Intrinsic engine failure. A real concern or not?

[jetdriven]

I guess I am 85% safer because I don't power back for takeoff, and 90% safer for never mismanaging fuel.  Does anyone else write down the gallons burned and remaining in each tank on a longer flight after every tank change?

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: jetdriven

I guess I am 85% safer because I don't power back for takeoff, and 90% safer for never mismanaging fuel.  Does anyone else write down the gallons burned and remaining in each tank on a longer flight after every tank change?

[Shadrach]

Quote: jetdriven

 

[carusoam]

A stuck valve in my m20c after take-off left me nervous.   The plane maintained altitude and we landed on the next runway.  Vibration was strong.  Altitude of about 500 ft.  My flight instructor earned his keep that day.  I was required to fly 15 hrs with instructor by my insurance company.  

I elected an io-550 for my next plane. I figured 5 cylinders is better than 3.

-a-

[Piloto]

Quote: carusoam

A stuck valve in my m20c after take-off left me nervous.

[Piloto]

Quote: carusoam

A stuck valve in my m20c after take-off left me nervous. The plane maintained altitude and we landed on the next runway. Vibration was strong. Altitude of about 500 ft. My flight instructor earned his keep that day. I was required to fly 15 hrs with instructor by my insurance company.

I elected an io-550 for my next plane. I figured 5 cylinders is better than 3.

-a-

[johnggreen]

As per my previous post, depending on the damage done by a swallowed valve, the vibration can be unmanageable.

Jgreen

[John Pleisse]

Quote: jetdriven

I guess I am 85% safer because I don't power back for takeoff, and 90% safer for never mismanaging fuel.  Does anyone else write down the gallons burned and remaining in each tank on a longer flight after every tank change?

[jetdriven]

sure.  The totalizer tells us how much, but not where.  Pencil and paper seems to work pretty well.  We can't all have Aspens and Shadin's,   John

[John Pleisse]

Quote: jetdriven

The totalizer tells us how much, but not where.  Pencil and paper seems to work pretty well. 

[carusoam]

Jose,

6 cylinders has a higher probability of failure, but I still go with 5 cylinders are better than 3.

100 gallons in the standard Ovation tanks.  No fear where the last 2 or 3 gallons are.

Biggest problem: human error is quite high.  My brain is on OS1 and I am still using the Mark I eyeball.

-a-

[jetdriven]

Quote: N4352H

Ya don't say........

But Ace, if you run one tank bone dry....you'll know where the fuel is. All, dramitically widening that safety margin!

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: N4352H

 You've gotta be kidding.....

jetdriven

Won't Leave!

Joined: Dec 18, 2010

Posts: 1,958

Location: league city tx usa

Re: Running a tank dry in flight

Posted Oct 7, 2011 5:20 PM

Further, if you have 10 gallons remaining, our advanced fuel monitoring computers tell us how much fuel is on board, but not how much in each tank.   Do you know when you get down to 10 gallons total if it is 5 gallons left and 5 gallons right? Or could it be 3 gallons left and 7 gallons right?  How can you know? Thats only 2 gallons difference!    Do you do a VFR go around and now its 5 gallons left and 3 right?  Or was it 7 gallons right and 2 gallons left?  Oh, well, i THINK this tank is fuller, so lets switch on downwind, and HOPE it is still the fullest.  So, which is safer? A tank with 3 gallons in it or one with 10? 

 

Now THAT'S funny...

[PTK]

Quote: Piloto

Essentially there are two root causes for engine failure; material fatigue and improper assembly. When the engine was originally tested and certified the materials (metal and rubber) used were new and of good quality. Most likely the engine was assembled by the engineers that designed it. It is the deviations from these original conditions that causes the failures. A good engineer will take variations in material quality and design with allowances for this. Proper engine assembly is mostly a production responsibility. Most engine failures occurs during high power settings such as take-off and climbing. These failures are mostly due to material failure such as broken crankshafts, connecting rods and blown cylinders. These failures are hard to forecast but usually happens during the early life of an engine. Ironically you are better off overhauling your trusty 2000hrs engine (with original crankshaft and rods) than getting a new engine. A good old engine has proven itself. This is why most of the AD related to crankshaft, rods and other parts refer to newer engines but rarely to the old ones. Engine assembly either when new, overhauled or maintenance is another cause for engine failure. It only takes an improperly torque bolt such as those holding a connecting rod or a magneto to ruin your day, or the wrong piston rings. For this you have to trust your shop or mechanic. I found to never trust a mechanic with bad memory. Ask him how much cash he has on his wallet before working on your engine.

Overall well maintained aircraft engines are pretty reliable. The simpler the engine the more reliable would be. A four cylinder engine is more reliable than a six cylinder because there are less chances of having a failed connecting rod or a blown cylinder head. Same with normally aspirated engines. A normally aspirated engine would never have a turbo/exhaust failure. This is what makes the IO-360/O-360s so reliable. The above can also be applied to propellers. Two blade prop is more reliable than three or four blades props.

 

José

 

[jetdriven]

Don't forget do not pull on the prop, run the most expensive oil you can buy, and climb at 25 square.  

[PTK]

Quote: jetdriven

Don't forget do not pull on the prop, run the most expensive oil you can buy, and climb at 25 square.  

[jetdriven]

nah dont abuse your engine!  redline hurts it! Better to pull back to 25 square and save that engine! We all know they cant take that redline abuse...........

[robhiggins]

Personally I have 10,000+ hours, of which 2500 are in Lycoming powered aircraft.  (the remainder are in  jets)  The only engine I have ever had go bad was a turbine.  Lost all it's oil @ 37,000 feet late at night.

I do fly the Mooney at night in IMC and overwater during the day.

Rob

[jetdriven]

The first engine partial failure was a stuck exhaust valve in a 172.  The other was a PT6A-67D in an 1900.  Loss of oil and  shutdown. Landed then  filled her up with oil and continued on to Johannesburg. TIA. 

Thats in almost 9k hours.

[robhiggins]

I also fly the Robinson R22 - which has an O-360 in it.  We run it at about 23''.  They rarely have trouble making a 2200 TBO.

[DaV8or]

I have found that if you ask the question "How reliable is my engine?" on an aviation forum, the answers will usually come up bullet proof, stone cold simple, rock of Gibralter, trust more than my Mother, etc, but if you ask the same set of aviators on the same forum "Have you ever had an engine out?", the same guys will tell you all about the 1,2, or 3 engine failures they've had in their flying history. I find this type of discussion is usually just for entertainment purposes with exception that usually someone will attach a link to the Nall report and that's about as good of data that we're ever going to get. Sadly it too is not perfect.

Basically, piston aviation engines have the worst reliability in aviation, part 91 is worse than the other operators and experimental aircraft engines are even worse still. Most dangerous times are after maintenance or if the engine is brand new. Get involved with your engine's maintenance, but don't go it alone without proper training, use only aviation grade parts, inspect the engine often and try not to defer maintenance. About all I can think of. Other than that, cross your fingers, pray to your God, carry a rabbit's foot...

[M20F]

Quote: DaV8or

I have found that if you ask the question "How reliable is my engine?" on an aviation forum, the answers will usually come up bullet proof, stone cold simple, rock of Gibralter, trust more than my Mother, etc, but if you ask the same set of aviators on the same forum "Have you ever had an engine out?", the same guys will tell you all about the 1,2, or 3 engine failures they've had in their flying history.

[rorythedog]

Quote: jetdriven

Don't forget   climb at 25 square.  

[dcrogers11]

I just had my BFR performed 2 weeks ago with the same instructor that I am working on my Instrument rating with.  He has had two off field landings and he is sensitive to this being a big part of the review and about 30 minutes of the almost two hours total time was spent on emergency procedures including multiple power off (no throttle) landings from various altitudes to a hypothitical point on the runway which he called the bobwire fenceline that I had to clear then stop before hitting trees which was another point on the runway.  Its was good proctice and I hit the "bobwire fence" twice before getting it right. 

I agree with the complacency comments and I try to fly with that in mind with part of my scan pattern and thought process during flight spending my cruise time going over the scenarios that could happen to me should the hamsters quit rowing in the Mooney's powerplant. 

[jetdriven]

It was a joke.  I never do that

Quote: rorythedog

interesting thread....but why "25 square"?