Not Mooney accidents, but interesting nonetheless

[Brandt]

 

[Pinecone]

Hmm, cut off the oil to make the engine seize, but the prop keep turning?????

[Brandt]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, cut off the oil to make the engine seize, but the prop keep turning?????

Sounded sketchy to me too.  Why not just mixture cutoff?

[Pinecone]

Basically someone trying to sound like an expert on a topic where they know very little.

Why didn't they feather the prop?

[GeeBee]

You all have never flown big radials have you?

They could not feather the prop because the prop governor had run away. The feathering pump could not over power the governor. With the engine continuing to be in an over rev condition the eventual out come would be separation from the air frame. So the decision was made a stopped un-feathered engine was better than one breaking from its mounts (a known event in the 337) so they decided to seize the engine by cutting the oil supply. The lack of lubrication to the forward crank bearing however resulted in the crank shearing which permitted the prop to spin again.

This event was the basis for Ernest K Gann's story and Academy Award winning movie, "High and the Mighty" except in that story, the engine became partially detached creating huge amounts of drag.

The Boing 337 was basically a B-29 with an expanded fuselage, (you can see the crease on the lower belt line) but the center section and wings were identical. However it had the hugely complex P&W R-4360 vs the B-29's R-3350 (And the B-29 had a lot of engine problems, it's why Paul Tibbets was called "Mr. B-29") . The R-4360 has a huge prop to absorb the power and the blades were not solid aluminum but a "foil and skin" much like the wing on your Mooney, except the trailing edge was resistance welded together. This set up all kinds of harmonic issues which were never really conquered. Lot's of problems and dire in-flight situations arose and every airline that had the 337 wanted something else, quickly. 

[Pinecone]

Thanks for the info.

[T. Peterson]

On 5/16/2023 at 9:39 AM, GeeBee said:

You all have never flown big radials have you?

They could not feather the prop because the prop governor had run away. The feathering pump could not over power the governor. With the engine continuing to be in an over rev condition the eventual out come would be separation from the air frame. So the decision was made a stopped un-feathered engine was better than one breaking from its mounts (a known event in the 337) so they decided to seize the engine by cutting the oil supply. The lack of lubrication to the forward crank bearing however resulted in the crank shearing which permitted the prop to spin again.

This event was the basis for Ernest K Gann's story and Academy Award winning movie, "High and the Mighty" except in that story, the engine became partially detached creating huge amounts of drag.

The Boing 337 was basically a B-29 with an expanded fuselage, (you can see the crease on the lower belt line) but the center section and wings were identical. However it had the hugely complex P&W R-4360 vs the B-29's R-3350 (And the B-29 had a lot of engine problems, it's why Paul Tibbets was called "Mr. B-29") . The R-4360 has a huge prop to absorb the power and the blades were not solid aluminum but a "foil and skin" much like the wing on your Mooney, except the trailing edge was resistance welded together. This set up all kinds of harmonic issues which were never really conquered. Lot's of problems and dire in-flight situations arose and every airline that had the 337 wanted something else, quickly. 

Wow! That was very informative and interesting. Thank you!

[T. Peterson]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:46 AM, Brandt said:

 

Fascinating.

[GeeBee]

The incident and the problems point to something we take for granted and that is what a game changer the 707 and DC-8 were to air travel. Besides the mechanical issues an airliner such as a DC-7, Super Connie or this 337 had unbelievable maintenance requirements. If you flew say a DC-7 from NY to LA, it was done for the day. Not because of schedule but you had to change every spark plug on the engine (as well as the oil). Massive heat and amounts of lead required a change of 288 spark plugs (airlines had big spark plug re-conditioning shops). Because of the engine design it was near impossible to get to the rear plugs and in particular on the bottom. It was quicker to pull the engine, the record held by TWA on a SuperConnie is 45 minutes to swap an engine. All those engines lined up on stands were usually not overhauls but change outs for plugs and ignition (sometimes superchargers). Then along comes the 707 and it flies NY to LA, and then they put fuel in it and turn it around and it flies back out! Aircraft productivity doubled and it was then that flight crew pay really took off because the airlines were able to pay thanks to massive productivity increases. 

[T. Peterson]

28 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

The incident and the problems point to something we take for granted and that is what a game changer the 707 and DC-8 were to air travel. Besides the mechanical issues an airliner such as a DC-7, Super Connie or this 337 had unbelievable maintenance requirements. If you flew say a DC-7 from NY to LA, it was done for the day. Not because of schedule but you had to change every spark plug on the engine (as well as the oil). Massive heat and amounts of lead required a change of 288 spark plugs (airlines had big spark plug re-conditioning shops). Because of the engine design it was near impossible to get to the rear plugs and in particular on the bottom. It was quicker to pull the engine, the record held by TWA on a SuperConnie is 45 minutes to swap an engine. All those engines lined up on stands were usually not overhauls but change outs for plugs and ignition (sometimes superchargers). Then along comes the 707 and it flies NY to LA, and then they put fuel in it and turn it around and it flies back out! Aircraft productivity doubled and it was then that flight crew pay really took off because the airlines were able to pay thanks to massive productivity increases. 

You sir, are a fountain of interesting information! Here I am in the cockpit of a 320 to fly almost 4 hours to DFW, and now I can appreciate the marvelous efficiency of this bird in a new way!

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

You sir, are a fountain of interesting information! Here I am in the cockpit of a 320 to fly almost 4 hours to DFW, and now I can appreciate the marvelous efficiency of this bird in a new way!

Actually, I think I am just reciting that I am old. But thank you anyway 

[Pinecone]

My first airline flight was on a 377.  But I was about 2 years old, so all I remember was getting my toy wings.

I figured out I have flown 27 major airliners, not including regional jets and turbo-props.  And not counting various Dash numbers.  And 114 airlines.

 

 

[T. Peterson]

58 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

My first airline flight was on a 377.  But I was about 2 years old, so all I remember was getting my toy wings.

I figured out I have flown 27 major airliners, not including regional jets and turbo-props.  And not counting various Dash numbers.  And 114 airlines.

 

 

You should never have to pay for a hotel room!

[Pinecone]

Not quite that level.

But Million Miler on United.  Million Miler on Delta and about 50K short of 2 million.

Lifetime Titanium with Marriott.

And have now visited 153 countries.  It will be 154 the week after next.