitude and with the
engine idling smoothly, and the runway eventually came into view. And I
continued around, still at a safe, and saw that I was really not far from
the runway at all. Therefore, I continued the turn to about the 270 degree
point before making a roll reversal--and finally getting the flaps down. By
then, I was just about over the runway and diving with full flaps. It then
became intuitively obvious, to even the most casual observer, that I was
much too high.

As to the outcome? We flew away without lnading.

One of these days I still plan to get back to flying, and to make the
transition from former student to current pilot. Until then, there are
memories of a time when flying was more innocent, a little crazier, and a
lot more fun!

Peter

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 =----

Joe Schneider

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.

Google "N2992".

Dave S. wrote:

The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine ......
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.

That is slightly misleading. If you're talking about what caused the
engine to stop producing power, there were a few likely possibilities.
If you're talking about why the aircraft crashed the way it did, the
answer was pretty clear.

For those interested, see:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Ac...val/index.html

for an alternative (and IMNSHO, a far more accurate) evaluation.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

Thanks for the link, Marc..

For the record I will state that my post regarding this was
unresearched, and from memory alone. I am actually thankful for the time
and work that the rotary community put into investigating his accident.

Dave