Mooney successfully belly's in

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.

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.

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.

"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

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

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.

"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

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.

"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.

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