Rear engine in a crash question

[BernadetteTS]

I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.

I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
The force is down not forward through the cockpit.

Bernadette

[AL]

I really hate to admit it, but, to my great chagrin I once departure stalled
and crashed a rear-engine ultralight. Think of a Quicksilver, except the
engine was under the wing. Well, it didn't "tear loose" but rather went
right over my head. A friend and a passerby together elevated the tangled
mass of tubing enough for me to crawl out from under it. Amazing how hard it
is to release a seat belt when your body is dangling from it...

Al Mills

[B2431]

>From: BernadetteTS
>Date: 11/18/2003 9:55 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.
>
>I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
>mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
>ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
>tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
>sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
>ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
>The force is down not forward through the cockpit.
>
>Bernadette
>
Another design that would appear to be dangerous is mounting the engine above
and behind the cockpit. In a descending crash or a head on crash the engine
will most likely land on whomever is in the cockpit and probably ruin his whole
day.

Something else I have seen is a tidy row of toggle switches over one's knee. I
bet they would redecorate one's kneecap in a crash.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George A. Graham]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, BernadetteTS wrote:

>
> I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
> mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash?

I can offer one data point. I flopped down hard enough to brake the
nose landing gear linkage, during my worst landing. We stopped very
fast on the runway.

No prop or engine damage, as they are in the back.

I replaced a rod end, and we flew home with a nasty scrape under
the nose.

A similar landing incident killed two neighbors when their front
engined bird collapsed the nose gear on landing, which lead to
a fire from which they did not escape.

I like mine in the back.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>I really hate to admit it, but, to my great chagrin I once departure stalled
>and crashed a rear-engine ultralight. Think of a Quicksilver, except the
>engine was under the wing. Well, it didn't "tear loose" but rather went
>right over my head.

> A friend and a passerby together elevated the tangled
>mass of tubing enough for me to crawl out from under it. Amazing how hard it
>is to release a seat belt when your body is dangling from it...
>
>Al Mills
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds like your seatbelt was NOT an aviation approved type.
If it was, it should have unlatched easily...
allowing you to fall and break your neck or
whatever was going to break your fall. <g>

Barnyard BOb --

[Big John]

BOb

Don't laugh. Saw a P-51 pour full power on after a landing attempt
that went bad and bird torque rolled inverted and went into sand
beside runway.

Group ran out and picked wing up to let pilot get out. Bubble canopy
was broken of course and when he released is seat belt fell on his
head and cracked a vertebrae.

Can't win sometimes for losing I guess?

Big John

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:51:36 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:

>
>
>>I really hate to admit it, but, to my great chagrin I once departure stalled
>>and crashed a rear-engine ultralight. Think of a Quicksilver, except the
>>engine was under the wing. Well, it didn't "tear loose" but rather went
>>right over my head.
>
>> A friend and a passerby together elevated the tangled
>>mass of tubing enough for me to crawl out from under it. Amazing how hard it
>>is to release a seat belt when your body is dangling from it...
>>
>>Al Mills
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Sounds like your seatbelt was NOT an aviation approved type.
>If it was, it should have unlatched easily...
>allowing you to fall and break your neck or
>whatever was going to break your fall. <g>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

[Big John]

Dan

Don't know if you ever saw the N-9 (P-40) and K-14 computing
gunsights (P-51). Both would leave a 'mark' on your forhead in a crash
(that you survived)

Used to be a 'mark of honor'. Then they started making everyone wear
helments.

Big John


On 18 Nov 2003 21:03:51 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: BernadetteTS
>>Date: 11/18/2003 9:55 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.
>>
>>I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
>>mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
>>ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
>>tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
>>sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
>>ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
>>The force is down not forward through the cockpit.
>>
>>Bernadette
>>
>Another design that would appear to be dangerous is mounting the engine above
>and behind the cockpit. In a descending crash or a head on crash the engine
>will most likely land on whomever is in the cockpit and probably ruin his whole
>day.
>
>Something else I have seen is a tidy row of toggle switches over one's knee. I
>bet they would redecorate one's kneecap in a crash.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BernadetteTS]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >
> Another design that would appear to be dangerous is mounting the engine above
> and behind the cockpit.
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Hi Dan

Do you mean like a Republic SeaBee?

Bernadette

[B2431]

>From: BernadetteTS
>Date: 11/18/2003 8:50 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> >
>> Another design that would appear to be dangerous is mounting the engine
>above
>> and behind the cockpit.
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>Hi Dan
>
>Do you mean like a Republic SeaBee?
>
>Bernadette
>
Yes.

I was in the first unit in the Air Farce to get the H-60. One of the safety
features they told us about was the transmission and rotorhead are built to
fall forward of the cockpit in the event of a major forward crash.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>BOb
>
>Don't laugh. Saw a P-51 pour full power on after a landing attempt
>that went bad and bird torque rolled inverted and went into sand
>beside runway.
>
>Group ran out and picked wing up to let pilot get out. Bubble canopy
>was broken of course and when he released is seat belt fell on his
>head and cracked a vertebrae.
>
>Can't win sometimes for losing I guess?
>
>Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not laughing.

Just because the crash may be over...
undoing a seatbelt still may require
extreme care and caution.

I first became aware of this early in my
crop dusting career. Seems a fellow
put his Stearman on its back and in
haste to exit his inverted position...
yep, injured his neck and back a bit.

That bit of foolishness might have paralyzed him....
had he been SOBER.

I'm not even going to take a stab
at the moral of this story. <g>


Barnyard BOb -- seen a lot in 50 years of flight

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:59:31 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Dan
>
>Don't know if you ever saw the N-9 (P-40) and K-14 computing
>gunsights (P-51). Both would leave a 'mark' on your forhead in a crash
>(that you survived)
>
>Used to be a 'mark of honor'. Then they started making everyone wear
>helments.
>
>Big John

The early F4F Wildcats were not equipped with shoulder straps. In
fact few of the early fighters were. In the case of the Wildcat, not
having shoulder straps resulted in a gashed forehead in the event of a
ditching, as the pilot pitched forward and collided with the gunsight.

During the Battle of Midway, in which a lot of Wildcats ditched, one
pilot related that he manage to hurl himself sideways at the moment of
impact with the ocean during a ditching, and avoided being slashed.
In all the text written about this battle, this one pilot was the only
instance recorded of a guy who remembered what would happen during a
ditching, planned how to avoid being injured, and accomplished it.

Another pilot decided to have his crew chief install shoulder straps
to hold him away from the instrument panel coming, and the dreaded
gunsight, in the event of a ditching.

Ironically, the A6M Mitsubishi type 0 fighter WAS equipped with
shoulder straps, but the pilots often wriggled out of them while in
flight so as to allow more freedom of movement to look around.

Corky Scott

[Mark Hickey]

Todd Pattist > wrote:

>Story 2: Glider flying the ridge is carrying water ballast,
>gets low and lands in the trees, flipping inverted. The
>uninjured pilot is hanging upside down with his head crammed
>into the inverted bubble canopy. Releasing the straps will
>likely drop him head first 50 feet to the forest floor. The
>wrecked wings begin to drain water into the canopy, turning
>it into a fishbowl from which the pilot cannot pull his
>head. The canopy is prevented from opening by branches too
>weak to hold him, but too strong to force the canopy open.
>The pilot has the dilemma of death by drowning or death by
>falling. (Choking in the rising water, he ultimately
>manages to extend a crack in the canopy to drain the water.

If that was me in the glider hanging upside down 50 feet over the
ground, it wouldn't be water in that canopy...

Mark Hickey

[Russell Kent]

Todd Pattist > wrote:

> Story 2: Glider flying the ridge is carrying water ballast,
> gets low and lands in the trees, flipping inverted. The
> uninjured pilot is hanging upside down with his head crammed
> into the inverted bubble canopy. Releasing the straps will
> likely drop him head first 50 feet to the forest floor. The
> wrecked wings begin to drain water into the canopy, turning
> it into a fishbowl from which the pilot cannot pull his
> head. The canopy is prevented from opening by branches too
> weak to hold him, but too strong to force the canopy open.
> The pilot has the dilemma of death by drowning or death by
> falling. (Choking in the rising water, he ultimately
> manages to extend a crack in the canopy to drain the water.

Mark Hickey responded:

> If that was me in the glider hanging upside down 50 feet over the
> ground, it wouldn't be water in that canopy...

Ewwww!
Yet another example of no matter how bad a situation is, it can
always be worse.

Russell Kent

[D. Grunloh]

BernadetteTS wrote:

> I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.
>
> I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
> mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
> ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
> tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
> sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
> ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
> The force is down not forward through the cockpit.
>
> Bernadette

The force is forward.

Pusher aircraft may incur a weight penalty because the airframe
requires more structure to ensure the cockpit is not collapsed
by the engine. A clever design, would use other parts of the
airframe already in place. As anothe poster has mentioned
some of the ultralights do not have enough strength to restrain
the engine in a bad crash.

--dan

[Kevin McCue]

Yeah and they told us that the struts holding the rotodome on the AWACs
were of unequal strength so that it would break to the side instead of
chopping thru the fuselage. Good thing we never had to find out.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bob Chilcoat]

My father (http://users.erols.com/viewptmd/Dad.html) flew the P-39. He
hated it. The most uncomfortable plane he ever sat in, except for his
Mooney M-18 which had the same problem - no headroom. Having the engine
behind with a shaft running between your legs meant you sat so high there
was no headroom (he was well over 6').

More on topic, he claimed that you had no chance in a forced landing. The
Allison would end up where you were sitting every time, so he said.
Fortunately, never had to test the theory.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"BernadetteTS" > wrote in message
...
> I've been reading through the BD-5 thread and have a question.
>
> I guess this is an opinion thread but what happens to a rear engine
> mounted directly behind the pilot in a crash? In something like an
> ultralight, BD-5, Cutiss pusher or Vari-EZ does an engine have a
> tendency to rip loose and go through the pilot due to inertia in a
> sudden stop? Or in many crashes is the direction of flight not straight
> ahead, like if the aircraft was in a stall when it contacted the ground?
> The force is down not forward through the cockpit.
>
> Bernadette

[David O]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote:

>There have been many accidents, incidents, and crashes of VE's, LE's,
>Velocity's and COZY's over the past 20 years. I have never heard of an
>injury caused by the engine coming through the firewall, nor have I ever
>heard of a case of the engine coming through the firewall.
>
>Remember, if you've caused enough of a G load for the engine to push the
>mount through the firewall, you've already turned the passengers to jelly.
>
>I think there are a lot more important things to worry about.

Agreed. I chuckled when I read similar concerns voiced elsewhere
recently. In a properly designed pusher, such as a VE or LE , it is a
non-issue. Yes, there have been fatalities in VEs and LEs where the
engine has come through but those were in crashes in which the impact
angle and speed was such that the occupants were dead whether the
engine came through or not. And no, in the VE and LE there is no
weight penalty incurred in "beefing up" the aft fuselage structure to
prevent the engine coming through as suggested (although somewhat more
generally) elsewhere.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Richard Riley]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:14:13 -0500, David O
> wrote:

:"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote:
:
:>There have been many accidents, incidents, and crashes of VE's, LE's,
:>Velocity's and COZY's over the past 20 years. I have never heard of an
:>injury caused by the engine coming through the firewall, nor have I ever
:>heard of a case of the engine coming through the firewall.
:>
:>Remember, if you've caused enough of a G load for the engine to push the
:>mount through the firewall, you've already turned the passengers to jelly.
:>
:>I think there are a lot more important things to worry about.
:
:Agreed. I chuckled when I read similar concerns voiced elsewhere
:recently. In a properly designed pusher, such as a VE or LE , it is a
:non-issue. Yes, there have been fatalities in VEs and LEs where the
:engine has come through but those were in crashes in which the impact
:angle and speed was such that the occupants were dead whether the
:engine came through or not. And no, in the VE and LE there is no
:weight penalty incurred in "beefing up" the aft fuselage structure to
:prevent the engine coming through as suggested (although somewhat more
:generally) elsewhere.

I've seen fatal Long EZ accidents - and a Berkut accident - where the
engine was still attached to the firewall and spar, but there wasn't
much fuselage left in front of the spar. I've also seen a fatal LE
accident where the engine separated on impact with water and went up
(probably inverted impact) but the fuse mostly held. Any direct,
forward impact, such that the velocity vector of the engine is through
the fuselage, great enough to break the engine mount and destroy the
spar, is going to completely disintegrate the fuselage.

OTOH, Misha Kasyan's Berkut tumbled, broke off the nose, both wings,
canard, landing gear and about 1/4 of the mainspar and strake, and
ended up inverted. The engine mount was intact, I don't even think it
bent.