Twin Commander down at VGT

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:n7bEe.40522$DC2.15350@okepread01...
Says alot for the engines installed in the airplane though. Takes a
lick'n and keeps on tick'n.

It seems more likely that the engine suffered no trauma at all.
Certainly, with the nose hitting first, and the plane resting on the
*right* wing and fuselage, there's no reason to necessarily believe that
the left engine or propeller had any significant contact with the ground
at all.

So, I'd say this accident says very little about the engines installed in
the airplane.

Pete

Jeez Pete,

The rest of the plane is totaled and the thing keeps running for 20 minutes.
If it doesn't say anything about the quality of the engine it certainly does
about the robustness of the fuel system.

"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it

Did it? I watched the video and didn't see any coverage of the actual
engine-stoppage process. In any case, the airplane should be able to fly
through pretty heavy rain at high speeds. I would certainly *hope* it would
take awhile to stop the engine spraying water and foam on it (depending, of
course, on where the water and foam is sprayed).

As an aside, what do you think the G load was on that engine at the
time the plane hit the ground?

Hard to say. The nose of the airplane clearly took most of the deceleration
forces. We don't know how far the airplane slid after impact, nor do we
know how much of the remaining force not absorbed by the nose was absorbed
by airframe and wing deflection.

I'd say there's a good chance it was under 10G, maybe even under 5G.

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing...and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong

The juxtaposition was striking, I'll agree (maybe "amusing" isn't exactly
the word I'd use, but that's just me). I'm just not convinced that there's
any reason to believe that the engine *should* have stopped, or that this
accident shows any unusual characteristics of these engines compared to any
other engine used in aviation.

Pete

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:N%bEe.40523$DC2.18291@okepread01...
The rest of the plane is totaled and the thing keeps running for 20
minutes. If it doesn't say anything about the quality of the engine it
certainly does about the robustness of the fuel system.

If you're making a joke, fine.

But if you are seriously trying to use this accident as some indication of
the robustness of the engine or fuel system, I fail to see any justification
for your conclusion. All you can really say is that the airplane crashed,
and the engine kept running.

There's no indication that the engine or even the fuel system suffered
nearly the same trauma as the nose of the airplane. In fact, there is ample
evidence (on the other wing) that the installed engines and fuel systems can
NOT handle the trauma of a crash. The most likely explanation for the left
hand engine continuing to run is that it was protected from the crash by its
position and the nature of the crash.

I'm sorry if it bothers you to have made an incorrect conclusion, but I'm
just calling it as I see it.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:N%bEe.40523$DC2.18291@okepread01...
The rest of the plane is totaled and the thing keeps running for 20
minutes. If it doesn't say anything about the quality of the engine it
certainly does about the robustness of the fuel system.

If you're making a joke, fine.

But if you are seriously trying to use this accident as some indication of
the robustness of the engine or fuel system, I fail to see any
justification for your conclusion. All you can really say is that the
airplane crashed, and the engine kept running.

And, for all we know, engine "quality" may have been one of the causes of
the crash.

moo

Peter Duniho wrote:

I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it


Did it? I watched the video and didn't see any coverage of the actual
engine-stoppage process. In any case, the airplane should be able to fly
through pretty heavy rain at high speeds. I would certainly *hope* it wo=
uld
take awhile to stop the engine spraying water and foam on it (depending, =
of
course, on where the water and foam is sprayed).


mmmm....well from the tone of the voice of the reporter ("they
*FI*nally got the engine to stop"...or words to that effect) seemed to
indicate that it took longer than expected to stop the engine. Of
course, I'm going under the probably erroneous assumption that the
reporter had good information about how long it should have taken for
the engine to be stopped using this method. To me, this method of
stopping the engine sounds almost akin to someone saying, "Hey Bob,
hold this metal rod in the path of the spinning prop.." AFA the
"keeps a-licking part...remember that it's not just the water and foam,
but also the fact that the airframe had just been through a "sudden
deceleration caused by imapact with terrain" event.

snip WAGs about G-load ...it is an aside and an interesting
point....for a physicist perhaps g...and I have to take a look
again, and after thinking about this I am most likely wrong, but some
of the angles of the video made it appear that the tail was rightside
up whilst the wings were upside down...

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing..=AD.and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong


The juxtaposition was striking, I'll agree (maybe "amusing" isn't exactly
the word I'd use, but that's just me). I'm just not convinced that there=
's
any reason to believe that the engine *should* have stopped, or that this
accident shows any unusual characteristics of these engines compared to a=
ny
other engine used in aviation.


mmmm...about my word choice, I sometimes use the term "amusing" to mean
something that diverts my attention...after looking it up I see that it
is an archaic/obsolute usage.....as for the rest....see above....

"Hotel 179" wrote in message
...


--

wrote in message
ups.com...
Peter R. wrote:

Well, aside from his not knowing how a turbine engine works, the report
seemed pretty factual and devoid of speculation or exaggeration.

-cwk.
-----------------------------------------reply-------------------------------------------------------

A mechanic tried to stop the engine first. When he was not successful the
fire-fighters sprayed it down.

Stephen

That's true, they showed one mechanic in the left gear well and another in
the cockpit area. If I remember correctly the mag and starter switches are
on an overhead panel that appears to have been displaced. It is hard to
tell from the video what RPM or power was being produced but if it was still
developing T.O. power there was a whole lot of ruckus going on!

Allen

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, aside from his not knowing how a turbine engine works, the report
seemed pretty factual and devoid of speculation or exaggeration.

-cwk.


No, this was an older piston engine model. I still don't see how they shut
it down with water and foam except maybe a direct flow into the filter
intake.

Hmmm, so Foam is needed in an airplane fire. Probably takes a specially
equipped and expensive truck, dedicated to airport duty.

JG


Allen

"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
mmmm....well from the tone of the voice of the reporter ("they
*FI*nally got the engine to stop"...or words to that effect) seemed to
indicate that it took longer than expected to stop the engine.

Even if you could rely on a reporter's tone of voice for information, the
emphasis on the word "finally" could just as easily have referred to the
length of time after the crash until the engine finally was stopped, rather
than the duration of sprayed water and/or foam on the engine.

Personally, I find that interpretation much more likely. But even if you
don't, using that as a source of reliable information seems like a poor plan
to me.

[...]
snip WAGs about G-load ...it is an aside and an interesting
point....for a physicist perhaps g...and I have to take a look
again, and after thinking about this I am most likely wrong, but some
of the angles of the video made it appear that the tail was rightside
up whilst the wings were upside down...

I suspect you're just unfamiliar with the type of airplane. The engines on
the Commander hang below the wing, with the exhaust on top. In the video,
the engines were still hanging below the wing, and the exhaust was still
visible on top. In other words, other than the massive damage to the nose
of the airplane, the airframe was substantially intact (if a bit bent).

Pete

wrote:

Hmmm, so Foam is needed in an airplane fire. Probably takes a specially
equipped and expensive truck, dedicated to airport duty.

Nope. You need the same equipment for auto fires, and for the same reasons. Most
airports count on service from the local fire department if they need it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Peter R. wrote:

Reporter (talking about how the rescue crews dealt with trying to stop
one
of the engines that was still running):

"Firefighters moved in and started spraying water and foam directly at
the
spinning propeller trying get the thing to short out, or overload, or
stall and that's in fact what ended up happening. They finally got that
propeller to stop spinning."

Well, aside from his not knowing how a turbine engine works, the report
seemed pretty factual and devoid of speculation or exaggeration.


It wasn't a turbine engine.