When do engines fail on takeoff?

[Piloto]

42 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Didn't Mooney guru Don Maxwell just post a caution to not use F391-72 because the holes are too high? The -53S should have a slot for the fuel to flow at the base. I'd expect you'd notice if you drained the tank and nothing came out because it was plugged with debris.

-Robert

The F391-53S will still drain with the bottom holes plugged but from the top of the stem. The drain plate holes will eventually get plugged by tank debris or sealant. If the valve is not aligned with the drain plate holes smaller debris can block the flow.

On the F391-72 the holes are just above the drain plate thread in clear contact with the fuel. As the plane ages debris accumulate around the drain plate raising the bottom height of the tank. On some older Mooneys the bottom of the tank is level with the top of the thread of the drain plate.

José

                                F-391-72 Drain Valve

Edited April 10, 2018 by Piloto

[RobertGary1]

8 minutes ago, Piloto said:

The F391-53S will still drain with the bottom holes plugged but from the top of the stem. The drain plate holes will eventually get plugged by tank debris or sealant. If the valve is not aligned with the drain plate holes smaller debris can block the flow.

On the F391-72 the holes are just above the drain plate thread in clear contact with the fuel. As the plane ages debris accumulate around the drain plate raising the bottom height of the tank. On some older Mooneys the bottom of the tank is level with the top of the thread of the drain plate.

José

                                F-391-72 Drain Valve

With Guru Don's words of caution its not something I would try.

-Robert

Edited April 10, 2018 by RobertGary1

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

2 of my engine failures were at take off One was a servo failure that killed the engine when I touched the mixture. If the engine is making power I don’t touch anything below tpa. 

The other take off failure was a rod failure at around 2,000 feet  Not sure if it was coincidence it was at takeoff  

 

-Robert

You had TWO engine failures?  Or two of your MANY engine failures were on take off and the rest of your engine failures were during some other phase of flight - in any case, one is not the typical and more than one even less so.  So I would hope.

[Piloto]

I you are using the F391-53S valve have it unscrew at every annual and check for water accumulated. Or you will be on the news.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-plane-crash-famed-golf-arizona/story?id=54356600

José

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

I've had three engine failures and none were related to a power setting change.    Two were at takeoff;   one was water ingestion, which may have gotten picked up due to rotation pitch up and quit just as the gear stowed and the light went out, one was a partial failure with an injector that clogged just as the end of the runway was disappearing under the nose. The other one was during a gradual descent when my fuel servo decided it had had enough after living an apparently rough life.   

I don't know if there are detailed statistics on this stuff anywhere, and they might only be significant for like engines, anyway, so who knows.

Yikes - another guy with multiple engine failures.  This is not instilling confidence....

 

[aviatoreb]

OK - I am calling in the acronym assistant please.

SIRI what does TPA stand for?

[MIm20c]

Typical pattern altitude I think. 

[RobertGary1]

9 minutes ago, Piloto said:

I you are using the F391-53S valve have it unscrew at every annual and check for water accumulated. Or you will be on the news.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-plane-crash-famed-golf-arizona/story?id=54356600

José

Which valve was that aircraft using?

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Yikes - another guy with multiple engine failures.  This is not instilling confidence....

They all happened within a few months of owning my airplane, which had some history of neglect, or "deferred maintenance" as some might say, and bad decisions by maintainers/inspectors that I think were contributing factors.  Once the issues were fixed it has turned into a very nice little bird.    I knew going in there'd be issues as I bought it as a fixer-upper.   It was a little more adventurous than I'd anticipated, but the experience has actually been very good.

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

OK - I am calling in the acronym assistant please.

SIRI what does TPA stand for?

Traffic Pattern Altitude.    I hadn't heard it before and when I was getting current again a couple of years ago my CFI used it and I had to ask.

 

[RobertGary1]

20 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

You had TWO engine failures?  Or two of your MANY engine failures were on take off and the rest of your engine failures were during some other phase of flight - in any case, one is not the typical and more than one even less so.  So I would hope.

Two were at take off. One was I pulled the mixture back just a bit and the engine went dead. Working the mixture back and forth though I was eventually able to get it to come back mostly although it was showing 30 gal/hr on the EDM for flow. I"m sure I was trailing black smoke.

The other was a failure of the piston rod bolt. With only one bolt the piston pulled the end cap off, lost oil pressure, etc. Taking that engine apart was super hard, if you've never had to disassemble and engine in which all 4 cylinders were seized you'd notice that you can't pull the pistons from the case. That was a new engine, no core value. 1000 SFNEW on that engine. Next engine was just a remain, apparently a factory new engine isn't worth the money.

Also had a failure in a J-3. Climbing through 200 feet got carb ice with full power. Apparently it can  happen. So I learned to run the carb heat until I get the power all the way in. Just as I turned back to the field the engine came back (I'd pulled the heat once it quit).

-Robert

Edited April 10, 2018 by RobertGary1

[RobertGary1]

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

 

Traffic Pattern Altitude.    I hadn't heard it before and when I was getting current again a couple of years ago my CFI used it and I had to ask.

 

Pretty sure the acronym comes from the AFD. But I guess nowadays students don't get AFD's.

 

-Robert

[EricJ]

11 minutes ago, Piloto said:

I you are using the F391-53S valve have it unscrew at every annual and check for water accumulated. Or you will be on the news.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-plane-crash-famed-golf-arizona/story?id=54356600

José

That was late yesterday a few miles from my house.   Myself and a buddy had been in and out of SDL yesterday and flew quite a bit the rest of the day.   It was warmish, 80s F, and the accident aircraft apparently had a small tailwind when taking off from the calm wind runway.   Six people in a single-engine Comanche on a warm day, and I wouldn't conclude that it had anything to do with the drain valves just yet.

[jaylw314]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Pretty sure the acronym comes from the AFD. But I guess nowadays students don't get AFD's.

 

-Robert

No, they get Chart Supplements instead

[RobertGary1]

2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

No, they get Chart Supplements instead

I remember each time I got a new rating I'd have to go buy a new AFD to show the examiner I had a current copy. Otherwise I didn't keep them very current. 

-Robert

Edited April 10, 2018 by RobertGary1

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

So if failure occurs after the first power reduction, how about taking off at 90% and INCREASING power in the climb to reduce failure probability?  

 

That’s exactly what I do. My average flight is two hours so I take off at 50% power and add 1% power every two minutes so that my flight becomes progressively safer as I go along. I noticed the controllers never ask me to “keep my speed up” as I approach the airport at 100% power. I fly “progressively LOP”, of course, so by the time I get to the airport, then mixture knob is almost at idle cut-off and I just pull it the rest of the way as I’m within gliding distance to the runway. It’s all really simple. Unless I’m doing no-flap crosswind touch and goes. Then it gets complicated.

In in all seriousness, with respect to the original question , I did have an engine failure on takeoff 25 years ago in a Piper Arrow that was NOT associated with a power reduction and occurred approximately 500’ AGL. It took a few seconds to fail completely and fourtunately I had a cross runway available and I was able to land without incident. I was 15 at the time so it didn’t really scare me as much as it should have. Scared the crap out of my instructor though (who I had never flown with before).

[ArtVandelay]

I you are using the F391-53S valve have it unscrew at every annual and check for water accumulated. Or you will be on the news.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-plane-crash-famed-golf-arizona/story?id=54356600
José

1.The drain is lower than the pickup, water sinks so unless you experience some negative G forces I would expect it to stay unless there is low level turbulence
2.The little water if any should be caught by the gasolator, isn’t that why it’s there?

I’m always concerned about water getting into the tank when opening the cap after rain or snow, no matter how much a i try to dry it before opening it a couple of drops of water fall into the tank. I usually like pour gas samples back into the tank, but when it’s rained or raining, I toss it.

[RobertGary1]

Pasted from the authority Don Maxwell from another forum  i would never consider ignoring Maxwells advice when it comes to Mooney maintenance  

 

“Valve on the left is the F391-53S. This is the correct valve. The part in the center is the nut plate. Notice the holes in center of nutplate line up with holes in valve on left. The valve on the right is one of many that look like the right valve but notice where the drain holes are. Above the threads and above the nutplate that has a seal at the top. Using this valve would allow about an inch of water to accumulate and that puts it right at the fuel pickup tube level.”

 

-Robert 

[gsxrpilot]

Bucko and I are going to fly formation tomorrow. Mating his E with my 252 will require definite and deliberate power changes during takeoff, climb, and flight, just to stay in formation.

We'll run full rich and full rpm, but working the throttle pretty good. Neither of our engines seem to mind.

[carusoam]

11 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

I read it years ago. Not sure if it was a Busch article or something from Lycoming but I do know it changed my approach to reducing power on climbout. Like Bob, I was taught and did reduce power to 25/2500.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

I had the same conversation with the guy who wrote the 310hp STC... What the IO550 is approved for in other applications is incredible continuous hp...

Where we run into challenges is not enough FF to keep the chts cool.

There is plenty of discussion for FF changes to do that too...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[JohnB]

Great discussion everyone! In looking at the paucity of hard data on this topic (there's lots of other discussions just like this around on other forums) and looking at our responses, there appear to be two camps as to what part of takeoff do engines fail:

1. At first power reduction after takeoff
2. Unknown/ unpredictable, depends on reason for failure

There are also some that say reduced power takeoffs save engine life and reduce chance of engine failure.

None of these appear to be backed by actual data i could find, but just someones recommendation or an OWT. Some good data would be GREAT if someone is able to locate any.

There's lots of data and practices on what to do after a takeoff engine failure, but I'm surprised given that there are so many takeoff engine failures that there does not seem to be any hard data on reducing the chance of takeoff engine failures, or seeing if early power reduction really does increase chance of failure. (Are you listening NTSB/FAASafety.gov?   ) or is it just lurking out there waiting to be found by one of us? Or a topic needing to be researched? It could be as simple as looking at all of the takeoff failures, determining the cause and then ascertaining what could have been done if anything in flight to avoid/delay the failure, whereas most reports seem to focus on what the pilot did or didn't do after failure as the cause of the accident. I personally want to know how to avoid the problem in the first place if that is at all possible. In formation flying, I do reduced power takeoffs which I don't see as a problem at all and may help, but then backing off while low after wheels up may be though but so far not proven.

For now I think I'm still leaning towards not backing off on anything power related after wheels up until I'm at an altitude I know I can safely make it back to the airport as some of you have suggested, as if #1 is correct in some instances, that may help?

 

 

[mike_elliott]

19 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Yeah, reduce to 25 square was the accepted wisdom in 1969 when I started flying a Mooney. And I know that many older pilots, including a friend who's a CFII, ATP, long time Mooney owner, still pull back the throttle and then the prop shortly after raising gear. But SOPs change. We also leaned to 25 ROP for cruise, and never, ever let the MP/RPM be over square.  

Bob, you are giving away your age...thats pre radial engine thinking!

[mike_elliott]

While I do not have any empirical data to share to validate this other than observations, race car engines typically let go at power reductions. Granted, these are highly stressed vs our ol tractor motors. Have I mentioned air cooled internal combustion engines are the work of the devil?

What I preach (teach) is keep those money knobs all forward until after the kill zone at Vy. Kill zone = <800' AGL Then I suggest keep them all forward except mixture (for NA engines) until cruise altitude (exception 231 and other turbos...for example, Ill reduce the Bravo to 34 mp for cruise climb) Your POH is a friend here

[jlunseth]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

While I do not have any empirical data to share to validate this other than observations, race car engines typically let go at power reductions. Granted, these are highly stressed vs our ol tractor motors. Have I mentioned air cooled internal combustion engines are the work of the devil?

What I preach (teach) is keep those money knobs all forward until after the kill zone at Vy. Kill zone = <800' AGL Then I suggest keep them all forward except mixture (for NA engines) until cruise altitude (exception 231 and other turbos...for example, Ill reduce the Bravo to 34 mp for cruise climb) Your POH is a friend here

Agreed.  Why the heck are people reducing power on takeoff??  Make your climb out to your first level off altitude and then do it.  Make that level off altitude one where you have at least some options.  I don’t use Vy.  I use best glide.  There was a great article in AOPA magazine a few years ago about climb out and actually practicing for the miracle 180.  After some testing, they decided Vx was not the best speed because the aircraft was too nose high, and there was a risk of stall if the pilot hesitates at all in putting the nose down, and one of their theses was that the pilot will always hesitate - what the heck just happened?  Vy was not ideal either because the aircraft takes too long to get to 180 turn altitude, and gets too far from the field.  A speed in the middle was better, which happens to be best glide or so.  I always do my takeoff climb at 85 kts., gets me to altitude fast, gives me time to react, and plenty of margin from stall speed.

[Piloto]

Another crash on takeoff

https://www.aerotime.aero/en/military/21129-breaking-algerian-military-transporter-crashes-200-feared-dead

José

 

[steingar]

I reduce power on takeoff to 25 squared both because my POH says to do it and I've read anecdotal evidence on this very site that doing so reduces oil consumption.