If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAH'er has forced landing
From Monday's FAA accident summary:
IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 4449E Make/Model: EXP Description: EXP- Date: 12/18/2004 Time: 1950 Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: None LOCATION City: LEESBURG State: FL Country: US DESCRIPTION ACFT MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING NEAR A ROAD 15 MILES SOUTH OF LEESBURG, FL N4449E is an "EZ" registered to a George Graham...RAH'er George Graham's Mazda-powered Long-EZ, I believe. Congrats to George for not only coming through with a whole skin, but for bringing off a off-field landing in a hot homebuilt without damage. Ron Wanttaja |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A little update on George...
pasted from a list-serv regarding the Mazda rotary conversion that I frequent... The problem wasnt the engine.. it was the peripherals.. and the pasted bit below is from a maker of PSRU's who was uninvolved with the accident airplane: George Graham, one of the early aviation rotary adopters, isn't on the list so though I'd pass along his latest. After 200+ hours, his second Mazda manual transmission (2nd gear) PSRU stripped it's gears and he dead sticked safely on a road about 10 miles from Leesburg Fl yesterday. No damage to him or plane but he doesn't want to take a chance on the transmission again. I'll be building him an RD-1A. He glided about 20 miles from an altitude of only 5000 ft with the prop freewheeling! PASTE complete.. The glide distance has since been re-evaluated, but overall everyone is glad it worked out ok.. and on a secondary personal note its refreshing that the engine itself was not the point of failure Dave Ron Wanttaja wrote: From Monday's FAA accident summary: IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 4449E Make/Model: EXP Description: EXP- Date: 12/18/2004 Time: 1950 Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: None LOCATION City: LEESBURG State: FL Country: US DESCRIPTION ACFT MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING NEAR A ROAD 15 MILES SOUTH OF LEESBURG, FL N4449E is an "EZ" registered to a George Graham...RAH'er George Graham's Mazda-powered Long-EZ, I believe. Congrats to George for not only coming through with a whole skin, but for bringing off a off-field landing in a hot homebuilt without damage. Ron Wanttaja |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:00:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote: The glide distance has since been re-evaluated, but overall everyone is glad it worked out ok.. and on a secondary personal note its refreshing that the engine itself was not the point of failure Dave Dave, my feeling is that it does not matter that the engine did not fail, the PSRU did and the result is the same: No engine and a forced landging. I wondered about using a transmission for a PSRU instead of a PSRU for a PSRU. The problem with using a transmission is that the all the gears except for fifth, are designed for light usage. In otherwords they weren't designed to be used continuously with the engine pulling 50% or more power. George's transmission is not the first to fail because of this. Using the transmission for a PSRU is not necessarily a bad thing, but the gears that will be used and the bearings that support the gears may need to be re-evaluated. Corky Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:00:05 GMT, Dave S wrote: The glide distance has since been re-evaluated, but overall everyone is glad it worked out ok.. and on a secondary personal note its refreshing that the engine itself was not the point of failure Dave Dave, my feeling is that it does not matter that the engine did not fail, the PSRU did and the result is the same: No engine and a forced landging. I wondered about using a transmission for a PSRU instead of a PSRU for a PSRU. The problem with using a transmission is that the all the gears except for fifth, are designed for light usage. In otherwords they weren't designed to be used continuously with the engine pulling 50% or more power. George's transmission is not the first to fail because of this. Using the transmission for a PSRU is not necessarily a bad thing, but the gears that will be used and the bearings that support the gears may need to be re-evaluated. I've not seen this before. This may be true for passenger cars, but for pickup trucks, OTR trucks, off-road equipment, etc., each gear is equally likely to be used and typically full throttle is more likely to be used in the lower gears. I've never heard of any of the gears being designed for "light" usage in any manual trans with which I'm familiar, but I'm not that familiar with pax car manuals. It used to be that 4th gear in most four-speeds was 1:1 and this was often accomplished by simply connecting the input and output shafts directly with a collar. So, I suppose this could have been more rugged as the gears were just along for the ride at that point. However, some new transmissions have the 5th or 6th gear as a overdrive gear, and occasionally even the 4th, and may not even have a 1:1 ratio. In these designs, every speed is being driven through the gear set/layshaft. If you have a design reference for transmissions being designed to not handle full torque in anything but high gear, I'd be interested in seeing it. Also, if you have a list of such transmissions that would be interesting as well. Matt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
I've not seen this before. This may be true for passenger cars, but for pickup trucks, OTR trucks, off-road equipment, etc., each gear is equally likely to be used and typically full throttle is more likely to be used in the lower gears. I've never heard of any of the gears being designed for "light" usage in any manual trans with which I'm familiar, but I'm not that familiar with pax car manuals. It used to be that 4th gear in most four-speeds was 1:1 and this was often accomplished by simply connecting the input and output shafts directly with a collar. So, I suppose this could have been more rugged as the gears were just along for the ride at that point. However, some new transmissions have the 5th or 6th gear as a overdrive gear, and occasionally even the 4th, and may not even have a 1:1 ratio. In these designs, every speed is being driven through the gear set/layshaft. If you have a design reference for transmissions being designed to not handle full torque in anything but high gear, I'd be interested in seeing it. Also, if you have a list of such transmissions that would be interesting as well. Matt I would think that if anything the lower gears would have to be be beefier than the higher ones, at least on the output shaft. Torque increases as rotational speed decreases, right? This is why axle shafts tend to snap when starting a heavy load from a dead stop. I just replaced fifth gear in my Nissan NX a month or two ago. It was pretty much worn out, and not really beefy to begin with. You do spend most of your time driving sitting in your highest gear so it will see the most wear, but not necessarily the highest torque loads. All the gears are equally wimpy, but the 1st and 2nd shifting collar is a little longer and engages more teeth than the others. This seems to confirm that 1st and 2nd are stronger gears than 4th or 5th.This car has the smallest tranny I've ever worked on and one look inside would make you REALLY glad you aren't flying behind it. Those gears are tiny, and eyeball engineering would lead me to believe they aren't up to the job of swinging a prop. Graham's two failures pretty much confirm this. I can't imagine the mazda's gearbox is any beefier than this one. Flying with one of these is 'experimental' all right. Jason Challenger-II |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:46:46 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote: I've not seen this before. This may be true for passenger cars, but for pickup trucks, OTR trucks, off-road equipment, etc., each gear is equally likely to be used and typically full throttle is more likely to be used in the lower gears. I've never heard of any of the gears being designed for "light" usage in any manual trans with which I'm familiar, but I'm not that familiar with pax car manuals. Matt, it isn't a matter of being strong enough to withstand occasional pulls at full throttle, it's the continuous use that appears to be the problem, and also that this may be a problem endemic to transmissions being used as PSRU's. My curse is that I read a LOT. One of the many articles I read a number of years ago was about a builder trying to use a Honda Goldwing engine for his airplane engine. This engine has an integral transmission which he used as the PSRU. He used second or third gear for his output gear and the transmission failed, like George's. The reason for the failure, if I'm remembering this correctly, was that the lower gears were not designed for continuous transmission of power, at least not at the power levels required for flight. Whether it was the width of the gears or the size of the bearings that supported them, or even if there were bearings supporting the shaft, I don't know. It could also have been a problem with prop loads on the output shaft, not sure. But the transmission as a psru failed. It could be the gears that failed, or it could be that the output shaft could not stand up to the prop loads, don't know how George supported the output shaft. In any case, George should be congratulated for safely landing an airplane with a decoupled prop that has one of the higher landing speeds for light airplanes around. Putting down after a total loss of thrust is never easy unless you practice frequently and even then you always know it's just practice and a blown approach can be salvaged by advancing power and trying again. But the real thing is the real thing, and while some people flying Long E-Z's manage to be at around 60 mph when touching down, most I've heard of are faster than that to prevent the nose from pitching down prematurely and uncontrollably. Good job George. Corky Scott PS, I hope George posts here what failed in the transmission. It would be illuminating. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:00:05 GMT, Dave S Dave, my feeling is that it does not matter that the engine did not fail, the PSRU did and the result is the same: No engine and a forced landging. (snip) Corky Scott It sure matters to me. The mazda rotary is about the only auto conversion that I have even given any serious thought to. I have one assembled on a stand at the hangar waiting to be put on the airframe. We are hoping to fly it to Osh 2005 (so we have a timetable to try and meet, safety permitting) ANY power loss incident involving one concerns me greatly since I am going to be one of the follow-on experimenters behind the trailblazers. I'm using a commercially produced PSRU.. not a transmission made into a PSRU... so yea.. it matters quite a bit to me that the power failure wasnt in the engine itself, but one of the peripherals. So far, in the past 6 months, the list of Mazda engine casualties has included 3 blown turbos (2 by one person), one of those blown turbo'd engines ALSO had a shoddy rebuild by a local race shop that contributed to power probs. There has been a blown oil cooler (fashioned from an a/c evaperator core) resulting in a dead stick landing into Spencer NOLF/Helicopter field and then this tranny failure. By and large, almost all of the failure modes are being attributed to causes other than the heart of the engine failing. And ALL of the failure modes involve either substandard labor or the use of automotive accessories in a manner they were originally never intended for. This is actually refreshing that the engine itself is not the problem (no bad cranks, blown seals, etc) The dead stick plane actually looks like its going to be flyable now without a rebuild (pilot pulled power immediately when the oil cooler blew, and when he tried to advance the throttle slightly, it stumbled and died. Actually appears that it didnt seize or scorch the rings. Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:46:46 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: I've not seen this before. This may be true for passenger cars, but for pickup trucks, OTR trucks, off-road equipment, etc., each gear is equally likely to be used and typically full throttle is more likely to be used in the lower gears. I've never heard of any of the gears being designed for "light" usage in any manual trans with which I'm familiar, but I'm not that familiar with pax car manuals. Matt, it isn't a matter of being strong enough to withstand occasional pulls at full throttle, it's the continuous use that appears to be the problem, and also that this may be a problem endemic to transmissions being used as PSRU's. My curse is that I read a LOT. One of the many articles I read a number of years ago was about a builder trying to use a Honda Goldwing engine for his airplane engine. This engine has an integral transmission which he used as the PSRU. He used second or third gear for his output gear and the transmission failed, like George's. That wouldn't be too surprising as airplanes require much greater continuous power output than cars or motorcycles. The reason for the failure, if I'm remembering this correctly, was that the lower gears were not designed for continuous transmission of power, at least not at the power levels required for flight. Whether it was the width of the gears or the size of the bearings that supported them, or even if there were bearings supporting the shaft, I don't know. It could also have been a problem with prop loads on the output shaft, not sure. But the transmission as a psru failed. This is the part I don't buy as there is nothing different about the lower gears than the higher gears. This is the part I think is a myth. I believe that ANY gear selected in the GW transmission would have failed under long-term high power output. I don't think this is an issue preferential to the higher numerical ratio ("lower") gears. It could be the gears that failed, or it could be that the output shaft could not stand up to the prop loads, don't know how George supported the output shaft. In any case, George should be congratulated for safely landing an airplane with a decoupled prop that has one of the higher landing speeds for light airplanes around. Putting down after a total loss of thrust is never easy unless you practice frequently and even then you always know it's just practice and a blown approach can be salvaged by advancing power and trying again. But the real thing is the real thing, and while some people flying Long E-Z's manage to be at around 60 mph when touching down, most I've heard of are faster than that to prevent the nose from pitching down prematurely and uncontrollably. Absolutely. An E-Z would not be high on my list of airplanes to land off-field. PS, I hope George posts here what failed in the transmission. It would be illuminating. That it will. Matt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:32:57 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote: The reason for the failure, if I'm remembering this correctly, was that the lower gears were not designed for continuous transmission of power, at least not at the power levels required for flight. Whether it was the width of the gears or the size of the bearings that supported them, or even if there were bearings supporting the shaft, I don't know. It could also have been a problem with prop loads on the output shaft, not sure. But the transmission as a psru failed. It could be the gears that failed, or it could be that the output shaft could not stand up to the prop loads, don't know how George supported the output shaft. In any case, George should be congratulated for safely landing an airplane with a decoupled prop that has one of the higher landing speeds for light airplanes around. Putting down after a total loss of thrust is never easy unless you practice frequently and even then you always know it's just practice and a blown approach can be salvaged by advancing power and trying again. But the real thing is the real thing, and while some people flying Long E-Z's manage to be at around 60 mph when touching down, most I've heard of are faster than that to prevent the nose from pitching down prematurely and uncontrollably. Good job George. Corky Scott PS, I hope George posts here what failed in the transmission. It would be illuminating. What really beats on the gears, and what automotive use does not experience, is the harmonics. Harmonics load the gears in BOTH directions, with in the order of 10 times the steady state torque. That tends to shear off teeth!!! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:32:57 -0500, Corky Scott wrote: What really beats on the gears, and what automotive use does not experience, is the harmonics. Harmonics load the gears in BOTH directions, with in the order of 10 times the steady state torque. That tends to shear off teeth!!! Torsional resonance has been a problem with many PSRU units, over many years, including units from big manufacturers of certificated equipment. If resonance is not carefully studied and tested for, you are almost guaranteed to have a problem. Does your car have a harmonic balancer on the crankshaft? Why do you suppose it is there? I work with big trucks and we have a problem there with torsional resonance from the power pulses of the big diesels, especially at high torque and low rpm (sound familiar?). If, for instance, one removes a clutch with a dampened disc and replaces it with a clutch with a solid disc, the transmission input shaft splines might shear -- or the transmission gears -- or the differential gears. It is almost impossible to convince a customer that his cheap clutch replacement caused his rear axle to fail, but it did! Truck component manufacturers put a lot of effort into finding and eliminating resonance. I hope your PSRU designer did too... Also note that changing ANY component in the drive train can mess up the torsional dynamics, which is a bad thing for a bunch of experimenter homebuilders. Even cutting down a metal prop a couple inches. Why do you suppose that the FAA will allow a 25 hour test period with a certified propeller/engine combination, but 40 hours without? Resonance is a big reason. -Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"bush flying" in the suburbs? | [email protected] | Home Built | 85 | December 28th 04 11:04 PM |
Cessna Steel Landing Gears, J-3 Seat Sling For Auction | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | February 19th 04 06:51 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |