Jump to content

Off field landing at KSGH


Steelstring

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 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.)

HEY!!!! Go through the gate!!!! I do it all the time.  I've pulled Mooney's Bonanzas and a whole bunch of Cessnas and Cherokees through a 20-24' gates.  Even got my Mooney through 18 footer.  

Give me a call and I'll tell you how we did it!!

Tom

906-458-six nine eight nine

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

I was told that the FAA did not find any water in their testing. I also didn't find any during preflight. Theoretically if there was any, it could have been dislodged in the climb. Just no idea right now until we get the cowling off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY!!!! Go through the gate!!!! I do it all the time.  I've pulled Mooney's Bonanzas and a whole bunch of Cessnas and Cherokees through a 20-24' fece.  Even got my Mooney through 18 footer.  
Give me a call and I'll tell you how we did it!!
Tom
906-458-six nine eight nine

Did you have to remove a Mooney from KTZR, by any chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY!!!! Go through the gate!!!! I do it all the time.  I've pulled Mooney's Bonanzas and a whole bunch of Cessnas and Cherokees through a 20-24' fece.  Even got my Mooney through 18 footer.  

Give me a call and I'll tell you how we did it!!

Tom

906-458-six nine eight nine

 

It's the top option. Getting a quote from the fence copy as a backup plan. I'll give you a call. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FlyChickie said:


Did you have to remove a Mooney from KTZR, by any chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had to remove a Mooney from the runway at KTZR after a belly landing. :( Ultimately it flew away when it left the airport.

Yooper is right.  N201P will fit through that gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to remove a Mooney from the runway at KTZR after a belly landing. Ultimately it flew away when it left the airport.
Yooper is right.  N201P will fit through that gate.

I think Dick Wethrald may have given us your info too. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FlyChickie said:


I think Dick Wethrald may have given us your info too. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed he did.  I spoke with @autopatch on the phone the other night.  Let me know when the recovery operation is happening and I'll be happy to come help.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, autopatch said:

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". 

See, that's your problem right there. Statistically most accidents/incidents did not file a flight plan and look how they ended up. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To thoroughly check for water in the tanks you have to remove the drain valves. With the F391-53S drain valves water may not completely drain if the adapter plate drain holes are plugged. This cause to drain from the valve stem top leaving water below. During taxing the water does not reach the fuel pickup on the back end of the tank. But as the plane accelerates and climb the water is displaced toward the back getting into the fuel pick up causing fuel starvation. This happened to me 30 years ago on my M20C. I was departing from KFLL but had plenty of runway ahead to land after the engine quit. After settling on the ramp I inserted the drain cup and got pure gas. But after removing the drain valve water poured on the ground. The valve adapter plate was clogged with sealant from a previous reseal job. Since then I switched to the F391-72 drain valve which has the drain holes just above the adapter plate directly exposed into the tank.

F391-53S valve  http://www.univair.com/engine-parts/view-all/f391-53s-flush-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

F391-72 Valve http://www.univair.com/miscellaneous/view-all/f391-72-fuel-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

José

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jetdriven said:

+1 for bladders right there.  

 

or +1 for having someone who knows what they are doing do a patch and reseal to keep that from happening, just like having the bladders installed by someone who knows what they are doing to prevent a water trap fold.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

+1 for bladders right there.  

 

The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Mooney Aircraft Corporation (Mooney) Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, and M20J airplanes equipped with an O & N Bladder Fuel Cell installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA2277CE or STC SA2350CE. The STCs apply to all the affected airplane models except for Model M20B airplanes. Model M20B airplanes could have one of the STCs incorporated by field approval. This AD requires you to inspect the drain valve to assure that it is inserted fully into the drain nipple and modify any drain valve found not to be inserted fully into the drain nipple. This AD also requires certain modifications and replacements on the affected fuel cells to reduce the chances of water/ice contamination. This AD is the result of reports of rainwater entering the fuel bladders and the information from the subsequent evaluation of the fuel systems. The actions specified by this AD are intended to assist in preventing water from entering the fuel bladders, which could result in rough engine operation or complete loss of engine power

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/12/09/04-26915/airworthiness-directives-mooney-aircraft-corporation-models-m20b-m20c-m20d-m20e-m20f-m20g-and-m20j

José

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jetdriven said:

So is this some kind of evidence of how bad that bladders are, or something?

It isn't evidence the bladders are bad, it's just an AD that needs to be checked thoroughly. Both bladders and wet wing setups suffer from ADs that deal with water entrapment/contamination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

2. Full rich insures proper combustion, the cooling aspect of the excess fuel in minimal compared to the heat transfer from oil cooler and air cooled cylinder heads, more power, more air, more cooling.

 

3. TBO is swag that the engine manufacturers come up with, and it has changed over time based on experience ( I believe our TBO was 1600 or 1800 before extending to 2000).

Certification process consists of a 3 50 hour runs:

1st, full power with cooling to remain in the green.

2nd, full power with cooling for cylinder and oil temps at red line.

3rd, 65-75% power, again with temps at redline.

The engine is torn down and inspected, if no failure or excess wear the engine passes it’s test.

 

So if your logic is the engine is designed to run as full power and max RPMs, then you should be satisfied to run it at redline temps as well. These are stress tests designed to simulate 1000+ hours of use, it’s nice to know what abuse the engine can take but doesn’t mean you have to run it at it’s limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason the board is telling me that I can't add any more reactions today, so I don't know why that is. Apparently I'm in reaction jail.

You’ve been through a lot recently. They are just trying to make sure you don’t overreact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 201er said:

That's because with normally aspirated engines, the power goes down as you climb whether you want it to or not. You only stay at 100% power for a minute, then 98% for a minute, then 95%, etc. You're down to 85% by the time you reach about 4000ft and you couldn't make more than 75% (cruise) power by 8000ft if you tried. The amount of time spent at above cruise (75%) power is only about 10 minutes and it is perpetually decreasing as you climb. On the other hand, climbing at reduced power takes forever, forward speed is slower so a net greater tach time, higher EGTs, higher CHTs, waste more fuel, get to destination later, and more work adding throttle as MP reduces with altitude. It takes excess power to climb. Not making much excess power if you power back. The IO360 is not the kind of engine that needs a power reduction or affords much of a power reduction in the climb.

My old POH is likely a bit optimistic, but I'm not sure that your assertions about the rate that power falls of are accurate either.  Could you provide a source?

5a2824eeee541_Powersettings2.5-5.thumb.jpg.19352b9e1271ca51087a04d9eac8ebd1.jpg5a2824e8414dc_Powersettings7.5-10.thumb.jpg.224c5eee7fbcf9a91ce47c50ffc08aa6.jpg5a2824e3a6168_Powersettings12.5.thumb.jpg.c0e32a4df619165f7c49bdd3da08a83a.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

 

2. Full rich insures proper combustion, the cooling aspect of the excess fuel in minimal compared to the heat transfer from oil cooler and air cooled cylinder heads, more power, more air, more cooling.

This reads like a semantic argument.  The cooling aspect of excess fuel depends on what you mean by "cooling aspect".  If you mean cooling nature of evaporation, than indeed it's pretty much zero.  However that surplus of fuel is not there to ensure proper combustion (whatever that means).  It is there to slow combustion.  More fuel than air means the flame front must bypass fuel molecules that aren't paired with an O2 molecule. It sort of creates a maze for the flame front to go through in search of combustible fuel/O2 pairings (LOP ops utilize air instead of fuel for the same purpose) .  This slowing of the flame front reduces peak pressure and delays the point at which it occurs.  The result is a steady push through the the piston's power stroke (favorable) instead of a hot, hard hammer blow near TDC at say 100 ROP (no bueno).  In the latter scenario, the surplus fuel (energy) departs via the exhaust in the form of unburnt hydrocarbons (again favorable).  In the former most of the surplus fuel (energy) is burned but a large percentage of it is converted to heat that departs via the cooling fins (again, no bueno) not power.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

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?

I climb at 120 mph, generally.  I pull the prop back to 2500-2600 just for noise and smoothness considerations.  If I'm climbing above 5000' or so, I do climb over square at WOT/2500, and keep CHTs below 400° using additional airspeed.  25"/2700 is noisy and is generally the same temp or warmer than 25/2500.

Going for a $100 hamburger and staying below 5000', I climb at 25/2500 which keeps CHTs below 400° even when the ambient temp is above 90°.  My doghouse and baffling are very good (but of course, not perfect).  Below OAT of 75-80°F, CHTs are never a problem regardless of power setting.

I enjoy the discussions and good information, Ross. Even when we're not 100% in agreement, we're not far off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Care to explain why? Thinking it is great but not terribly useful in a forum post unless accompanied by a supporting theory or better yet data.

C'mon, Shadrach.  My feelings are as good as your hard data.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


After 2-3 minutes, isn’t this really an RPM discussion? A non-turbo is falling below 26” by 3,000 feet ASL anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY!!!! Go through the gate!!!! I do it all the time.  I've pulled Mooney's Bonanzas and a whole bunch of Cessnas and Cherokees through a 20-24' gates.  Even got my Mooney through 18 footer.  
Give me a call and I'll tell you how we did it!!
Tom
906-458-six nine eight nine



Think three-dimensionally! We ARE pilots, after all!

Of course, with enough speed, hopping the fence is no problem...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.