Mooney successfully belly's in

[[email protected]]

A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
them.

Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
valley.

The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.

He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
to retract the gear and land on his belly.

The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.

The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.

Corky Scott

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
> A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
> airport here in NH.

<SNIP>

>
> The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>

Good on him/her for thinking it through and making a safe, emergency
landing.

Glad no one was hurt.

Jay B in AZ

[Dan Truesdell]

I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:

1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
(with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
crash units on the field (I presume).

2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?

I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I was
just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.

wrote:
> A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
> airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
> flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
> Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
> Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
> airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
> The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
> them.
>
> Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
> on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
> mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
> runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
> be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
> valley.
>
> The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
> slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
> he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
> attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.
>
> He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
> attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
> confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
> to retract the gear and land on his belly.
>
> The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
> back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.
>
> The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Ben Smith]

> 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?

If the gear fails to extend, I'd say it's the insurance company's plane at
that point. It's been brought up before, and the main argument is that you
want to leave the engine running in case you need to go-around.

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

[Dan Truesdell]

Fair enough.

Ben Smith wrote:
>>2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>
>
> If the gear fails to extend, I'd say it's the insurance company's plane at
> that point. It's been brought up before, and the main argument is that you
> want to leave the engine running in case you need to go-around.
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Todd Pattist]

wrote:

>The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
>slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear.
>
>He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
>attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
>confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
>to retract the gear and land on his belly.

I sort of wondered why the gear was raised after it was
damaged in the first landing attempt. Was climb rate too
anemic gear down?

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Tony Cox]

"Ben Smith" > wrote in message
...
> > 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>
> If the gear fails to extend, I'd say it's the insurance company's plane at
> that point. It's been brought up before, and the main argument is that
you
> want to leave the engine running in case you need to go-around.

Also, since it was a 3-bladed prop, at least one blade will
get bent and the engine will need rebuilding no matter where
it stops.

[Peter Gottlieb]

> wrote in message
...
> Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
> on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest.

Ah, yes. On saturday I flew to East Hampton and it was indeed very windy.
A few seconds after I touched down a very strong gust gave the plane enough
lift to get it 10-20 feet into the air, which my passengers did not like one
little bit. Fortunately, on the go-around there was not another gust.
Perhaps such days are better for training than flying family around.

[Robert M. Gary]

If only one main comes down there is something seriously wrong and
probably no chance of getting the other down. The gear all work off
the same motor and are geared together. If one doesn't come down its
because the linkage is broken.
I've heard of cases where a Mooney was bellied in with the prop
stopped and the flaps up and the only repair was to replace the belly
pans.
There is no stronger plane than a Mooney. That steal tube structure
can take an incredible amount of punishment.

-Robert


wrote in message >...
> A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
> airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
> flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
> Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
> Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
> airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
> The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
> them.
>
> Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
> on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
> mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
> runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
> be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
> valley.
>
> The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
> slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
> he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
> attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.
>
> He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
> attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
> confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
> to retract the gear and land on his belly.
>
> The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
> back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.
>
> The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
>
> Corky Scott

[BTIZ]

shutting down the engine will not necessarily stop the prop from spinning..
need to almost stall the aircraft to do that in some aircraft.. not a good
thing when your trying to belly it in on a windy day... and if the prop
don't stop.. it's an engine tear down anyway..

BT

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
> but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
>
> 1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
> (with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
> crash units on the field (I presume).
>
> 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>
> I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
> observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I was
> just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
>
> wrote:
> > A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
> > airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
> > flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
> > Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
> > Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
> > airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
> > The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
> > them.
> >
> > Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
> > on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
> > mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
> > runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
> > be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
> > valley.
> >
> > The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
> > slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
> > he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
> > attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.
> >
> > He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
> > attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
> > confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
> > to retract the gear and land on his belly.
> >
> > The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
> > back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.
> >
> > The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
> >
> > Corky Scott
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

Dan Truesdell > wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
@ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:

> I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
> but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
>
> 1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
> (with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
> crash units on the field (I presume).
>
> 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>
> I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
> observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
was
> just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
>
>

I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
turning. I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
shaft.

[Jack]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Dan Truesdell > wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
> @ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:
>
> > I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
> > but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
> >
> > 1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
> > (with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
> > crash units on the field (I presume).
> >
> > 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
> >
> > I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
> > observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
> was
> > just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
> >
> >
>
> I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
> asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
> Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
> the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
> turning.

That's true, but the engine won't be developing power, which is still better.

> I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
> going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
> landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
> airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
> attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
> insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
> mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
> torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
> shaft.

All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the magnetos
rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster, and
might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you won't
be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
engine with the magnetos.

[BTIZ]

As I under stand it.. a "sudden stoppage" requires tear down.. whether the
engine was developing power or not.. the only hopeful out come is that the
crankshaft is not damaged with no power..

I've also been told, that even if the propeller is stopped, a bent blade
requires tear down because of loads places on the propeller hub transferred
to the crankshaft.

BT

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > Dan Truesdell > wrote in
news:40BCCA76.8090409
> > @ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:
> >
> > > I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken
plane,
> > > but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
> > >
> > > 1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
> > > (with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast).
Military
> > > crash units on the field (I presume).
> > >
> > > 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
> > > observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I
> > was
> > > just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I was in a situation similar to this several years ago. Many people have
> > asked me why I didn't stop the prop prior to landing to save the engine.
> > Simply shutting down the engine will not stop the prop. You have to slow
> > the airplane down to practically a stall before the prop will stop
> > turning.
>
> That's true, but the engine won't be developing power, which is still
better.
>
> > I was an inexperienced private pilot at that time, and I was not
> > going to attempt something like that. Besides, if I screw up end up
> > landing short (or long), the accident will become a pilot error. If the
> > airplane was my own, and I did not have any hull insurance, I might have
> > attempted that, but I was not going to take such a risk to save the
> > insurance company money. I landed with the engine running, but cut the
> > mixture on short final. The prop was damaged and the engine had to be
> > torn down, but I was told that they did not find any damage to the crank
> > shaft.
>
> All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the
magnetos
> rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster,
and
> might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you
won't
> be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
> engine with the magnetos.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the
magnetos
> rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster,
and
> might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you
won't
> be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
> engine with the magnetos.

Beyond the short delay it takes for the fuel already enroute to the
cylinders to be exhausted, there's no difference between using the mixture
and using the mags. This difference couldn't possibly be important in
flight, simply trying to shut the engine down for a gear-up landing. The
other difference is that if you *don't* cut the mixture, you wind up with
unburned fuel in the engine, exhaust and possibly elsewhere, adding risk of
fire to your existing troubles.

If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with the
mags grounded. Plus, there IS a reason to not stop the engine with the
magnetos (unburned fuel), and so I would use the mixture.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:39:51 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>As I under stand it.. a "sudden stoppage" requires tear down.. whether the
>engine was developing power or not.. the only hopeful out come is that the
>crankshaft is not damaged with no power..
>
>I've also been told, that even if the propeller is stopped, a bent blade
>requires tear down because of loads places on the propeller hub transferred
>to the crankshaft.
>
>BT

Someone posted either here, or perhaps another group, that if the
engine is not making power when a prop strike occurs, then engine tear
down is not necessarily mandated. Don't know how you'd check the
engine to make sure though.

Corky Scott

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with the
> mags grounded.

Not necessarily true.

> Plus, there IS a reason to not stop the engine with the
> magnetos (unburned fuel), and so I would use the mixture.

True. I would use both, killing the engine with the mixture for the reason you
mention and cutting the mags and master before touchdown.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with
the
> > mags grounded.
>
> Not necessarily true.

What makes you say that? What motivating force are the magnetos providing
that keep the engine windmilling with just the mixture cut off, and which is
absent when you ground the mags?

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with
> the
> > > mags grounded.
> >
> > Not necessarily true.
>
> What makes you say that? What motivating force are the magnetos providing
> that keep the engine windmilling with just the mixture cut off, and which is
> absent when you ground the mags?

Windmilling? I took you to mean that the engine that continued to run with the
mixture at cutoff would also continue to run with the mags off.

Yes, if it's windmilling at idle cutoff it'll windmill with the mags off.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Windmilling? I took you to mean that the engine that continued to run with
the
> mixture at cutoff would also continue to run with the mags off.

Since we're talking about cutting the engine prior to a gear-up landing, I
didn't think it necessary to point out the obvious context. I had even
specifically referred to the context in my own post.

[Rick Durden]

Dan,

The major reason for NOT shutting the engine down on a gear up landing
is that, after searches of accident reports, NO ONE has been hurt or
killed in a gear up landing in a civilian airplane since World War II
where the pilot left the engine running. When the pilot attempted to
shut down the engine(s), there were a number of serious injury and
fatal accidents.

One has to ask the question as to why a pilot who has an emergency (a
gear up landing) would willingly create yet another emergency (total
power loss), especially when he has never, ever practiced either one?
How many pilots have done prop stopped glides? Or have even gone
through the procedure to shut down and stop a prop on a single? By
the time you have slowed enough to stop the prop (if you can), the
descent rate at that speed has become massive...then, the pilot has to
stuff the nose down, further increasing the descent rate, develop
enough speed to either glide or flare and hope to hit the runway. Too
many die in the attempt. Guess they have to be thought of as a great
pilot for saving an insurance company some money (if it does so), and
there are always some at his funeral who will say what a great pilot
he was, even if he had just demonstrated that he lacked basic
judgment.

All the best,
Rick

Dan Truesdell > wrote in message >...
> I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
> but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
>
> 1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
> (with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
> crash units on the field (I presume).
>
> 2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>
> I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
> observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I was
> just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
>
> wrote:
> > A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
> > airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
> > flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
> > Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
> > Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
> > airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
> > The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
> > them.
> >
> > Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
> > on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
> > mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
> > runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
> > be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
> > valley.
> >
> > The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
> > slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
> > he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
> > attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.
> >
> > He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
> > attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
> > confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
> > to retract the gear and land on his belly.
> >
> > The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
> > back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.
> >
> > The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
> >
> > Corky Scott
> >
> >

[Dan Truesdell]

Point taken. I think I'll have to read that book that tells you how to
crash an airplane.

Rick Durden wrote:
> Dan,
>
> The major reason for NOT shutting the engine down on a gear up landing
> is that, after searches of accident reports, NO ONE has been hurt or
> killed in a gear up landing in a civilian airplane since World War II
> where the pilot left the engine running. When the pilot attempted to
> shut down the engine(s), there were a number of serious injury and
> fatal accidents.
>
> One has to ask the question as to why a pilot who has an emergency (a
> gear up landing) would willingly create yet another emergency (total
> power loss), especially when he has never, ever practiced either one?
> How many pilots have done prop stopped glides? Or have even gone
> through the procedure to shut down and stop a prop on a single? By
> the time you have slowed enough to stop the prop (if you can), the
> descent rate at that speed has become massive...then, the pilot has to
> stuff the nose down, further increasing the descent rate, develop
> enough speed to either glide or flare and hope to hit the runway. Too
> many die in the attempt. Guess they have to be thought of as a great
> pilot for saving an insurance company some money (if it does so), and
> there are always some at his funeral who will say what a great pilot
> he was, even if he had just demonstrated that he lacked basic
> judgment.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
> Dan Truesdell > wrote in message >...
>
>>I saw that in the Valley News yesterday. I hate to see a broken plane,
>>but was glad he walked away. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
>>
>>1) Why didn't he go to BTV? Closer to Sugarbush, much longer runway
>>(with the wind blowing down it if it was from the Northeast). Military
>>crash units on the field (I presume).
>>
>>2) Why didn't he shut down the engine prior to landing?
>>
>>I'm not trying to be critical. I do recognize that I'm making these
>>observations from the comfort of my desk, not from a cockpit where I was
>>just slammed into the ground hard enough to break my landing gear.
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>A Mooney pilot had to belly in his airplane Saturday at Lebanon
>>>airport here in NH. All I know is from the newspaper's story. He had
>>>flown up from Massachusetts and apparently was attempting to land at
>>>Waitsfield airport, which is squeezed in between ridges in Vermont's
>>>Green Mountains. I've flown by Waitsfield, it's a single runway
>>>airfield where glider operations are popular during the summer months.
>>>The two ridges form a deep valley and the airfield sits right between
>>>them.
>>>
>>>Saturday was an extremely windy day after the passage of a cold front
>>>on Friday night, with winds generally from the northwest. Since the
>>>mountainline in this area (if I'm remembering correctly) generally
>>>runs from from southwest to northeast, this means that the winds would
>>>be blowing over the peaks and then down the windward slope into the
>>>valley.
>>>
>>>The pilot reported that while he was flaring to touchdown, a gust
>>>slammed him onto the runway damaging his landing gear. I gather that
>>>he knew right away that the landing gear was damaged. He did not
>>>attempt to continue the landing at Waitsfield.
>>>
>>>He flew from Waitsfield to Lebanon and did several fly-by's while
>>>attempting to lower the gear. Only one main lowered, which was
>>>confirmed by the tower. Unable to lower both mains, the pilot elected
>>>to retract the gear and land on his belly.
>>>
>>>The landing was uneventful, although the three bladed prop was bent
>>>back on all tips and there must have been damage to the belly.
>>>
>>>The pilot, who was alone, was not hurt in the landing.
>>>
>>>Corky Scott
>>>
>>>
>>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Bob Moore]

(Rick Durden) wrote
> How many pilots have done prop stopped glides? Or have even gone
> through the procedure to shut down and stop a prop on a single?

All of my students and I personally, turned my MiniMax into a "deadstick"
(no starter installed) glider on the final landing of each day. As a
result, the day that my prop decided to depart from the hub, the event
turned into a "non-event". Never did find the Prop! :-(

Bob Moore

[Morgans]

> wrote
>
> Someone posted either here, or perhaps another group, that if the
> engine is not making power when a prop strike occurs, then engine tear
> down is not necessarily mandated. Don't know how you'd check the
> engine to make sure though.
>
> Corky Scott

That was talking about the large radials, with their stocky, strong con rods
and crank. Opposed engines still rate a teardown, as I recall.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:17:09 -0400, Jack > wrote:

>
>
>Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> Dan Truesdell > wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
>> @ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:
>>

>
>All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the magnetos
>rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster, and

Depending on the engine that can still leave fuel going to the
cylinders.

>might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you won't
>be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
>engine with the magnetos.

When I pull the mixture, it's like a switch. No slowing, it just
quits.

Actually that is a good time to reach down and turn off the gas.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jack]

Roger Halstead wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:17:09 -0400, Jack > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> >
> >> Dan Truesdell > wrote in news:40BCCA76.8090409
> >> @ceaPLsofAtwNarEe.cSom:
> >>
>
> >
> >All correct. One thing you could have done was just switch off the magnetos
> >rather than the mixture control. This will shut down the engine faster, and
>
> Depending on the engine that can still leave fuel going to the
> cylinders.

Right. That's why the normal shutdown procedure is to use the mixture. An
airplane engine continues to move fuel into the cylinders after it is shutdown
without starving it of gas, in no small part due to the big prop helping to spin
it around for a bit.

>
>
> >might cause the prop to stop too when the mags are grounded. Since you won't
> >be restarting the engine anytime soon, there is no reason to not stop the
> >engine with the magnetos.
>
> When I pull the mixture, it's like a switch. No slowing, it just
> quits.
>
> Actually that is a good time to reach down and turn off the gas.

Agreed.

[Jack]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If the engine won't stop with the mixture cut off, it won't stop with
> the
> > > mags grounded.
> >
> > Not necessarily true.
>
> What makes you say that? What motivating force are the magnetos providing
> that keep the engine windmilling with just the mixture cut off, and which is
> absent when you ground the mags?

No motivating force, however the mag switch in most planes works by grounding
(short circuiting) the magnetos, not opening a circuit. A grounded magneto has
a much greater load than a magneto happily humming around producing a spark.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> No motivating force, however the mag switch in most planes works by
grounding
> (short circuiting) the magnetos, not opening a circuit. A grounded
magneto has
> a much greater load than a magneto happily humming around producing a
spark.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the additional load will make the
difference between the windmilling engine stopping or not? (Even assuming
your claim of increased load due to grounding is valid...seems to me, the
load is caused by the generation of electricity, which happens either way,
to the same degree).

Pete