Rear engine in a crash question

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:59:31 -0600, Big John
wrote:

Dan

Don't know if you ever saw the N-9 (P-40) and K-14 computing
gunsights (P-51). Both would leave a 'mark' on your forhead in a crash
(that you survived)

Used to be a 'mark of honor'. Then they started making everyone wear
helments.

Big John

The early F4F Wildcats were not equipped with shoulder straps. In
fact few of the early fighters were. In the case of the Wildcat, not
having shoulder straps resulted in a gashed forehead in the event of a
ditching, as the pilot pitched forward and collided with the gunsight.

During the Battle of Midway, in which a lot of Wildcats ditched, one
pilot related that he manage to hurl himself sideways at the moment of
impact with the ocean during a ditching, and avoided being slashed.
In all the text written about this battle, this one pilot was the only
instance recorded of a guy who remembered what would happen during a
ditching, planned how to avoid being injured, and accomplished it.

Another pilot decided to have his crew chief install shoulder straps
to hold him away from the instrument panel coming, and the dreaded
gunsight, in the event of a ditching.

Ironically, the A6M Mitsubishi type 0 fighter WAS equipped with
shoulder straps, but the pilots often wriggled out of them while in
flight so as to allow more freedom of movement to look around.

Corky Scott

Todd Pattist wrote:

Story 2: Glider flying the ridge is carrying water ballast,
gets low and lands in the trees, flipping inverted. The
uninjured pilot is hanging upside down with his head crammed
into the inverted bubble canopy. Releasing the straps will
likely drop him head first 50 feet to the forest floor. The
wrecked wings begin to drain water into the canopy, turning
it into a fishbowl from which the pilot cannot pull his
head. The canopy is prevented from opening by branches too
weak to hold him, but too strong to force the canopy open.
The pilot has the dilemma of death by drowning or death by
falling. (Choking in the rising water, he ultimately
manages to extend a crack in the canopy to drain the water.

If that was me in the glider hanging upside down 50 feet over the
ground, it wouldn't be water in that canopy...

Mark Hickey

Todd Pattist wrote:

Story 2: Glider flying the ridge is carrying water ballast,
gets low and lands in the trees, flipping inverted. The
uninjured pilot is hanging upside down with his head crammed
into the inverted bubble canopy. Releasing the straps will
likely drop him head first 50 feet to the forest floor. The
wrecked wings begin to drain water into the canopy, turning
it into a fishbowl from which the pilot cannot pull his
head. The canopy is prevented from opening by branches too
weak to hold him, but too strong to force the canopy open.
The pilot has the dilemma of death by drowning or death by
falling. (Choking in the rising water, he ultimately
manages to extend a crack in the canopy to drain the water.

Mark Hickey responded:

If that was me in the glider hanging upside down 50 feet over the
ground, it wouldn't be water in that canopy...

Ewwww!
Yet another example of no matter how bad a situation is, it can
always be worse.

Russell Kent

BernadetteTS wrote:

I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.

I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
The force is down not forward through the cockpit.

Bernadette

The force is forward.

Pusher aircraft may incur a weight penalty because the airframe
requires more structure to ensure the cockpit is not collapsed
by the engine. A clever design, would use other parts of the
airframe already in place. As anothe poster has mentioned
some of the ultralights do not have enough strength to restrain
the engine in a bad crash.

--dan

Yeah and they told us that the struts holding the rotodome on the AWACs
were of unequal strength so that it would break to the side instead of
chopping thru the fuselage. Good thing we never had to find out.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

My father (http://users.erols.com/viewptmd/Dad.html) flew the P-39. He
hated it. The most uncomfortable plane he ever sat in, except for his
Mooney M-18 which had the same problem - no headroom. Having the engine
behind with a shaft running between your legs meant you sat so high there
was no headroom (he was well over 6').

More on topic, he claimed that you had no chance in a forced landing. The
Allison would end up where you were sitting every time, so he said.
Fortunately, never had to test the theory.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"BernadetteTS" wrote in message
...
I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.

I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
The force is down not forward through the cockpit.

Bernadette

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:

There have been many accidents, incidents, and crashes of VE's, LE's,
Velocity's and COZY's over the past 20 years. I have never heard of an
injury caused by the engine coming through the firewall, nor have I ever
heard of a case of the engine coming through the firewall.

Remember, if you've caused enough of a G load for the engine to push the
mount through the firewall, you've already turned the passengers to jelly.

I think there are a lot more important things to worry about.

Agreed. I chuckled when I read similar concerns voiced elsewhere
recently. In a properly designed pusher, such as a VE or LE , it is a
non-issue. Yes, there have been fatalities in VEs and LEs where the
engine has come through but those were in crashes in which the impact
angle and speed was such that the occupants were dead whether the
engine came through or not. And no, in the VE and LE there is no
weight penalty incurred in "beefing up" the aft fuselage structure to
prevent the engine coming through as suggested (although somewhat more
generally) elsewhere.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:14:13 -0500, David O
wrote:

:"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:
:
:There have been many accidents, incidents, and crashes of VE's, LE's,
:Velocity's and COZY's over the past 20 years. I have never heard of an
:injury caused by the engine coming through the firewall, nor have I ever
:heard of a case of the engine coming through the firewall.
:
:Remember, if you've caused enough of a G load for the engine to push the
:mount through the firewall, you've already turned the passengers to jelly.
:
:I think there are a lot more important things to worry about.
:
:Agreed. I chuckled when I read similar concerns voiced elsewhere
:recently. In a properly designed pusher, such as a VE or LE , it is a
:non-issue. Yes, there have been fatalities in VEs and LEs where the
:engine has come through but those were in crashes in which the impact
:angle and speed was such that the occupants were dead whether the
:engine came through or not. And no, in the VE and LE there is no
:weight penalty incurred in "beefing up" the aft fuselage structure to
revent the engine coming through as suggested (although somewhat more
:generally) elsewhere.

I've seen fatal Long EZ accidents - and a Berkut accident - where the
engine was still attached to the firewall and spar, but there wasn't
much fuselage left in front of the spar. I've also seen a fatal LE
accident where the engine separated on impact with water and went up
(probably inverted impact) but the fuse mostly held. Any direct,
forward impact, such that the velocity vector of the engine is through
the fuselage, great enough to break the engine mount and destroy the
spar, is going to completely disintegrate the fuselage.

OTOH, Misha Kasyan's Berkut tumbled, broke off the nose, both wings,
canard, landing gear and about 1/4 of the mainspar and strake, and
ended up inverted. The engine mount was intact, I don't even think it
bent.