Lycoming engine fails! Pilot survives!

http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

"floater" wrote in message
om...
http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

Just imagine how much traction this story would get if the thing had had a
auto conversion on it.

Rick Pellicciotti

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.

90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?



"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote in message news:3fbbc471$1@ham...
"floater" wrote in message
om...
http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

Just imagine how much traction this story would get if the thing had had a
auto conversion on it.

Rick Pellicciotti

On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.

90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?

Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.

I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.

Corky Scott

Not unusual. I cross the fence at 100 knots in the Twin Comanche and land
at 85 knots or so on a normal length runway.

John Stricker

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.

90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?

Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.

I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.

Corky Scott

Corky

Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines G

Big John


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:55:55 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.

90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?

Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.

I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.

Corky Scott

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John
wrote:

Corky

Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines G

Big John

Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to
present facts as I know them.

I believe that there are various auto engines that can be successfully
converted and I believe it strongly enough that I'm assembling a Ford
V6 in my shop that will be the engine I fly behind.

You weren't here when this subject was first aired many years ago, but
there were many sceptics... actually that's not a strong enough word.
There were some extremely vocal critics of the concept who felt that
no auto engine would work in an airplane. One of them was an auto
engineer, a guy who used to work for the Chaparal Racing Team with Jim
Hall. He was absolutely positive that V configured auto engines would
disintegrate (literally) under the stress. He also believed they
could not cool because the coolant passages were too small and the
cylinders too close together. He was wrong.

In order to build a reliable auto conversion, you do have to do your
homework. You have to safety wire just about everything that could
come off including the oil pan bolts. You have to build using
accepted aviation practices. There have been guys who screwed gas or
oil lines into the block and then ran them to the firewall. They
broke. You can't mount pipes solidly to the block and run them for
any distance, prop vibration will eventually crack them.

The guy who developed the Ford V6 discovered that the stud that holds
the air filter can and will unscrew and drop into the engine, if you
don't safety wire it. How did he discover this? Because it did. It
was one of the many flights in which he coasted back to the runway.

By now, many guys have successfully built and flown the Ford V6. One
guy accumulated more than 2,000 hours without anything falling off or
failing. Others are in the over a thousand hours hobbs time category.
For some reason, success stories like this don't seem to matter to
those who feel using an auto engine won't work.

I do intend to test run the engine extensively. I'm fabricating an
engine test stand along with the engine assembly process. While it's
true this doesn't exactly duplicate the stresses encountered during
flight, it's the best I can do, and better than just hanging it on the
airframe and testing the engine during the very first flight. One
thing at a time please.

Corky Scott

(Jay) wrote in message . com...
"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.


OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one
engine alone you face twice the risk you do in a single-engine.

--

FF

From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

(Jay) wrote in message

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.


OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face
twice the risk you do in a single-engine.


FF

Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago.
He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan

I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough
money to buy a twin?

Big John

On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

(Jay) wrote in message

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.


OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face
twice the risk you do in a single-engine.


FF

Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago.
He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired