Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:58 AM - Yak-50 - new thread (pilko2)
2. 01:06 AM - Yak-50 Prop shortening (pilko2)
3. 04:38 AM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (Eric Wobschall)
4. 06:11 AM - Re: Yak-50 - new thread (Roger Kemp M.D.)
5. 06:39 AM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (William Halverson)
6. 07:23 AM - Re: Engine Failure in a Yak-50 (George Coy)
7. 09:09 AM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (N642K)
8. 09:50 AM - Re: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
9. 09:50 AM - Re: Engine Failure in a Yak-50 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
10. 09:55 AM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
11. 09:57 AM - Re: Yak-50 Prop shortening (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
12. 12:58 PM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (Eric Wobschall)
13. 08:26 PM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (netmaster15@juno.com)
14. 09:46 PM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (Eric Wobschall)
15. 10:34 PM - Thought for the day (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
16. 10:42 PM - Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 (mikspin)
17. 11:52 PM - Re: Thought for the day (Chris Wise)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak-50 - new thread |
I've always retained my '52 but don't get enough utilisation out of it so
justifying a '50 again as well is a little difficult. But in answer to your
question I would opt for another or preferably the same '50 if funds and
time allowed.
Try this link to see me in '52 (G-YKYK) at play last week with mates.
http://www.lovethecamera.com/Client-Access
Go to Client Galleries TAM Formation.
Enjoy
kp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: 19 October 2010 20:05
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
--> <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
KP,
What's your next plane going to be? Another 50?
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilko2
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
And I'm looking across my office at a selection of unintentionally shortened
prop blades from that very same Yak 50 and concur at least 10 inches of "Oh
bugger" is involved !
kp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: 19 October 2010 17:13
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
--> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it comes to a YAK-50
Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50 that lands gear
up. I think you might have misread the article (I did not read it myself),
or he might have been talking about some other type of aircraft than a
YAK-50.
A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12 INCHES off the
prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and there is no question about
that.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that explains that
for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I
think) must be encountered to cause damage. During a regular (gear-up)
landing on pavement with the wood prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade
is shaved off per rotation, which gets nowhere near that force. On the other
hand, if you hit something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the
accessory shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read Carl's
article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design shear point in
shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do the same.
So the answer is I do not know.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
No problem, Doc.
So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a deliberate design
to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from prop momentum?
Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia to just break free
like that.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you had already
seen Robs post.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so that's how,
which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine certainly trumps
speculation.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
For those interested in more details:
. As had been suggested, I am sure the oil pressure would
have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
. Andy says that he noticed the zero oil pressure pretty
much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went into coarse
pitch.
. The engine then actually kept going for 9/10 minutes
without oil, which is quite impressive.
. Oil temperatures didn't go up simply because there was no
oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the reason for the engine
failure - because the pressure release valve had not been wire-locked, it
unscrewed and fell out.
. However it then totally seized and this is what broke the
gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with a seized engine.
. The extent of the seizure was such that it is impossible
to remove most of the cylinders!
. I would expect the CHT to have risen a bit, but only
because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast majority of cooling
is through air, and of course he was at very low power settings in order to
preserve the engine.
. In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am sure gear-up is the
safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the aircraft.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak-50 Prop shortening |
And this is what it can look like......................
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
OK, Mark...
Early on, I mentioned that this may not apply to a Yak-50, which
apparently you missed. No one has ever said that there is no way to
destroy the engine on a Yak-50 by landing it gear-up. That doesn't
invalidate what was written in the article, which discusses specific
circumstances and the examined aftermath. It somewhat anecdotal, but
it's about many, many airplanes and from people who do this all the
time. Since narrow parameters were applied in the article, including
mention of an aircraft other than a Yak-50, and since in my first
string entry I mentioned that I had paraphrased it and that the
article should be read, your reaction was inappropriate. I hope that
you are not gear-up landing Yak-50s on a regular basis (or witnessing
the same), so unless that's the case, I don't think your experience
"trumps" the career experience of people who tear down and fix these
things every day. You have not asked me anything multiple times. You
suggested things like trying it myself, and that if I hadn't been
through it, I shouldn't weigh in on this. Your unexplainable rage and
belligerence doesn't compel me to respond. The old saying about
assumptions applies well in this situation.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I was not looking to excuse my bad manners. I was just explaining
> why I had them.
>
> You pointed out an article written by an expert. And he is an
> expert. I do not refute that. But I said that I saw it happen.
> That trumps the ace.
>
> I did not misquote you or take you out of context. I said that a
> prop hitting the ground on a YAK-50 making a gear up landing does
> not get ground down 1/10th of an inch at a time, based on what I saw
> happen with my own eyes and the pieces of that prop that I then went
> out and picked up off the runway.
>
> I do not have superior wisdom. I do have good eyesight.
>
> Unless you have landed a YAK-50 with the gear up or have seen this
> type of prop hit the ground on a gear up landing, you have zero
> experience in the matter. I have asked you multiple times whether
> you have or have not. You have not responded. If you have, please
> say so, otherwise I think it is a perfectly 'good idea' to assume
> you have not.
>
> Sorry about that. And sorry to the YAK LIST. I try to help people
> when I can, but once in awhile I am a tad rude, or better said, a
> tad sarcastic.
>
> This is apparently one of those times. Sigh.
>
> Once in awhile I just have a hard time backing down to someone that
> tries to tell me that I don't know what I saw with my own eyes.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
>
> >
>
> Mark:
>
> I am not calling you a lair or disputing your experience. I pointed
> out an article written by someone who I know to be expert in this
> area. I also objected to being misquoted and taken out of context.
>
> Just because I didn't agree with everything you said doesn't mean I
> was saying that I was "absolutely right". I merely referred to the
> paper and then clarified certain things that were mischaracterized and
> incorrectly repeated. We're not even talking about the exact same
> conditions, but you seem to need to force everyone to defer to your
> superior wisdom.
>
> Since you don't know me, I don't think it's a good idea for you to say
> that I have "ZERO experience" about this.
>
> Lastly, siting your own history of bad manners hardly excuses them.
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> You are absolutely correct. I was rude. And I am going to be rude
>> again. Sometimes I am human and this is one of those times. So
>> hold on, here it comes again!
>>
>> My responses come from talking to a person who keeps demanding he is
>> absolutely right and has ZERO experience compared to something I
>> have seen with my own eyes, and have left over parts for sitting in
>> the hangar.
>>
>> What is up with that Eric? Are you calling me a liar? Am I blind?
>> Are your theories better than my photographs?
>>
>> I have not tried to make my points on an intellectual basis. I
>> have tried to make my points by telling you I have seen the evidence
>> with my own eyes and what you are saying it just totally wrong.
>> Intellectually, I am sure you're right. Sadly though, a million
>> intellectual guesses get blown out of the water with a simple
>> proof. I've seen the simple proof... you keep referencing the
>> intellectual guesses. Ok then. I've got pictures, you've got
>> theories. Good luck with that.
>>
>> I consider the fact that you refuse to accept what I have said and
>> keep bantering on with what you propose to be JUST as rude as I have
>> been, and while I did not start off rude,.... you're right, I am now.
>>
>> But that's just me. I admit....once in a awhile I stoop to that
>> level, as many people here that have been around long enough will
>> attest to, I am sure. So, once again I am back in form! Ah well,
>> sucks to be me.
>>
>> I could give a damn less about the 1/10'th of an inch nonsense. Go
>> land a YAK-50 with the gear up and come back and tell me how it
>> goes. ONE TENTH OF AN INCH AT A TIME. right. ... good luck with
>> that.
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> p.s. I'm done. How stupid is this discussion anyway?
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Mark, I think you're being pretty rude. That's usually the refuse of
>> someone who hasn't made their point on an intellectual basis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>>
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> You're right. And who freaking cares? The prop hits the ground.
>>> It comes apart in pieces. Sometimes it shears clean enough to
>>> continue flying. Sometimes it does not. The load imposed on the
>>> engine demands an inspection. Others will try to find ways to
>>> justify not doing that. Some people will say that since the prop
>>> comes apart 1/10 of an inch at a time, the load imposed on the
>>> engine is so slight that we can easily just hang another prop on it
>>> and continue flying without a care in the world. Most people that
>>> think that way are trying to save a buck at the possible expense of
>>> someone's life. So no, there is no point in continuing this. There
>>> will always be people that put the almighty dollar above someone
>>> else's life, or even their own for that matter. And you're right
>>> again. Having followed this list since 1999, there is really no way
>>> to convince anyone not to do something stupid if they are determined
>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is yes to have watched it happen and examined the
>>> aftermath. Having followed this list there is one thing I know for
>>> sure - no point in continuing this.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 9:40 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that it does not come off 1/10 inch at a time
>>> folks.
>>> I was there, I watched it, I have the fragments, and they are not
>>> tiny little 1/10" pieces of dust. The prop is made out of WOOD
>>> folks. WOOD. When you whack it into a concrete runway it splinters
>>> just like you hit it with a hatchet. The reason there is not enough
>>> force to shear steel is because last time I checked, steel is a
>>> whole lot harder than compressed wood with a fiberglass sheath.
>>>
>>> Sorry for blowing a little steam here but how many of you
>>> commenting on this subject matter have actually seen a YAK-50 prop
>>> hit the ground with the gear up?
>>>
>>> How many of you have what is left of that prop in your hangar?
>>>
>>> How many of you went out on the runway and actually picked up
>>> the
>>> pieces?
>>>
>>> So, if you want to continue to tell me that I simply don't know
>>> what I am talking about since you read a good article someplace else
>>> on the Internet, you just go right ahead on with your bad self!
>>>
>>> Lastly, even though the prop is made out of wood, and even
>>> though
>>> it comes apart like an attack with a chainsaw, the force DOES have
>>> the ability to cause damage to the M-14 engine, to areas that you
>>> can go back on this list and read about from people like Richard
>>> Goode if you would like.
>>>
>>> In the case of THIS engine failure, when the engine seized
>>> (and it
>>> DID seize), the spinning mass of the prop assembly was enough to
>>> cause failure in the gearbox allowing the prop to continue to spin.
>>> That comes from the gent who took it apart.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 3:54 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> the point was about shearing shafts, if only a little at a time
>>> comes off at a time, not enough force to shear
>>>
>>> ab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? And exactly how was that determined? A 1000 frame per
>>> second camera focused on a YAK-50 performing a gear up landing?
>>>
>>> Excuse me... ?
>>>
>>> This is silly. You make an approach with the gear up in a 50,
>>> there is a loud buzz and before you can say WHAT THE F__K WAS THAT?
>>> You have 10 inches or more gone off each end of your prop.
>>>
>>> Who cares if it came off 1/10th of an inch at a time? And I
>>> find
>>> that number to be variable on sink rate and engine RPM at the time,
>>> don't you think?
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> He said, per strike
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it
>>> comes
>>> to a YAK-50
>>>
>>> Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50
>>> that lands gear up. I think you might have misread the article (I
>>> did not read it myself), or he might have been talking about some
>>> other type of aircraft than a YAK-50.
>>>
>>> A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12
>>> INCHES off the prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and
>>> there is no question about that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that
>>> explains that for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional
>>> resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I think) must be encountered to cause
>>> damage. During a regular (gear-up) landing on pavement with the wood
>>> prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade is shaved off per rotation,
>>> which gets nowhere near that force. On the other hand, if you hit
>>> something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the accessory
>>> shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
>>> is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read
>>> Carl's article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design
>>> shear
>>> point in shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do
>>> the same.
>>> So the answer is I do not know.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> No problem, Doc.
>>>
>>> So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a
>>> deliberate
>>> design to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from prop
>>> momentum? Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia to
>>> just break free like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you
>>> had
>>> already seen Robs post.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so
>>> that's how, which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine
>>> certainly trumps speculation.
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those interested in more details:
>>>
>>> As had been suggested, I am sure the oil
>>> pressure
>>> would have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
>>> Andy says that he noticed the zero oil
>>> pressure
>>> pretty much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went
>>> into coarse pitch.
>>> The engine then actually kept going for 9/10
>>> minutes without oil, which is quite impressive.
>>> Oil temperatures didn't go up simply because
>>> there was no oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the
>>> reason for the engine failure - because the pressure release valve
>>> had not been wire-locked, it unscrewed and fell out.
>>> However it then totally seized and this is
>>> what
>>> broke the gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with
>>> a seized engine.
>>> The extent of the seizure was such that it is
>>> impossible to remove most of the cylinders!
>>> I would expect the CHT to have risen a bit,
>>> but
>>> only because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast majority
>>> of cooling is through air, and of course he was at very low power
>>> settings in order to preserve the engine.
>>> In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am sure
>>> gear-
>>> up is the safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the
>>> aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>>> Rhodds Farm
>>> Lyonshall
>>> Herefordshire
>>> HR5 3LW
>>> United Kingdom
>>>
>>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>>> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http:p://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List> <
>>> &nbstp://www.matronics.com/contribution" ======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p;--> http://forums.matronbsp; <http://forums.matronbsp;/> <http://forums.matronbsp
>>> ;/
>>>> - List Contribution Web
>>> Site -
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> p://forums.matronics.com/
>>> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>
>>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak-50 - new thread |
Kp
Good show. Thanks for posting.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilko2
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:55 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-50 - new thread
I've always retained my '52 but don't get enough utilisation out of it so
justifying a '50 again as well is a little difficult. But in answer to your
question I would opt for another or preferably the same '50 if funds and
time allowed.
Try this link to see me in '52 (G-YKYK) at play last week with mates.
http://www.lovethecamera.com/Client-Access
Go to Client Galleries TAM Formation.
Enjoy
kp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: 19 October 2010 20:05
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
--> <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
KP,
What's your next plane going to be? Another 50?
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilko2
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
And I'm looking across my office at a selection of unintentionally shortened
prop blades from that very same Yak 50 and concur at least 10 inches of "Oh
bugger" is involved !
kp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: 19 October 2010 17:13
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
--> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it comes to a YAK-50
Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50 that lands gear
up. I think you might have misread the article (I did not read it myself),
or he might have been talking about some other type of aircraft than a
YAK-50.
A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12 INCHES off the
prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and there is no question about
that.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that explains that
for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I
think) must be encountered to cause damage. During a regular (gear-up)
landing on pavement with the wood prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade
is shaved off per rotation, which gets nowhere near that force. On the other
hand, if you hit something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the
accessory shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read Carl's
article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design shear point in
shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do the same.
So the answer is I do not know.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
No problem, Doc.
So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a deliberate design
to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from prop momentum?
Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia to just break free
like that.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you had already
seen Robs post.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so that's how,
which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine certainly trumps
speculation.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
For those interested in more details:
. As had been suggested, I am sure the oil pressure would
have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
. Andy says that he noticed the zero oil pressure pretty
much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went into coarse
pitch.
. The engine then actually kept going for 9/10 minutes
without oil, which is quite impressive.
. Oil temperatures didn't go up simply because there was no
oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the reason for the engine
failure - because the pressure release valve had not been wire-locked, it
unscrewed and fell out.
. However it then totally seized and this is what broke the
gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with a seized engine.
. The extent of the seizure was such that it is impossible
to remove most of the cylinders!
. I would expect the CHT to have risen a bit, but only
because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast majority of cooling
is through air, and of course he was at very low power settings in order to
preserve the engine.
. In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am sure gear-up is the
safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the aircraft.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
Kregg - You are too funny ...
How 'bout dem Giants?!
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Kregg Victory [mailto:kregg@balancemyprop.com]
+
+
+does anyone know the size of the pieces would be from a 3 bladed MT yak prop
as a result of a gear up landing?
+
+Sent from my Samsung Epic 4G
+
+"Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
wrote:
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine Failure in a Yak-50 |
I would mention that when we did the Yak-52TW we had the factory reinforce
the front canopy bow. The plan being that if someone did an off field
landing and flipped the airplane that there would be some protection from
being crushed. It would bridge from the vertical stab to the canopy bow to
the nose cowl.
George Coy
CAS Ltd.
714 Airport Rd.
Swanton VT 05488
802-868-5633 off
802-363-5782 cell
george.coy@gmail.com
http://coyafct.com/
SKYPE george.coy
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
I thought you said you were done with this.
Give it up and go decaff.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=316467#316467
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
Well just because you asked so nicely, and with no sarcasm or rudeness, I'll think
about it.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of N642K
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:06 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
I thought you said you were done with this.
Give it up and go decaff.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=316467#316467
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine Failure in a Yak-50 |
Great idea George.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of George Coy
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine Failure in a Yak-50
I would mention that when we did the Yak-52TW we had the factory reinforce
the front canopy bow. The plan being that if someone did an off field
landing and flipped the airplane that there would be some protection from
being crushed. It would bridge from the vertical stab to the canopy bow to
the nose cowl.
George Coy
CAS Ltd.
714 Airport Rd.
Swanton VT 05488
802-868-5633 off
802-363-5782 cell
george.coy@gmail.com
http://coyafct.com/
SKYPE george.coy
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine failure in Yak-50 |
Eric. Really. Give it a break.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
OK, Mark...
Early on, I mentioned that this may not apply to a Yak-50, which
apparently you missed. No one has ever said that there is no way to
destroy the engine on a Yak-50 by landing it gear-up. That doesn't
invalidate what was written in the article, which discusses specific
circumstances and the examined aftermath. It somewhat anecdotal, but
it's about many, many airplanes and from people who do this all the
time. Since narrow parameters were applied in the article, including
mention of an aircraft other than a Yak-50, and since in my first
string entry I mentioned that I had paraphrased it and that the
article should be read, your reaction was inappropriate. I hope that
you are not gear-up landing Yak-50s on a regular basis (or witnessing
the same), so unless that's the case, I don't think your experience
"trumps" the career experience of people who tear down and fix these
things every day. You have not asked me anything multiple times. You
suggested things like trying it myself, and that if I hadn't been
through it, I shouldn't weigh in on this. Your unexplainable rage and
belligerence doesn't compel me to respond. The old saying about
assumptions applies well in this situation.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I was not looking to excuse my bad manners. I was just explaining
> why I had them.
>
> You pointed out an article written by an expert. And he is an
> expert. I do not refute that. But I said that I saw it happen.
> That trumps the ace.
>
> I did not misquote you or take you out of context. I said that a
> prop hitting the ground on a YAK-50 making a gear up landing does
> not get ground down 1/10th of an inch at a time, based on what I saw
> happen with my own eyes and the pieces of that prop that I then went
> out and picked up off the runway.
>
> I do not have superior wisdom. I do have good eyesight.
>
> Unless you have landed a YAK-50 with the gear up or have seen this
> type of prop hit the ground on a gear up landing, you have zero
> experience in the matter. I have asked you multiple times whether
> you have or have not. You have not responded. If you have, please
> say so, otherwise I think it is a perfectly 'good idea' to assume
> you have not.
>
> Sorry about that. And sorry to the YAK LIST. I try to help people
> when I can, but once in awhile I am a tad rude, or better said, a
> tad sarcastic.
>
> This is apparently one of those times. Sigh.
>
> Once in awhile I just have a hard time backing down to someone that
> tries to tell me that I don't know what I saw with my own eyes.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
>
> >
>
> Mark:
>
> I am not calling you a lair or disputing your experience. I pointed
> out an article written by someone who I know to be expert in this
> area. I also objected to being misquoted and taken out of context.
>
> Just because I didn't agree with everything you said doesn't mean I
> was saying that I was "absolutely right". I merely referred to the
> paper and then clarified certain things that were mischaracterized and
> incorrectly repeated. We're not even talking about the exact same
> conditions, but you seem to need to force everyone to defer to your
> superior wisdom.
>
> Since you don't know me, I don't think it's a good idea for you to say
> that I have "ZERO experience" about this.
>
> Lastly, siting your own history of bad manners hardly excuses them.
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> You are absolutely correct. I was rude. And I am going to be rude
>> again. Sometimes I am human and this is one of those times. So
>> hold on, here it comes again!
>>
>> My responses come from talking to a person who keeps demanding he is
>> absolutely right and has ZERO experience compared to something I
>> have seen with my own eyes, and have left over parts for sitting in
>> the hangar.
>>
>> What is up with that Eric? Are you calling me a liar? Am I blind?
>> Are your theories better than my photographs?
>>
>> I have not tried to make my points on an intellectual basis. I
>> have tried to make my points by telling you I have seen the evidence
>> with my own eyes and what you are saying it just totally wrong.
>> Intellectually, I am sure you're right. Sadly though, a million
>> intellectual guesses get blown out of the water with a simple
>> proof. I've seen the simple proof... you keep referencing the
>> intellectual guesses. Ok then. I've got pictures, you've got
>> theories. Good luck with that.
>>
>> I consider the fact that you refuse to accept what I have said and
>> keep bantering on with what you propose to be JUST as rude as I have
>> been, and while I did not start off rude,.... you're right, I am now.
>>
>> But that's just me. I admit....once in a awhile I stoop to that
>> level, as many people here that have been around long enough will
>> attest to, I am sure. So, once again I am back in form! Ah well,
>> sucks to be me.
>>
>> I could give a damn less about the 1/10'th of an inch nonsense. Go
>> land a YAK-50 with the gear up and come back and tell me how it
>> goes. ONE TENTH OF AN INCH AT A TIME. right. ... good luck with
>> that.
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> p.s. I'm done. How stupid is this discussion anyway?
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Mark, I think you're being pretty rude. That's usually the refuse of
>> someone who hasn't made their point on an intellectual basis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>>
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> You're right. And who freaking cares? The prop hits the ground.
>>> It comes apart in pieces. Sometimes it shears clean enough to
>>> continue flying. Sometimes it does not. The load imposed on the
>>> engine demands an inspection. Others will try to find ways to
>>> justify not doing that. Some people will say that since the prop
>>> comes apart 1/10 of an inch at a time, the load imposed on the
>>> engine is so slight that we can easily just hang another prop on it
>>> and continue flying without a care in the world. Most people that
>>> think that way are trying to save a buck at the possible expense of
>>> someone's life. So no, there is no point in continuing this. There
>>> will always be people that put the almighty dollar above someone
>>> else's life, or even their own for that matter. And you're right
>>> again. Having followed this list since 1999, there is really no way
>>> to convince anyone not to do something stupid if they are determined
>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is yes to have watched it happen and examined the
>>> aftermath. Having followed this list there is one thing I know for
>>> sure - no point in continuing this.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 9:40 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that it does not come off 1/10 inch at a time
>>> folks.
>>> I was there, I watched it, I have the fragments, and they are not
>>> tiny little 1/10" pieces of dust. The prop is made out of WOOD
>>> folks. WOOD. When you whack it into a concrete runway it splinters
>>> just like you hit it with a hatchet. The reason there is not enough
>>> force to shear steel is because last time I checked, steel is a
>>> whole lot harder than compressed wood with a fiberglass sheath.
>>>
>>> Sorry for blowing a little steam here but how many of you
>>> commenting on this subject matter have actually seen a YAK-50 prop
>>> hit the ground with the gear up?
>>>
>>> How many of you have what is left of that prop in your hangar?
>>>
>>> How many of you went out on the runway and actually picked up
>>> the
>>> pieces?
>>>
>>> So, if you want to continue to tell me that I simply don't know
>>> what I am talking about since you read a good article someplace else
>>> on the Internet, you just go right ahead on with your bad self!
>>>
>>> Lastly, even though the prop is made out of wood, and even
>>> though
>>> it comes apart like an attack with a chainsaw, the force DOES have
>>> the ability to cause damage to the M-14 engine, to areas that you
>>> can go back on this list and read about from people like Richard
>>> Goode if you would like.
>>>
>>> In the case of THIS engine failure, when the engine seized
>>> (and it
>>> DID seize), the spinning mass of the prop assembly was enough to
>>> cause failure in the gearbox allowing the prop to continue to spin.
>>> That comes from the gent who took it apart.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 3:54 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> the point was about shearing shafts, if only a little at a time
>>> comes off at a time, not enough force to shear
>>>
>>> ab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? And exactly how was that determined? A 1000 frame per
>>> second camera focused on a YAK-50 performing a gear up landing?
>>>
>>> Excuse me... ?
>>>
>>> This is silly. You make an approach with the gear up in a 50,
>>> there is a loud buzz and before you can say WHAT THE F__K WAS THAT?
>>> You have 10 inches or more gone off each end of your prop.
>>>
>>> Who cares if it came off 1/10th of an inch at a time? And I
>>> find
>>> that number to be variable on sink rate and engine RPM at the time,
>>> don't you think?
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> He said, per strike
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it
>>> comes
>>> to a YAK-50
>>>
>>> Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50
>>> that lands gear up. I think you might have misread the article (I
>>> did not read it myself), or he might have been talking about some
>>> other type of aircraft than a YAK-50.
>>>
>>> A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12
>>> INCHES off the prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and
>>> there is no question about that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that
>>> explains that for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional
>>> resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I think) must be encountered to cause
>>> damage. During a regular (gear-up) landing on pavement with the wood
>>> prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade is shaved off per rotation,
>>> which gets nowhere near that force. On the other hand, if you hit
>>> something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the accessory
>>> shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
>>> is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read
>>> Carl's article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design
>>> shear
>>> point in shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do
>>> the same.
>>> So the answer is I do not know.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> No problem, Doc.
>>>
>>> So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a
>>> deliberate
>>> design to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from prop
>>> momentum? Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia to
>>> just break free like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you
>>> had
>>> already seen Robs post.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so
>>> that's how, which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine
>>> certainly trumps speculation.
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those interested in more details:
>>>
>>> As had been suggested, I am sure the oil
>>> pressure
>>> would have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
>>> Andy says that he noticed the zero oil
>>> pressure
>>> pretty much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went
>>> into coarse pitch.
>>> The engine then actually kept going for 9/10
>>> minutes without oil, which is quite impressive.
>>> Oil temperatures didn't go up simply because
>>> there was no oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the
>>> reason for the engine failure - because the pressure release valve
>>> had not been wire-locked, it unscrewed and fell out.
>>> However it then totally seized and this is
>>> what
>>> broke the gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with
>>> a seized engine.
>>> The extent of the seizure was such that it is
>>> impossible to remove most of the cylinders!
>>> I would expect the CHT to have risen a bit,
>>> but
>>> only because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast majority
>>> of cooling is through air, and of course he was at very low power
>>> settings in order to preserve the engine.
>>> In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am sure
>>> gear-
>>> up is the safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the
>>> aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>>> Rhodds Farm
>>> Lyonshall
>>> Herefordshire
>>> HR5 3LW
>>> United Kingdom
>>>
>>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>>> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http:p://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List> <
>>> &nbstp://www.matronics.com/contribution" ======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p;--> http://forums.matronbsp; <http://forums.matronbsp;/> <http://forums.matronbsp;/> <http://forums.matronbsp
>>> ;/
>>>> - List Contribution Web
>>> Site -
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> p://forums.matronics.com/
>>> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>
>>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak-50 Prop shortening |
Thanks for sending the pictures. Saved me the trouble.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of pilko2
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 4:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-50 Prop shortening
And this is what it can look like......................
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
OK... Break.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Eric. Really. Give it a break.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 7:35 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
>
> >
>
> OK, Mark...
>
> Early on, I mentioned that this may not apply to a Yak-50, which
> apparently you missed. No one has ever said that there is no way to
> destroy the engine on a Yak-50 by landing it gear-up. That doesn't
> invalidate what was written in the article, which discusses specific
> circumstances and the examined aftermath. It somewhat anecdotal, but
> it's about many, many airplanes and from people who do this all the
> time. Since narrow parameters were applied in the article, including
> mention of an aircraft other than a Yak-50, and since in my first
> string entry I mentioned that I had paraphrased it and that the
> article should be read, your reaction was inappropriate. I hope that
> you are not gear-up landing Yak-50s on a regular basis (or witnessing
> the same), so unless that's the case, I don't think your experience
> "trumps" the career experience of people who tear down and fix these
> things every day. You have not asked me anything multiple times. You
> suggested things like trying it myself, and that if I hadn't been
> through it, I shouldn't weigh in on this. Your unexplainable rage and
> belligerence doesn't compel me to respond. The old saying about
> assumptions applies well in this situation.
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> I was not looking to excuse my bad manners. I was just explaining
>> why I had them.
>>
>> You pointed out an article written by an expert. And he is an
>> expert. I do not refute that. But I said that I saw it happen.
>> That trumps the ace.
>>
>> I did not misquote you or take you out of context. I said that a
>> prop hitting the ground on a YAK-50 making a gear up landing does
>> not get ground down 1/10th of an inch at a time, based on what I saw
>> happen with my own eyes and the pieces of that prop that I then went
>> out and picked up off the runway.
>>
>> I do not have superior wisdom. I do have good eyesight.
>>
>> Unless you have landed a YAK-50 with the gear up or have seen this
>> type of prop hit the ground on a gear up landing, you have zero
>> experience in the matter. I have asked you multiple times whether
>> you have or have not. You have not responded. If you have, please
>> say so, otherwise I think it is a perfectly 'good idea' to assume
>> you have not.
>>
>> Sorry about that. And sorry to the YAK LIST. I try to help people
>> when I can, but once in awhile I am a tad rude, or better said, a
>> tad sarcastic.
>>
>> This is apparently one of those times. Sigh.
>>
>> Once in awhile I just have a hard time backing down to someone that
>> tries to tell me that I don't know what I saw with my own eyes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> I am not calling you a lair or disputing your experience. I pointed
>> out an article written by someone who I know to be expert in this
>> area. I also objected to being misquoted and taken out of context.
>>
>> Just because I didn't agree with everything you said doesn't mean I
>> was saying that I was "absolutely right". I merely referred to the
>> paper and then clarified certain things that were mischaracterized
>> and
>> incorrectly repeated. We're not even talking about the exact same
>> conditions, but you seem to need to force everyone to defer to your
>> superior wisdom.
>>
>> Since you don't know me, I don't think it's a good idea for you to
>> say
>> that I have "ZERO experience" about this.
>>
>> Lastly, siting your own history of bad manners hardly excuses them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>>
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct. I was rude. And I am going to be rude
>>> again. Sometimes I am human and this is one of those times. So
>>> hold on, here it comes again!
>>>
>>> My responses come from talking to a person who keeps demanding he is
>>> absolutely right and has ZERO experience compared to something I
>>> have seen with my own eyes, and have left over parts for sitting in
>>> the hangar.
>>>
>>> What is up with that Eric? Are you calling me a liar? Am I blind?
>>> Are your theories better than my photographs?
>>>
>>> I have not tried to make my points on an intellectual basis. I
>>> have tried to make my points by telling you I have seen the evidence
>>> with my own eyes and what you are saying it just totally wrong.
>>> Intellectually, I am sure you're right. Sadly though, a million
>>> intellectual guesses get blown out of the water with a simple
>>> proof. I've seen the simple proof... you keep referencing the
>>> intellectual guesses. Ok then. I've got pictures, you've got
>>> theories. Good luck with that.
>>>
>>> I consider the fact that you refuse to accept what I have said and
>>> keep bantering on with what you propose to be JUST as rude as I have
>>> been, and while I did not start off rude,.... you're right, I am
>>> now.
>>>
>>> But that's just me. I admit....once in a awhile I stoop to that
>>> level, as many people here that have been around long enough will
>>> attest to, I am sure. So, once again I am back in form! Ah well,
>>> sucks to be me.
>>>
>>> I could give a damn less about the 1/10'th of an inch nonsense. Go
>>> land a YAK-50 with the gear up and come back and tell me how it
>>> goes. ONE TENTH OF AN INCH AT A TIME. right. ... good luck with
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>> p.s. I'm done. How stupid is this discussion anyway?
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric
>>> Wobschall
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mark, I think you're being pretty rude. That's usually the refuse of
>>> someone who hasn't made their point on an intellectual basis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>>> Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>>>
>>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>>
>>>> You're right. And who freaking cares? The prop hits the ground.
>>>> It comes apart in pieces. Sometimes it shears clean enough to
>>>> continue flying. Sometimes it does not. The load imposed on the
>>>> engine demands an inspection. Others will try to find ways to
>>>> justify not doing that. Some people will say that since the prop
>>>> comes apart 1/10 of an inch at a time, the load imposed on the
>>>> engine is so slight that we can easily just hang another prop on it
>>>> and continue flying without a care in the world. Most people that
>>>> think that way are trying to save a buck at the possible expense of
>>>> someone's life. So no, there is no point in continuing this.
>>>> There
>>>> will always be people that put the almighty dollar above someone
>>>> else's life, or even their own for that matter. And you're right
>>>> again. Having followed this list since 1999, there is really no
>>>> way
>>>> to convince anyone not to do something stupid if they are
>>>> determined
>>>> to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
>>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The answer is yes to have watched it happen and examined the
>>>> aftermath. Having followed this list there is one thing I know for
>>>> sure - no point in continuing this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 9:40 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is that it does not come off 1/10 inch at a time
>>>> folks.
>>>> I was there, I watched it, I have the fragments, and they are not
>>>> tiny little 1/10" pieces of dust. The prop is made out of WOOD
>>>> folks. WOOD. When you whack it into a concrete runway it
>>>> splinters
>>>> just like you hit it with a hatchet. The reason there is not
>>>> enough
>>>> force to shear steel is because last time I checked, steel is a
>>>> whole lot harder than compressed wood with a fiberglass sheath.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for blowing a little steam here but how many of you
>>>> commenting on this subject matter have actually seen a YAK-50 prop
>>>> hit the ground with the gear up?
>>>>
>>>> How many of you have what is left of that prop in your hangar?
>>>>
>>>> How many of you went out on the runway and actually picked up
>>>> the
>>>> pieces?
>>>>
>>>> So, if you want to continue to tell me that I simply don't know
>>>> what I am talking about since you read a good article someplace
>>>> else
>>>> on the Internet, you just go right ahead on with your bad self!
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, even though the prop is made out of wood, and even
>>>> though
>>>> it comes apart like an attack with a chainsaw, the force DOES have
>>>> the ability to cause damage to the M-14 engine, to areas that you
>>>> can go back on this list and read about from people like Richard
>>>> Goode if you would like.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of THIS engine failure, when the engine seized
>>>> (and it
>>>> DID seize), the spinning mass of the prop assembly was enough to
>>>> cause failure in the gearbox allowing the prop to continue to spin.
>>>> That comes from the gent who took it apart.
>>>>
>>>> Have a nice day.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Hamlin
>>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 3:54 PM
>>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the point was about shearing shafts, if only a little at a time
>>>> comes off at a time, not enough force to shear
>>>>
>>>> ab
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cherry
>>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? And exactly how was that determined? A 1000 frame per
>>>> second camera focused on a YAK-50 performing a gear up landing?
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me... ?
>>>>
>>>> This is silly. You make an approach with the gear up in a 50,
>>>> there is a loud buzz and before you can say WHAT THE F__K WAS THAT?
>>>> You have 10 inches or more gone off each end of your prop.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares if it came off 1/10th of an inch at a time? And I
>>>> find
>>>> that number to be variable on sink rate and engine RPM at the time,
>>>> don't you think?
>>>>
>>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
>>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He said, per strike
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>>> MALS-14 64E <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>
>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it
>>>> comes
>>>> to a YAK-50
>>>>
>>>> Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50
>>>> that lands gear up. I think you might have misread the article (I
>>>> did not read it myself), or he might have been talking about some
>>>> other type of aircraft than a YAK-50.
>>>>
>>>> A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12
>>>> INCHES off the prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and
>>>> there is no question about that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
>>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>>> list@matronics.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that
>>>> explains that for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional
>>>> resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I think) must be encountered to cause
>>>> damage. During a regular (gear-up) landing on pavement with the
>>>> wood
>>>> prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade is shaved off per
>>>> rotation,
>>>> which gets nowhere near that force. On the other hand, if you hit
>>>> something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the
>>>> accessory
>>>> shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
>>>> is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read
>>>> Carl's article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design
>>>> shear
>>>> point in shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do
>>>> the same.
>>>> So the answer is I do not know.
>>>> Doc
>>>>
>>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
>>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>>> list@matronics.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>> No problem, Doc.
>>>>
>>>> So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a
>>>> deliberate
>>>> design to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from
>>>> prop
>>>> momentum? Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia
>>>> to
>>>> just break free like that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you
>>>> had
>>>> already seen Robs post.
>>>> Doc
>>>>
>>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
>>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
>>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>>> list@matronics.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>>
>>>> Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so
>>>> that's how, which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine
>>>> certainly trumps speculation.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For those interested in more details:
>>>>
>>>> As had been suggested, I am sure the oil
>>>> pressure
>>>> would have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
>>>> Andy says that he noticed the zero oil
>>>> pressure
>>>> pretty much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went
>>>> into coarse pitch.
>>>> The engine then actually kept going for 9/10
>>>> minutes without oil, which is quite impressive.
>>>> Oil temperatures didn't go up simply because
>>>> there was no oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the
>>>> reason for the engine failure - because the pressure release valve
>>>> had not been wire-locked, it unscrewed and fell out.
>>>> However it then totally seized and this is
>>>> what
>>>> broke the gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with
>>>> a seized engine.
>>>> The extent of the seizure was such that it is
>>>> impossible to remove most of the cylinders!
>>>> I would expect the CHT to have risen a bit,
>>>> but
>>>> only because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast
>>>> majority
>>>> of cooling is through air, and of course he was at very low power
>>>> settings in order to preserve the engine.
>>>> In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am sure
>>>> gear-
>>>> up is the safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the
>>>> aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>>>> Rhodds Farm
>>>> Lyonshall
>>>> Herefordshire
>>>> HR5 3LW
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>
>>>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>>>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>>>> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http:p://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List> <
>>>> &nbstp://www.matronics.com/contribution" ======
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p;--> http://forums.matronbsp; <http://forums.matronbsp;/> <http://forums.matronbsp;/
>>>> > <http://forums.matronbsp
>>>> ;/
>>>>> - List Contribution Web
>>>> Site -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> p://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> et=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>>
>>>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine failure in Yak-50 |
ERIC, You are carrying this matter on ad nauseum; you come across as a
low time, low experienced , verbose bore; the list finds you overbeari
ng and argumentative. If there were a way to end this with a motion for
a directed verdict this would be the proper time for such a remedy. You
apparently have not been around this forum long enough to realize that M
ark Bitterlich is a highly respected, educated and experienced source of
information . His contribution to this list stems from both high pilot
experience and long service as a tech representative for a major aviatio
n manufacturer. I doubt that you will be able to B.S. your way into a po
sition of comparative respect by further posting . Now, in the interest
of peace and harmony,give us a break and shut the hell up.
Respectfully, Cliff Umscheid ,
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitte
rlich@navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Eric. Really. Give it a break.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
OK, Mark...
Early on, I mentioned that this may not apply to a Yak-50, which
apparently you missed. No one has ever said that there is no way to
destroy the engine on a Yak-50 by landing it gear-up. That doesn't
invalidate what was written in the article, which discusses specific
circumstances and the examined aftermath. It somewhat anecdotal, but
it's about many, many airplanes and from people who do this all the
time. Since narrow parameters were applied in the article, including
mention of an aircraft other than a Yak-50, and since in my first
string entry I mentioned that I had paraphrased it and that the
article should be read, your reaction was inappropriate. I hope that
you are not gear-up landing Yak-50s on a regular basis (or witnessing
the same), so unless that's the case, I don't think your experience
"trumps" the career experience of people who tear down and fix these
things every day. You have not asked me anything multiple times. You
suggested things like trying it myself, and that if I hadn't been
through it, I shouldn't weigh in on this. Your unexplainable rage and
belligerence doesn't compel me to respond. The old saying about
assumptions applies well in this situation.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I was not looking to excuse my bad manners. I was just explaining
> why I had them.
>
> You pointed out an article written by an expert. And he is an
> expert. I do not refute that. But I said that I saw it happen.
> That trumps the ace.
>
> I did not misquote you or take you out of context. I said that a
> prop hitting the ground on a YAK-50 making a gear up landing does
> not get ground down 1/10th of an inch at a time, based on what I saw
> happen with my own eyes and the pieces of that prop that I then went
> out and picked up off the runway.
>
> I do not have superior wisdom. I do have good eyesight.
>
> Unless you have landed a YAK-50 with the gear up or have seen this
> type of prop hit the ground on a gear up landing, you have zero
> experience in the matter. I have asked you multiple times whether
> you have or have not. You have not responded. If you have, please
> say so, otherwise I think it is a perfectly 'good idea' to assume
> you have not.
>
> Sorry about that. And sorry to the YAK LIST. I try to help people
> when I can, but once in awhile I am a tad rude, or better said, a
> tad sarcastic.
>
> This is apparently one of those times. Sigh.
>
> Once in awhile I just have a hard time backing down to someone that
> tries to tell me that I don't know what I saw with my own eyes.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
>
m
> >
>
> Mark:
>
> I am not calling you a lair or disputing your experience. I pointed
> out an article written by someone who I know to be expert in this
> area. I also objected to being misquoted and taken out of context.
>
> Just because I didn't agree with everything you said doesn't mean I
> was saying that I was "absolutely right". I merely referred to the
> paper and then clarified certain things that were mischaracterized and
> incorrectly repeated. We're not even talking about the exact same
> conditions, but you seem to need to force everyone to defer to your
> superior wisdom.
>
> Since you don't know me, I don't think it's a good idea for you to say
> that I have "ZERO experience" about this.
>
> Lastly, siting your own history of bad manners hardly excuses them.
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> You are absolutely correct. I was rude. And I am going to be rude
>> again. Sometimes I am human and this is one of those times. So
>> hold on, here it comes again!
>>
>> My responses come from talking to a person who keeps demanding he is
>> absolutely right and has ZERO experience compared to something I
>> have seen with my own eyes, and have left over parts for sitting in
>> the hangar.
>>
>> What is up with that Eric? Are you calling me a liar? Am I blind?
>> Are your theories better than my photographs?
>>
>> I have not tried to make my points on an intellectual basis. I
>> have tried to make my points by telling you I have seen the evidence
>> with my own eyes and what you are saying it just totally wrong.
>> Intellectually, I am sure you're right. Sadly though, a million
>> intellectual guesses get blown out of the water with a simple
>> proof. I've seen the simple proof... you keep referencing the
>> intellectual guesses. Ok then. I've got pictures, you've got
>> theories. Good luck with that.
>>
>> I consider the fact that you refuse to accept what I have said and
>> keep bantering on with what you propose to be JUST as rude as I have
>> been, and while I did not start off rude,.... you're right, I am now.
>>
>> But that's just me. I admit....once in a awhile I stoop to that
>> level, as many people here that have been around long enough will
>> attest to, I am sure. So, once again I am back in form! Ah well,
>> sucks to be me.
>>
>> I could give a damn less about the 1/10'th of an inch nonsense. Go
>> land a YAK-50 with the gear up and come back and tell me how it
>> goes. ONE TENTH OF AN INCH AT A TIME. right. ... good luck with
>> that.
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> p.s. I'm done. How stupid is this discussion anyway?
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>
>>
>>
om
>>>
>>
>> Mark, I think you're being pretty rude. That's usually the refuse of
>> someone who hasn't made their point on an intellectual basis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>>
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> You're right. And who freaking cares? The prop hits the ground.
>>> It comes apart in pieces. Sometimes it shears clean enough to
>>> continue flying. Sometimes it does not. The load imposed on the
>>> engine demands an inspection. Others will try to find ways to
>>> justify not doing that. Some people will say that since the prop
>>> comes apart 1/10 of an inch at a time, the load imposed on the
>>> engine is so slight that we can easily just hang another prop on it
>>> and continue flying without a care in the world. Most people that
>>> think that way are trying to save a buck at the possible expense of
>>> someone's life. So no, there is no point in continuing this. There
>>> will always be people that put the almighty dollar above someone
>>> else's life, or even their own for that matter. And you're right
>>> again. Having followed this list since 1999, there is really no way
>>> to convince anyone not to do something stupid if they are determined
>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is yes to have watched it happen and examined the
>>> aftermath. Having followed this list there is one thing I know for
>>> sure - no point in continuing this.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark
.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 9:40 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that it does not come off 1/10 inch at a time
>>> folks.
>>> I was there, I watched it, I have the fragments, and they are not
>>> tiny little 1/10" pieces of dust. The prop is made out of WOOD
>>> folks. WOOD. When you whack it into a concrete runway it splinters
>>> just like you hit it with a hatchet. The reason there is not enough
>>> force to shear steel is because last time I checked, steel is a
>>> whole lot harder than compressed wood with a fiberglass sheath.
>>>
>>> Sorry for blowing a little steam here but how many of you
>>> commenting on this subject matter have actually seen a YAK-50 prop
>>> hit the ground with the gear up?
>>>
>>> How many of you have what is left of that prop in your hangar?
>>>
>>> How many of you went out on the runway and actually picked up
>>> the
>>> pieces?
>>>
>>> So, if you want to continue to tell me that I simply don't know
>>> what I am talking about since you read a good article someplace else
>>> on the Internet, you just go right ahead on with your bad self!
>>>
>>> Lastly, even though the prop is made out of wood, and even
>>> though
>>> it comes apart like an attack with a chainsaw, the force DOES have
>>> the ability to cause damage to the M-14 engine, to areas that you
>>> can go back on this list and read about from people like Richard
>>> Goode if you would like.
>>>
>>> In the case of THIS engine failure, when the engine seized
>>> (and it
>>> DID seize), the spinning mass of the prop assembly was enough to
>>> cause failure in the gearbox allowing the prop to continue to spin.
>>> That comes from the gent who took it apart.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 3:54 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> the point was about shearing shafts, if only a little at a time
>>> comes off at a time, not enough force to shear
>>>
>>> ab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark
.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry
>>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? And exactly how was that determined? A 1000 frame per
>>> second camera focused on a YAK-50 performing a gear up landing?
>>>
>>> Excuse me... ?
>>>
>>> This is silly. You make an approach with the gear up in a 50,
>>> there is a loud buzz and before you can say WHAT THE F__K WAS THAT?
>>> You have 10 inches or more gone off each end of your prop.
>>>
>>> Who cares if it came off 1/10th of an inch at a time? And I
>>> find
>>> that number to be variable on sink rate and engine RPM at the time,
>>> don't you think?
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-l
ist-server@matronics.com
>>> on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matr
onics.com
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> He said, per strike
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
>>> MALS-14 64E <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bit
terlich@navy.mil
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy
.mil
>>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@
matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compos
e?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy
.mil
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it
>>> comes
>>> to a YAK-50
>>>
>>> Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a YAK-50
>>> that lands gear up. I think you might have misread the article (I
>>> did not read it myself), or he might have been talking about some
>>> other type of aircraft than a YAK-50.
>>>
>>> A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12
>>> INCHES off the prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and
>>> there is no question about that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-y
ak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com
>>>> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@
matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website) that
>>> explains that for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional
>>> resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I think) must be encountered to cause
>>> damage. During a regular (gear-up) landing on pavement with the wood
>>> prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade is shaved off per rotation,
>>> which gets nowhere near that force. On the other hand, if you hit
>>> something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the accessory
>>> shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
>>> is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read
>>> Carl's article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design
>>> shear
>>> point in shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not do
>>> the same.
>>> So the answer is I do not know.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=own
er-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-li
st-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-l
ist@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> No problem, Doc.
>>>
>>> So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a
>>> deliberate
>>> design to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from prop
>>> momentum? Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough inertia to
>>> just break free like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you
>>> had
>>> already seen Robs post.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> From: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=own
er-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-li
st-server@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
>>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-l
ist@matronics.com
>>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>>> list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>>>
>>> Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so
>>> that's how, which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine
>>> certainly trumps speculation.
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those interested in more details:
>>>
>>> � As had been suggested, I am sure the oi
l
>>> pressure
>>> would have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
>>> � Andy says that he noticed the zero oil
>>> pressure
>>> pretty much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect) went
>>> into coarse pitch.
>>> � The engine then actually kept going for
9/10
>>> minutes without oil, which is quite impressive.
>>> � Oil temperatures didn't go up simply be
cause
>>> there was no oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was the
>>> reason for the engine failure - because the pressure release valve
>>> had not been wire-locked, it unscrewed and fell out.
>>> � However it then totally seized and this
is
>>> what
>>> broke the gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill with
>>> a seized engine.
>>> � The extent of the seizure was such that
it is
>>> impossible to remove most of the cylinders!
>>> � I would expect the CHT to have risen a
bit,
>>> but
>>> only because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast majority
>>> of cooling is through air, and of course he was at very low power
>>> settings in order to preserve the engine.
>>> � In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I am
sure
>>> gear-
>>> up is the safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the
>>> aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>>> Rhodds Farm
>>> Lyonshall
>>> Herefordshire
>>> HR5 3LW
>>> United Kingdom
>>>
>>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>>> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matron
ics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.co
m/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matron
ics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/ <http://forums.matronics.co
m/
>>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matron
ics.com/
>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http
://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http:p://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forum
s.matronics.com/
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List> <
>>> &nbstp://www.matronics.com/contribution" ======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p;--> http://forums.matronbsp; <http://forums.matronbsp;/> <htt
p://forums.matronbsp;/> <http://forums.matronbsp
>>> ;/
>>>> - List Contribution Web
>>> Site -
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> p://forums.matronics.com/
>>> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> et=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Ya
k-List
>>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics
.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
>>>>
>>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
Cliff:
We already agreed to give it a break, so this is an unnecessary
exercise on your part. I also don't think you speak for the list.
I am categorically uninterested in your opinion of me you
sanctimonious twerp.
Quite unespectfully, Eric
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:22 PM, netmaster15@juno.com wrote:
> ERIC, You are carrying this matter on ad nauseum; you come across
> as a low time, low experienced , verbose bore; the list finds you
> overbearing and argumentative. If there were a way to end this with
> a motion for a directed verdict this would be the proper time for
> such a remedy. You apparently have not been around this forum long
> enough to realize that Mark Bitterlich is a highly respected,
> educated and experienced source of information . His contribution to
> this list stems from both high pilot experience and long service as
> a tech representative for a major aviation manufacturer. I doubt
> that you will be able to B.S. your way into a position of
> comparative respect by further posting . Now, in the interest of
> peace and harmony,give us a break and shut the hell up.
> Respectfully, Cliff Umscheid ,
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:47:17 -0400
>
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Eric. Really. Give it a break.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 7:35 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
>
<eric@buffaloskyline.com
> >
>
> OK, Mark...
>
> Early on, I mentioned that this may not apply to a Yak-50, which
> apparently you missed. No one has ever said that there is no way to
> destroy the engine on a Yak-50 by landing it gear-up. That doesn't
> invalidate what was written in the article, which discusses specific
> circumstances and the examined aftermath. It somewhat anecdotal, but
> it's about many, many airplanes and from people who do this all the
> time. Since narrow parameters were applied in the article, including
> mention of an aircraft other than a Yak-50, and since in my first
> string entry I mentioned that I had paraphrased it and that the
> article should be read, your reaction was inappropriate. I hope that
> you are not gear-up landing Yak-50s on a regular basis (or witnessing
> the same), so unless that's the case, I don't think your experience
> "trumps" the career experience of people who tear down and fix these
> things every day. You have not asked me anything multiple times. You
> suggested things like trying it myself, and that if I hadn't been
> through it, I shouldn't weigh in on this. Your unexplainable rage and
> belligerence doesn't compel me to respond. The old saying about
> assumptions applies well in this situation.
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
> > Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > I was not looking to excuse my bad manners. I was just explaining
> > why I had them.
> >
> > You pointed out an article written by an expert. And he is an
> > expert. I do not refute that. But I said that I saw it happen.
> > That trumps the ace.
> >
> > I did not misquote you or take you out of context. I said that a
> > prop hitting the ground on a YAK-50 making a gear up landing does
> > not get ground down 1/10th of an inch at a time, based on what I saw
> > happen with my own eyes and the pieces of that prop that I then went
> > out and picked up off the runway.
> >
> > I do not have superior wisdom. I do have good eyesight.
> >
> > Unless you have landed a YAK-50 with the gear up or have seen this
> > type of prop hit the ground on a gear up landing, you have zero
> > experience in the matter. I have asked you multiple times whether
> > you have or have not. You have not responded. If you have, please
> > say so, otherwise I think it is a perfectly 'good idea' to assume
> > you have not.
> >
> > Sorry about that. And sorry to the YAK LIST. I try to help people
> > when I can, but once in awhile I am a tad rude, or better said, a
> > tad sarcastic.
> >
> > This is apparently one of those times. Sigh.
> >
> > Once in awhile I just have a hard time backing down to someone that
> > tries to tell me that I don't know what I saw with my own eyes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric
> Wobschall
> > Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >
> >
> >
<eric@buffaloskyline.com
> > >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > I am not calling you a lair or disputing your experience. I pointed
> > out an article written by someone who I know to be expert in this
> > area. I also objected to being misquoted and taken out of context.
> >
> > Just because I didn't agree with everything you said doesn't mean I
> > was saying that I was "absolutely right". I merely referred to the
> > paper and then clarified certain things that were mischaracterized
> and
> > incorrectly repeated. We're not even talking about the exact same
> > conditions, but you seem to need to force everyone to defer to your
> > superior wisdom.
> >
> > Since you don't know me, I don't think it's a good idea for you to
> say
> > that I have "ZERO experience" about this.
> >
> > Lastly, siting your own history of bad manners hardly excuses them.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
> Point,
> > MALS-14 64E wrote:
> >
> >> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >>
> >> You are absolutely correct. I was rude. And I am going to be rude
> >> again. Sometimes I am human and this is one of those times. So
> >> hold on, here it comes again!
> >>
> >> My responses come from talking to a person who keeps demanding he
> is
> >> absolutely right and has ZERO experience compared to something I
> >> have seen with my own eyes, and have left over parts for sitting in
> >> the hangar.
> >>
> >> What is up with that Eric? Are you calling me a liar? Am I blind?
> >> Are your theories better than my photographs?
> >>
> >> I have not tried to make my points on an intellectual basis. I
> >> have tried to make my points by telling you I have seen the
> evidence
> >> with my own eyes and what you are saying it just totally wrong.
> >> Intellectually, I am sure you're right. Sadly though, a million
> >> intellectual guesses get blown out of the water with a simple
> >> proof. I've seen the simple proof... you keep referencing the
> >> intellectual guesses. Ok then. I've got pictures, you've got
> >> theories. Good luck with that.
> >>
> >> I consider the fact that you refuse to accept what I have said and
> >> keep bantering on with what you propose to be JUST as rude as I
> have
> >> been, and while I did not start off rude,.... you're right, I am
> now.
> >>
> >> But that's just me. I admit....once in a awhile I stoop to that
> >> level, as many people here that have been around long enough will
> >> attest to, I am sure. So, once again I am back in form! Ah
> well,
> >> sucks to be me.
> >>
> >> I could give a damn less about the 1/10'th of an inch nonsense. Go
> >> land a YAK-50 with the gear up and come back and tell me how it
> >> goes. ONE TENTH OF AN INCH AT A TIME. right. ... good luck with
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Mark Bitterlich
> >>
> >> p.s. I'm done. How stupid is this discussion anyway?
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric
> Wobschall
> >> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
> >> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>
> >>
> >>
<eric@buffaloskyline.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mark, I think you're being pretty rude. That's usually the refuse
> of
> >> someone who hasn't made their point on an intellectual basis.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
> >> Point,
> >> MALS-14 64E wrote:
> >>
> >>> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >>>
> >>> You're right. And who freaking cares? The prop hits the ground.
> >>> It comes apart in pieces. Sometimes it shears clean enough to
> >>> continue flying. Sometimes it does not. The load imposed on the
> >>> engine demands an inspection. Others will try to find ways to
> >>> justify not doing that. Some people will say that since the prop
> >>> comes apart 1/10 of an inch at a time, the load imposed on the
> >>> engine is so slight that we can easily just hang another prop on
> it
> >>> and continue flying without a care in the world. Most people that
> >>> think that way are trying to save a buck at the possible expense
> of
> >>> someone's life. So no, there is no point in continuing this.
> There
> >>> will always be people that put the almighty dollar above someone
> >>> else's life, or even their own for that matter. And you're right
> >>> again. Having followed this list since 1999, there is really no
> way
> >>> to convince anyone not to do something stupid if they are
> determined
> >>> to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Whatever.
> >>>
> >>> Mark Bitterlich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> >>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> >>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The answer is yes to have watched it happen and examined the
> >>> aftermath. Having followed this list there is one thing I know
> for
> >>> sure - no point in continuing this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> >>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>>
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 9:40 PM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The point is that it does not come off 1/10 inch at a time
> >>> folks.
> >>> I was there, I watched it, I have the fragments, and they are not
> >>> tiny little 1/10" pieces of dust. The prop is made out of WOOD
> >>> folks. WOOD. When you whack it into a concrete runway it
> splinters
> >>> just like you hit it with a hatchet. The reason there is not
> enough
> >>> force to shear steel is because last time I checked, steel is a
> >>> whole lot harder than compressed wood with a fiberglass sheath.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for blowing a little steam here but how many of you
> >>> commenting on this subject matter have actually seen a YAK-50 prop
> >>> hit the ground with the gear up?
> >>>
> >>> How many of you have what is left of that prop in your hangar?
> >>>
> >>> How many of you went out on the runway and actually picked up
> >>> the
> >>> pieces?
> >>>
> >>> So, if you want to continue to tell me that I simply don't
> know
> >>> what I am talking about since you read a good article someplace
> else
> >>> on the Internet, you just go right ahead on with your bad self!
> >>>
> >>> Lastly, even though the prop is made out of wood, and even
> >>> though
> >>> it comes apart like an attack with a chainsaw, the force DOES have
> >>> the ability to cause damage to the M-14 engine, to areas that you
> >>> can go back on this list and read about from people like Richard
> >>> Goode if you would like.
> >>>
> >>> In the case of THIS engine failure, when the engine seized
> >>> (and it
> >>> DID seize), the spinning mass of the prop assembly was enough to
> >>> cause failure in the gearbox allowing the prop to continue to
> spin.
> >>> That comes from the gent who took it apart.
> >>>
> >>> Have a nice day.
> >>>
> >>> Mark Bitterlich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: Paul Hamlin
> >>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 3:54 PM
> >>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> the point was about shearing shafts, if only a little at a time
> >>> comes off at a time, not enough force to shear
> >>>
> >>> ab
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> >>> MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>>
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cherry
> >>> Point, MALS-14 64E"
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Really? And exactly how was that determined? A 1000 frame
> per
> >>> second camera focused on a YAK-50 performing a gear up landing?
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me... ?
> >>>
> >>> This is silly. You make an approach with the gear up in a 50,
> >>> there is a loud buzz and before you can say WHAT THE F__K WAS
> THAT?
> >>> You have 10 inches or more gone off each end of your prop.
> >>>
> >>> Who cares if it came off 1/10th of an inch at a time? And I
> >>> find
> >>> that number to be variable on sink rate and engine RPM at the
> time,
> >>> don't you think?
> >>>
> >>> Mark Bitterlich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matro
nics.com
> >>> on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> >>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
> >>> To:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> He said, per strike
> >>>
> >>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
> >>> MALS-14 64E
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>>
> >>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>> To:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
> >>>
> >>>
> Det
> >>> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me, but that is not accurate information when it
> >>> comes
> >>> to a YAK-50
> >>>
> >>> Much more than a 1/10 of an inch gets shaved off on a
> YAK-50
> >>> that lands gear up. I think you might have misread the article (I
> >>> did not read it myself), or he might have been talking about some
> >>> other type of aircraft than a YAK-50.
> >>>
> >>> A YAK-50 making a gear up landing will take about 10 or 12
> >>> INCHES off the prop (or more). I own one of these aircraft and
> >>> there is no question about that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark Bitterlich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matro
nics.com
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matr
onics.com
> >>>> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> >>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
> >>> To:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
> >>> list@matronics.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There's a Carl Hayes article (on the M-14P.com website)
> that
> >>> explains that for any damage at all to occur, a (torsional
> >>> resistance) of 400 lb-ft (I think) must be encountered to cause
> >>> damage. During a regular (gear-up) landing on pavement with the
> wood
> >>> prop, only one-tenth of an inch of blade is shaved off per
> rotation,
> >>> which gets nowhere near that force. On the other hand, if you hit
> >>> something else more abruptly, the inertia of things on the
> accessory
> >>> shafts will shear those shafts off or twist them out of sync. This
> >>> is all paraphrased, so if you haven't read it, you should read
> >>> Carl's article, which addresses all kinds of prop strikes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not sure but I think I heard that there is a design
> >>> shear
> >>> point in shaft. But, if that were so why would a prop strike not
> do
> >>> the same.
> >>> So the answer is I do not know.
> >>> Doc
> >>>
> >>> From:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matro
nics.com
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matr
onics.com
> >>>>
[mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serv
er@matronics.com
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matr
onics.com
> >>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
> >>> To:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
> >>> list@matronics.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>> No problem, Doc.
> >>>
> >>> So what is it that caused it to shear? Is that a
> >>> deliberate
> >>> design to prevent the engine from twisting off it's mounts from
> prop
> >>> momentum? Otherwise, you'd think there wouldn't be enough
> inertia to
> >>> just break free like that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry Eric, I wrote my response before seeing that you
> >>> had
> >>> already seen Robs post.
> >>> Doc
> >>>
> >>> From:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matro
nics.com
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matr
onics.com
> >>>>
[mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-serv
er@matronics.com
> >>>
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server@matr
onics.com
> >>>> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
> >>> To:
http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
> >>> list@matronics.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> >>>
> >>> Engine seized with broken gearbox, too. Well, OK... so
> >>> that's how, which surprises me. Having access to the failed engine
> >>> certainly trumps speculation.
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For those interested in more details:
> >>>
> >>> =EF=BD As had been suggested, I am sure the
oil
> >>> pressure
> >>> would have fallen as the pressure release valve became unscrewed.
> >>> =EF=BD Andy says that he noticed the zero
oil
> >>> pressure
> >>> pretty much at the same time as the prop (as one would expect)
> went
> >>> into coarse pitch.
> >>> =EF=BD The engine then actually kept going
for
> 9/10
> >>> minutes without oil, which is quite impressive.
> >>> =EF=BD Oil temperatures didn't go up simply
> because
> >>> there was no oil and so nothing to measure! This of course was
> the
> >>> reason for the engine failure - because the pressure release valve
> >>> had not been wire-locked, it unscrewed and fell out.
> >>> =EF=BD However it then totally seized and
this is
> >>> what
> >>> broke the gearbox - hence the propeller continuing to windmill
> with
> >>> a seized engine.
> >>> =EF=BD The extent of the seizure was such
that
> it is
> >>> impossible to remove most of the cylinders!
> >>> =EF=BD I would expect the CHT to have risen
a
> bit,
> >>> but
> >>> only because a small part of it is oil-cooled, but the vast
> majority
> >>> of cooling is through air, and of course he was at very low power
> >>> settings in order to preserve the engine.
> >>> =EF=BD In terms of gear-up of gear-down, I
am
> sure
> >>> gear-
> >>> up is the safest way, but also, will cause far less damage to the
> >>> aircraft.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> >>> Rhodds Farm
> >>> Lyonshall
> >>> Herefordshire
> >>> HR5 3LW
> >>> United Kingdom
> >>>
> >>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> >>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> >>> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/
<http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> >>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> <http://forums.matronics.com/> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/
<http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> >>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http:p://forums.matronics.com/"
target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List> <
> >>> &nbstp://www.matronics.com/contribution" ======
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> p;--> http://forums.matronbsp; <http://forums.matronbsp;/>
<http://forums.matronbsp;/
> > <http://forums.matronbsp
> >>> ;/
> >>>> - List Contribution Web
> >>> Site -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> p://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> et=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/
> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>> > <http://forums.matronics.com/
> >>>>
> >>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thought for the day |
Self Control is defined as the necessary mental effort to overcome the bodies
natural desire to just beat the living crap out of someone.
Mark Bitterlich
United States Marine Corps Retired
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
7500
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=316538#316538
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thought for the day |
Bloody well said.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:56 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Thought for the day
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Self Control is defined as the necessary mental effort to overcome the
> bodies natural desire to just beat the living crap out of someone.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
> United States Marine Corps Retired
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|