Cylinder head/barrel separation at 14,500ft.

[DanM20C]

As many of you know, I lost my C model just over 1-1/2 years ago with my little run-in with CO.  That was on the last business trip I took with my own airplane.  Until Thursday.

I replaced the C with a 231 just over a year ago. It had a long period of inactivity prior to my ownership, but I have been working the bugs out.  I have been slowly upgrading It and it has been getting better and better.  Oil consumption has been cut it half since I brought it home.  I have changed the oil 5 times now and the Blackstone reports keep getting better.  The first one was great considering its history.  I finally really felt I was getting in a groove with this airplane.

Thursday I took off on the first business trip since my fateful day.  While cruising along VFR at 14.5K ft all was well.  I was running lean of peak, 10gph, all but the #2 CHT’s were 340 or lower(#2 was around 365), TIT was around 1510, and I was showing 169kts true.  Life was good.  Then I heard/felt 3 little pops and everything returned to as smooth as it was before.   But I noticed my #4 cylinder went cold(EGT and CHT). It was running so smooth I suspected I blew a spark plug out so I reduced manifold pressure to the low 20’s and hung a U-turn to divert to KPKD, about 16mn behind me.   I advised ATC that I was diverting do to engine troubles.   I told them it wasn’t an emergency yet but would keep them updated.  Once I got over KPKD, around 10Kft, Center advised me they lost me on Radar and asked if I needed any assistance.  I told them I was over the airport and should be fine.  They then asked me to take down a phone number to call after I was safely on the ground.  I copied it down and switched to CTAF.  Some time just after this, the engine started shaking violently.  I reduced power more and the shaking let up a bit but was still very uncomfortable.  At this point I knew it was much worse than blown sparkplug.  I pulled the mixture back to IC and that seemed to smooth things out a bit.  I did a steep spiral over the airport and set up on a downwind about 1800agl.  Much higher than I would have liked but I wasn’t in the mood to loiter around and circle one more time.  In the back of my mind I was expecting a fire.  I really wanted to be on the ground!  While on downwind I pushed the mixture back in briefly and the violent shaking returned.  So out it came again.  I put the gear and flaps down on a tight, high base.   I had to slip on final as I was a bit high and fast, I managed a nice landing and only used 3500ft of the 5,500ft runway.

It turns out the #4 Cylinder had a classic head/barrel separation.  I suspect it fully let go when all the shaking started.  It broke the intake riser of #4 and #2, The injector fuel line broke, and the baffling got banged up good.  The exhaust manifold kept the head from departing all together, but got bent in the process.  We have yet to dig deep into it yet, I’m hoping there is no more damage.  I only lost a quart of oil.

I’m very thankful for Mooney Friends.  Texts went out after I got the airplane back on the ramp. @ThorFlightand @lotsofgadgets both offered to pick me up.  Thor rearranged his schedule and was pulling up in his J just a few hrs later.  I was back home in time for dinner with the family. Mooney friends are awesome!

Some lessons learned.  I should have declared an Emergency when center asked if I would like to.  It turned out OK, but no one on the ground was aware of my situation despite several “engine out” calls on CTAF.  If I hadn’t made the field, search/rescue may not have been alerted. 

Be safe out there!

Dan

[DXB]

That's horrifying. Great job keeping a cool head and getting yourself down safe.  Accounts like this are particularly chilling - the ones where it's not at all obvious what one might have done to prevent the emergency. 

I doubt it's the previous engine inactivity alone that set you up for this problem? What was the other history of the engine and of the cylinder in particular?  Hope you won't mind sharing more details as they emerge.

[amillet]

Very glad you are OK.  Thanks again for the Sensorcon calibration at OSH.

[Danb]

Nicely done Dan, you’ve had your share of bad luck and managed them like a superstar.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Good flying.

[Robert C.]

Well done, so glad to hear you got down safe and sound!

Time for another presentation at the Mooney Summit methinks

Robert

[DanM20C]

4 hours ago, DXB said:

I doubt it's the previous engine inactivity alone that set you up for this problem? What was the other history of the engine and of the cylinder in particular?  Hope you won't mind sharing more details as they emerge.

The big question is how the previous owners flew it.  The guy I bought if from was a sole owner but he was in a partnership with 2 other guys initially.  After the engine was overhauled last they flew it a fair amount. 150hrs/year for the first 3 years. They could have been flying 50 rich of peak and did the damage then, who knows. The seller told me how he ran the plane and it sounded conservative in terms of keeping the engine cool.  It sounded he was always below 70% power and he kept the FF high. 

I installed a JPI 900 50-60hrs ago.  Before that I only flew rich of peak and conservative power and high FF.  Mimicking those power settings after the JPI showed the #4 cylinder to always be lower than 360.  After I started LOP ops it usually is 340 or less.

I don't really now the history of the Cylinder.  The OH shop log book entry  just said 6 OHC installed.  I'm not sure if they are first run with the engine or not.  I can't seem to locate a work order with more info. The engine has 2980TT,  720 SMOH.  It's unlikely that the original cylinders would go 2260hrs without overhaul.  If they are original to the engine they would have most likely been OH twice and that would be the problem.  I need to look for work order #'s stamped on the bases of the cylinders. I might be able to tell if these are 2nd or 3rd run.   

I'll get to the plane next week and dig into it more. 

4 hours ago, Danb said:

Nicely done Dan, you’ve had your share of bad luck and managed them like a superstar

I don't think "superstar" would be appropriate.  I wasn't even awake for the first one.  Thanks for saying "bad luck".  I'm really getting tired of people telling me how lucky I am.

Cheers,

Dan

[Yooper Rocketman]

Good job Dan!   Great to hear a successful outcome.  

Tom

[KSMooniac]

Great job! Looking forward to the engine autopsy details too.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Mooney in Oz]

Albeit a different cause, you and @aviatoreb have shown that skill and coolness result in a good outcome.

Well done Dan!

[Bartman]

I only hope my training kicks in as did yours and others on this board. 

[Jeev]

Good job and I’m very glad you made it down safe. Bottom line you made the correct choices that ended up with you on the ground safe.

[Bryan]

Thanks for posting and glad you are okay. Post back what you find.

[skydvrboy]

Nice to hear you're safe and sound on the ground!

[KLRDMD]

Don't like the way an engine is running in cruise ? Leisurely shut it down, feather it and continue stress free to the nearest suitable airport on the other engine. Oh, you don't have another engine ? 

There sure seems to have been a lot of engine failures around here in the last year or so.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Mooney in Oz said:

Albeit a different cause, you and @aviatoreb have shown that skill and coolness result in a good outcome.

Well done Dan!

Oh boy - this thread gives me flash backs.  Good for you Dan and well done!

I had a comparable incident in April.  A full engine out emergency, (dead turbo), smoke in the cockpit and a dead stick landing.  Starting at 16,500 ft.  The cause was entirely different, but there were similarities.  I was close enough to an airport that I was soon 12k over the target emergency landing airport, doing steep spirals to come down asap because I too was worrying about a fire - but I was dead stick but there was some smoke - not a lot - but also the smell of burin (but it was just burnt oil).  Then I too made essentially the same decision as you - I had one last turn I could have made for a better approach to landing but I elected to land right away skipping one last turn and I too came in very hot but thanks to speed breaks I managed to make a reasonable stop with some runway to spare to a nice uneventful landing.

Oh boy - good for you and good for me - to be posting "how lucky" we are.  Knock on wood for both of us good buddy!

[aviatoreb]

29 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Don't like the way an engine is running in cruise ? Leisurely shut it down, feather it and continue stress free to the nearest suitable airport on the other engine. Oh, you don't have another engine ? 

There sure seems to have been a lot of engine failures around here in the last year or so.

Yadada Yes yes....in cruise flight clearly a second engine is the thing you want.

Fact: But twins are more expensive to insure, at the same hull value, since statistically they are less safe. As it turns out the risk is concentrated at a different stage of flight - during take off - even though all twin pilots are trained in how to handle an engine out on take off, statistically they do a poor job. The actuaries at the insurance companies have something to sat about the topic.  In the hands of a truly current pilot a twin is better, but apparently twin pilots on average don't do as well as advertised.  And the chances of an engine out on take off are roughly double that of an engine out on take off.

Kock on wood for all of us.

Edited August 12, 2018 by aviatoreb

[KLRDMD]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Yadada Yes yes....in cruise flight clearly a second engine is the thing you want.

Fact: But twins are more expensive to insure, at the same hull value, since statistically they are less safe. As it turns out the risk is concentrated at a different stage of flight - during take off - even though all twin pilots are trained in how to handle an engine out on take off, statistically they do a poor job. The actuaries at the insurance companies have something to sat about the topic.  In the hands of a truly current pilot a twin is better, but apparently twin pilots on average don't do as well as advertised.  And the chances of an engine out on take off are roughly double that of an engine out on take off.

Kock on wood for all of us.

Fact: Insurance depends on your experience level. Complex airplanes are more to insure for the same hull value until you have enough complex time too. I pay the same insurance amount for the same hull value regardless of single or twin. And of course twins are not statistically less safe, that's a bunch of hogwash. During takeoff I have on average a +/-5 second window that the twin is *potentially* less safe than a single. Compare that to the entire flight *except* five seconds that the flight in the single is less safe than twin.

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Fact: Insurance depends on your experience level. Complex airplanes are more to insure for the same hull value until you have enough complex time too. I pay the same insurance amount for the same hull value regardless of single or twin. And of course twins are not statistically less safe, that's a bunch of hogwash. During takeoff I have on average a +/-5 second window that the twin is *potentially* less safe than a single. Compare that to the entire flight *except* five seconds that the flight in the single is less safe than twin.

How much is your insurance?

i was just a tad bit annoyed with a dude coming on to a thread of a fellow aviator sharing a difficult day and someone comes on and gloats.  I or he comes her to share the experience to help others deal well with situations if god forbid they happen to others. And honestly to shake off quite a fright in a community of fellow aviators.

and honestly - it is a fact that a twin is a mixed blessing.  For the reasons that I said and documented in the ntsb database and the actuaries computed insurance rates.

this is a question not a statement.  Is the insurance rate of a twin at same Hull value ever the same as a complex single assuming supreme experience in each?

that hypothetical question aside. I get it... I get it when you gloated the day I had an emergency to handle and shared it on the forum and I get it today that dan is here sharing his experience / you love your twin and I am very happy for you.  I wish you happy and safe flying.  Good value and great insurance rates for your earned provably  better than average twin pilot skills.

Edited August 12, 2018 by aviatoreb

[KLRDMD]

I'm not gloating at all. I'm simply suggesting there is an alternative that many have not considered due to others posting false information. If, as a single engine pilot you're constantly told that twins are three times what a single is to maintain, you'll flip over on your back in the event of an engine failure, the second engine only takes you to the scene of the accident and other nonsense, you may never consider that a twin is an option for you. We've seen a lot of engine failures on this board in the last year, many of those pilots probably would have preferred to have a second engine when they had their engine failure.

The reality is, for about 50% more yearly costs one can own, maintain and fly a twin versus a single and the twin brings you SO much more versatility and capability than the single. That's my entire point.

I kinda like being the one making decisions (twin), not having decisions made for me (single).

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I'm not gloating at all. I'm simply suggesting there is an alternative that many have not considered due to others posting false information. If, as a single engine pilot you're constantly told that twins are three times what a single is to maintain, you'll flip over on your back in the event of an engine failure, the second engine only takes to to the scene of the accident and other nonsense, you may never consider that a twin is an option for you. We've seen a lot of engine failures on this board in the last year, many of those pilots probably would have preferred to have a second engine when they had their engine failure.

The reality is, for about 50% more yearly costs one can own, maintain and fly a twin versus a single and the twin brings you SO much more versatility and capability than the single. That's my entire point.

I am a professional mathematician. I believe in statistics.  You can’t logic that a twin is safer even though it seems as if it should be.

i have read extensively on the topic.  Fleet wide statistics suggest that over all / across the entire flight that twins and singles are roughly the same.  Averaged across the pilot population.  Of course super pilot can do better than average.

you don’t think it’s gloating to pop in at each thread where there is an incident and tell us that hey you love your twin but take it from me / in April I was rolling my eyes at you when you did it the day I had my scare (and I politely kept my tongue) and today again I am rolling my eyes at you and I doubt I’m the only one.  As if you are the first to ever suggest such a thing - today - as if I/we never considered the concept of a twin before.  Honestly / really?!! Save your gloating for a different day or at least take some advice - it’s poor timing and annoying socially.  

No pat yourself on the back logic that clearly twins are better because gee whiz you can just cage the other bad engine in cruise flight and gee whiz you are current Simcom trained every 3 months and gee whiz you get 5 whole seconds to identify that bad engine on take off incident and wow you are better than the average twin pilot who either is not fast enough, or caging the wrong engine or for some reason just screwing up.  Either show me a statistic that shows me why your twin is safer per year of operation or stop gloating each thread on the day someone is sharing a scare.  It’s gloating and it’s misplaced.  

Edited August 12, 2018 by aviatoreb

[Niko182]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

Don't like the way an engine is running in cruise ? Leisurely shut it down, feather it and continue stress free to the nearest suitable airport on the other engine. Oh, you don't have another engine ? 

There sure seems to have been a lot of engine failures around here in the last year or so.

I too enjoy implying that someone bought the wrong type of aircraft, right after the owner survived a pretty horrific experience.

[bonal]

Sure came off as gloating to me. Even more so with the emoji that was added. To the OP glad you had a safe outcome and sorry for the challenges ahead. To our guy with the twin you seem to always have to make comments promoting the multi engine airplanes. I'm sure most if not all of us think your Barron is an awesome airplane I know I do and not in need of promoting. And as for a mere 50% more well to many that's a lot of money. 

Good job Dan.

[Andy95W]

Ken, I agree with your analysis, but I also thought it came across as gloating- particularly on a board dedicated to Mooney Pilots.

(And I'm very sure I've got more multi-engine hours than you have, so I'm all the more sure that you're right, just not your tone.)

[DanM20C]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Oh boy - this thread gives me flash backs.  Good for you Dan and well done!

I had a comparable incident in April.  A full engine out emergency, (dead turbo), smoke in the cockpit and a dead stick landing.  Starting at 16,500 ft.  The cause was entirely different, but there were similarities.  I was close enough to an airport that I was soon 12k over the target emergency landing airport, doing steep spirals to come down asap because I too was worrying about a fire - but I was dead stick but there was some smoke - not a lot - but also the smell of burin (but it was just burnt oil).  Then I too made essentially the same decision as you - I had one last turn I could have made for a better approach to landing but I elected to land right away skipping one last turn and I too came in very hot but thanks to speed breaks I managed to make a reasonable stop with some runway to spare to a nice uneventful landing.

Oh boy - good for you and good for me - to be posting "how lucky" we are.  Knock on wood for both of us good buddy!

I thought of you twice that day. The first time was after the engine started shaking and I thought "Man I wish this was a turbo failure, that would be a lot less expensive."  In my defense I forgot the part about the smoke and burning smell.

The second time I thought of you was while I was standing at my grill with a beer in one hand and the tongs in the other.  Your picture of your sushi popped into my head.  It made me smile.