Lycoming engine fails! Pilot survives!

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

(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

Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
marine applictions.

Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions G

Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/

Kaiser and Fraiser enjoyed....
auto engines by CONTINENTAL.
http://www.geocities.com/gaac_oh/195...Manhattan.html


Barnyard BOb -- a wealth of useless information

My father-in-law has a Massey Ferguson tractor. The nameplate on the
engine indicates that it was manufactured by Continental in Kalamazoo,
MI. The logo is the same as on my Continental IO-470s.

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

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

..
"Big John" wrote in message ...
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


From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it
would run for the required time and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs...

He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed.


which brings up an interesting concept....

a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits
working....


certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or other
clever mechanical means ya never know.....

dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the
bother....

Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably
more worth considering.....

take care

Blll


I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some point
in the voyager flight?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:40:36 +0000, Blueskies wrote:

.
"Big John" wrote in message
...
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


From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is
why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time
and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs...

I would imagine that given the large fuel load required, the weight for a
significant portion of the flight would have been high enough that the
aircraft would not have been able to maintain altitude if one engine
failed. So in this case all a second engine would have done would be
double the odds of ending up in the drink for a significant portion of the
flight.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

From: (BllFs6)
Date: 11/21/2003 6:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed.


which brings up an interesting concept....

a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits
working....


certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or
other
clever mechanical means ya never know.....

dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the
bother....

Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably
more worth considering.....

take care

Blll


I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some
point
in the voyager flight?

Dropping an engine would tend to mess up one's center of gravity a tad.

The only case I can see where it might work would be in the Ju-52(3M). It
origionally flew with only the nose engine. I guess punching off the outboards
might not mess up things too bad unless you are on the ground an catch one.

The question is why throw away a few kilodollars worth of perfectly good
engine?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired