Off field landing at KSGH

[ArtVandelay]

Well, the Lycoming engine operator's manual has no such limitations. So, since they built the engine, I would think that would be a better source of info than a POH from 1964  that lists recommended climb power settings, none of which are found on the aircraft limitations section. Further, the "Time fuel and distance to climb" charts in the M20J  POH list full throttle and 2700 RPM, all the way up to 18,000 feet,  and, further, it also lists 2700 RPM as a cruise RPM in the charts for all altitudes.  Its an interesting read.
 

I would be suspicious of what Lycoming recommends, they have no interest in having your engine last past TBO or even the warranty period. Ideally for their bottom line everyone would run full throttle and max RPMs and need a new engine 1000 hours later.

[jetdriven]

33 minutes ago, Piloto said:

FAA AD on connecting rods:

The FAA says it has received 5 reports of uncontained engine failures and IFSDs due to failed connecting rods on various models of Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines listed in Table 1 of Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017, that were overhauled or repaired using any replacement part listed in Table 2 of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017, which was shipped from Lycoming Engines during the dates listed in Table 2 of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=60e85149-b4e2-41ea-a01e-7dc7a6bcf865#

José

OK< defective parts that dont meet their type design, can fail.   And engines that takeoff without oil fail. How does this reinforce your argument that opening the throttle too fast breaks rods?

Edited December 5, 2017 by jetdriven

[Piloto]

Just now, jetdriven said:

OK< defective parts that dont meet their type design, can fail.  How does this reinforce your argument that opening the throttle too fast breaks rods?

Well if you have one of these on your engine you have a greater chance of breaking it if you go too fast and crash and burn. Or you can go slow and have chance to replace the rod and pay for it.

José

 

[jetdriven]

4 minutes ago, Piloto said:

Well if you have one of these on your engine you have a greater chance of breaking it if you go too fast and crash and burn. Or you can go slow and have chance to replace the rod and pay for it.

José

 

"go too fast". OK, got it.

Let me ask you a question, do you really have an engineering degree?

Edited December 5, 2017 by jetdriven

[Piloto]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

"go too fast". OK, got it.

Let me ask you a question, do you really have an engineering degree?

Yes, MSEE

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

If you're a dinosaur, I must be, too.  My POH calls for 25"x2500RPM when climbing, to include climbing after takeoff.  Once I have comfortable ground clearance, I dial back to those settings and still regularly see 800 FPM or better.  If i'm staying in the pattern, I have to climb at about 20" once i start crosswind, or I will be both too high and too fast when I turn to downwind.

 

Climbing full WOT and max RPM seems like a good way to add to engine wear without any significant gain.

I know it "seems" like WOT and MAX rpm will wear out an engine but that's not how engines where out. In all actuality, the way you are climbing is hotter, takes longer and less efficient. Indeed, it is less to the engine in exchange for poorer performance. It's a lose/lose proposition.

Edit: I just noticed you're flying a C model, many of which will over temp with full throttle climbs.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Shadrach

[Andy95W]

I climb at 25/2500 and 120 mph.  At WOT, my CHTs are 15-20° hotter at the same speed.  The enrichment circuit on my carburetor is working.

More power = more heat, it's basic thermodynamics. Adding more fuel helps, but it doesn't change scientific laws.

[Shadrach]

15 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I climb at 25/2500 and 120 mph.  At WOT, my CHTs are 15-20° hotter at the same speed.  The enrichment circuit on my carburetor is working.

More power = more heat, it's basic thermodynamics. Adding more fuel helps, but it doesn't change scientific laws.

You're not accounting for the additional time spent in the climb.  25 squared is a 20% power reduction through 2500 feet and a little less than 10% at 5000 around 8% at 7500'.  Power and climb are directly correlated all other things being equal. That's a lot of performance to table, but I understand why you do it.  The carbed engines present a problem. More than a few seem to overheat at full power under any circumstances. I think the carbs available are not as well suited to the engine as they could be,

[Hector]

I have a 67C with an engine monitor. My POH says 26/2600 for cruise climb. I have tested this and WOT climbs at the same speed in the summer here in FL many times. 26/2600 at 120 results in CHTs below 400. WOT/2700 leads to CHTs in the 420-430 range. I don’t care if get to cruise altitude a few minutes earlier at WOT, I’m not going to operate my engine at 430 degrees in a climb. This is a fact of life in carb engines and probably different for the IO360.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

25 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The carbed engines present a problem. More than a few seem to overheat at full power under any circumstances. I think the carbs available are not as well suited to the engine as they could be,

Absolutely, and I probably should have been more specific- the IO-360's put the additional fuel where it's needed, right at the cylinder, as opposed to the carb just throwing it at the induction system and hoping for the best.

And in the winter, or for a long climb, I run WOT and 2500 rpm (it's quieter and a bit more comfortable than 2700).  In the summer I'll climb closer to 130 and only lose about 100 fpm.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Absolutely, and I probably should have been more specific- the IO-360's put the additional fuel where it's needed, right at the cylinder, as opposed to the carb just throwing it at the induction system and hoping for the best.

And in the winter, or for a long climb, I run WOT and 2500 rpm (it's quieter and a bit more comfortable than 2700).  In the summer I'll climb closer to 130 and only lose about 100 fpm.

Andy,

I'm curious how your power plant would respond if during climb you were to solely make  a manifold pressure reduction and or just an  RPM reduction? Would it run cooler at 25/2700? What about the dreaded oversquare WOT/2500?

[autopatch]

Sooooooo .... I see that you all have heard about my corn field adventure. I haven't had a chance to catch up here on the prior three pages, so give me a little while to catch up.

I suppose I should have come here first, but I believe that most of you are already friends on Facebook and it was easier to hold the conversation in one place instead of two (or more).

Give me a little bit of time to read the thread and I'll try to get everyone's questions and comments answered.

Thank you, I really appreciate the support.

[Shadrach]

19 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

José, I agree again.  In round motors there is also a danger in pulling the power back too suddenly.  Many cases of engine failure when the pilot reduced power from takeoff power.  The sudden deceleration is apparently hard on the rotating parts.  I don't know if the same phenomenon is present in square motors....  However, I think sudden power changes are, in general, not as good as small, slow power changes.

But I'm a dinosaur.

Sudden deceleration is really no harder on rotating parts than sudden acceleration.   It's a more a matter of engine design. The rod journal on a radial supports all nine cylinders. On a flat engine one rod journal supports one cylinder. All other things being equal, the radial rod journal has to contend with nine times as many power pulses as a flat engine during the same operating period. Those pulses move like a circular wave. As this happens the power pulses are delivered to the exact same spot on the crank. The oil galley is strategically located on the crank to provide a fresh flow of oil right at the point where the crank sees the most pressure when under power. This ensures that the bearing continues to float an no metal touches metal. Now imagine chopping the power to that radial... The force reverses as the crank (being driven by the prop) drives the pistons. The pressure point on the crank when it's driving the the cylinder is 180 degrees from where the pressure point is when pistons are driving crank and the oil galley is on the opposite side of the pressure point. This can be a recipe for rod bearing failure. The bearings in a flat engine do not carry nearly the load that the bearing a round engine does.

i think it's a good idea to be smooth and deliberate in almost all aspects of aircraft control (I still struggle with this sometimes). However, I don't see much utility in applying round engine considerations to flat engines.

[autopatch]

On 12/3/2017 at 8:43 PM, Sabremech said:

Where on Facebook? Haven't found any info on it. 

Thanks.

You'll have to send me a friend request. I'm not posting about it in "open" public forums until we get it back inside the airport fence and torn apart. PM me here a way to find you, and I'll send you the FR if you like.

[autopatch]

On 12/4/2017 at 8:25 AM, Kris_Adams said:

Most be posted to a private group or removed...I can't see it.

That post is "friends" only, so just send me a friend request. Thank you!

[autopatch]

On 12/4/2017 at 8:54 AM, mike_elliott said:

yea, you might have to be a Facebook friend of Chris's to see his post. He did not post it to a group, but rather on his timeline. Anyway, the plane is sitting in a field, just off the airport. The plane shows no damage, just an off field wheels down landing.

Please change the title, OP, as this is sooo very media like....next thing we will read here is the engine stalled and he didn't file a flight plan.

Great job keeping everyone unharmed, Chris!

Thanks, I appreciate it.

The State Troopers did in fact ask me if I had filed a flight plan, but they only asked because it was a tick box on their "Standard Incident Form". They were very pleasant and helpful, especially since nothing was bent and nobody was hurt. It was so low key that they used it as OJT for one of the younger troopers, for which I was extremely happy to participate in that outreach opportunity.

[autopatch]

23 hours ago, pinerunner said:

It does constitute one more case of loss of power on takeoff. They all make me wonder how to minimize the chance it could happen to me. If you don't count things like not enough gas, water in the gas and not bothering to drain the sumps, what kind of things can shut you down at the worst possible time even if you do an excellent preflight? Would a wobble test at every annual make the difference or just be unnecessary expense. How about buying my own boroscope and learning what to look for (if I can change my own spark plugs it must be legal for me to take a peak inside). Frequent oil changes with testing and checking the filter for bits of metal (mine has been great so far on that test) should add to the comfort level. Is it usually valve problems that suddenly cause loss of power in a plane that has been correctly preflighted?  

Your post is right on point. We did a thorough pre-flight (which I do normally out of habit) but this time it was extra thorough because I was taking the time to teach my non-pilot partner about pre-flights and checklists. We were also comparing a variety of checklists against the POH to settle on our own style that she would be comfortable with using in a "Right Seat Ready" fashion.

We started on the "less full" tank and warmed up the engine, taxied to the end of the runway and did the run-up on the fullest (takeoff) tank. At no point was there any indication of a problem. We waited an additional ten minutes idling on the takeoff tank waiting for traffic performing touch and goes to clear the area. Everything green, entered the runway, lights-camera-action, normal takeoff and climb out and then an uncommanded audible reduction in power at 220' with no other symptoms. Instinctively pushed when I heard the power change, verified boost pump, mixture, throttle, prop. There was a open field to my left so made shallow turn and treated it as a flaps up landing. All in all, really pretty uneventful, all things considered.

We're still working with the City on an acceptable way to get it back across the fence. The airport is a City owned airport whose largest tenant is the Ohio Air National Guard who used to have an active training facility in the early 2010's. The fence is an 18' high military grade fence, and the nearest gate is only 23' 6" wide. They're willing to let me unzip the fence if I hire a fence company to perform the work onsite while we move the plane so that the open space is never left unattended.

I'm not going to speculate any further on the power reduction until we get it inside a hangar and I have my local Mooney qualified A&P look at it. I appreciate your patience while we move through this methodically.

Any ideas appreciated!
 

[autopatch]

22 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

Mike Busch says that every owner should have a borescope.  Well, not sure about that but I have one.  Talked to my A&P about what to look for.  More importantly just know what is normal and then if something looks strange you can talk to a mechanic about it.  I don't do any work on my airplane other that what is allowed.  I just like to know what is going on inside my cylinders.

This is moving from my wish list to my purchase list (after I figure out how many AMUs it is going to cost to unzip the fence.)

[N6758N]

Just now, autopatch said:

This is moving from my wish list to my purchase list (after I figure out how many AMUs it is going to cost to unzip the fence.)

Glad to hear you're okay Chris. I would think you insurance company should be able to help out with expenses in temporarily relocating the fence? I just friended you on FB by the way, interested to hear more of the story. Thanks for sharing! 

[autopatch]

28 minutes ago, N6758N said:

Glad to hear you're okay Chris. I would think you insurance company should be able to help out with expenses in temporarily relocating the fence? I just friended you on FB by the way, interested to hear more of the story. Thanks for sharing! 

Thank you, I appreciate that.

The insurance company is so far on-board and I'm trying to be a good steward with their goodwill and to also make sure we don't damage the plane getting back to solid ground. While I anticipate that everything will be covered and go smoothly, I'm not holding my breath until the chocks are in and the expenses are reimbursed. Knock on wood, everything has gone positively and smoothly up to this point.

[autopatch]

On 12/3/2017 at 11:51 AM, Steelstring said:

I just made a flight into Springfield Ohio (KSGH) this morning.  When I went into the terminal, they mentioned that a Mooney went down last night...lost power at 300 feet.  Everyone is ok and the aircraft was largely undamaged.  Tail number N201P.

Was it anyone from here?

 

I remember seeing what I recall to be a black and white Mooney sitting on the ramp on Sunday. Our friend's Cessna was parked next to it. I also drove around it while measuring fence gates. That's so funny, small world. 

Do you remember anyone in a ball cap and an Oshkosh fleece running around with a tape measure? Or a red haired chick running around with our good friend (an older dude) in the Cessna?

[Piloto]

43 minutes ago, autopatch said:

We started on the "less full" tank and warmed up the engine, taxied to the end of the runway and did the run-up on the fullest (takeoff) tank. At no point was there any indication of a problem. We waited an additional ten minutes idling on the takeoff tank waiting for traffic performing touch and goes to clear the area. Everything green, entered the runway, lights-camera-action, normal takeoff and climb out and then an uncommanded audible reduction in power at 220' with no other symptoms. Instinctively pushed when I heard the power change, verified boost pump, mixture, throttle, prop. There was a open field to my left so made shallow turn and treated it as a flaps up landing. All in all, really pretty uneventful, all things considered.

Sounds like a sudden shortage of fuel supply. Check gascolator and tanks for water.  

Keep us posted on your findings. Every one here curious about the cause of your engine failure.

José

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, autopatch said:

Thank you, I appreciate that.

The insurance company is so far on-board and I'm trying to be a good steward with their goodwill and to also make sure we don't damage the plane getting back to solid ground. While I anticipate that everything will be covered and go smoothly, I'm not holding my breath until the chocks are in and the expenses are reimbursed. Knock on wood, everything has gone positively and smoothly up to this point.

They should be cooperative, you just saved them a fortune..

[FlyChickie]

They should be cooperative, you just saved them a fortune..

Ha! Yes. We had quite a smooth landing. I would guess this will be a relatively small claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

18 hours ago, N9201A said:

 

Smooth is almost always better...flying planes, driving cars, racing motorcycles...now if only l could execute a smooth golf swing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

See Ernie Els and Fred Couples...emulate.  (Ya, I wish too)

Regarding this thread creep: 1. Altitude is life.

2. Full power full rich gives max climb potential and max cooling using the fuel.

3. RPM at 2700 was designed to be flown there to reach TBO.  Certified to do this.

If you want to reduce power “messing around with throttle and prop” while in a critical phase of flight go ahead, but calling others names that are trying to help educate you on “dinosaur” (your word not mine) piloting methods should just result in reflection.  I really don’t care how you fly your plane, but I do care and try to fly mine based on: Being fast.  Efficient.  Kind.

Those are three traits that are good for engines and humans.