Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:27 AM - Re: Engine failure (Richard Goode)
2. 08:27 AM - Egress from the YAK (Roger Kemp M.D.)
3. 08:34 AM - engine failure over water (Elmar Hegenauer)
4. 09:09 AM - FYI (George Coy)
5. 09:27 AM - Re: engine failure over water (Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 10:18 AM - Re: Engine failure (William Halverson)
7. 11:27 AM - Re: Engine failure (Yak Pilot)
8. 11:35 AM - Re: engine failure over water (Yak Pilot)
9. 11:35 AM - Re: Engine failure (Eric Wobschall)
10. 03:58 PM - Re: Engine failure (Yak Pilot)
11. 05:04 PM - Re: Engine failure (Warren Hill)
12. 07:43 PM - Re: Wanted: cowlings (Nanchang CJ6)
13. 07:48 PM - Re: Wanted: cowlings (Nanchang CJ6)
14. 10:14 PM - Re: engine failure over water (GreasySideUp)
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 |
|
Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31 prop,at full
power,and [very luckily] at low level,and with a lot of runway ahead of
him.
But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore off the engine;all
the engine mounts were either broken /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of
damage to other parts of the airframe-and this on probably the strongest
airframe that there is!!
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Yak Pilot
Sent: 06 March 2011 03:05
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure
Well this is exactly what I was talking about Richard, and you've given
this advice before.
My point is simply this.... an engine was run without oil until it
seized. As you said, several pistons were welded to the cylinders. I'd
call this a pretty dramatic example of an engine that locked up.
The prop was spinning and developing power at the time. Instead of the
engine coming out of the mounts, the mounts were not even damaged.
Instead, the planetary gears let go and the prop continued to windmill.
This tells me that it is hard to really know WHAT is going to happen.
Obviously if the parts in the engine hold together and everything stops
very quickly, engine mounts can fail as they become the weak link. On
the other hand, it is very possible that if the engine was operating at
full power, the gears that let go could have been crushed into powder
and the prop would have ended up spinning around just like the one you
just reported on did.
I would think that there must be some sort of data on this someplace.
Radial engines have been shot to pieces for many years. They are
renowned for running as long as they have oil in them even with
cylinders blasted off by anti-aircraft fire. I've not seen reports of
them busting out of their mounts and departing the aircraft.
A lot of these Housai and M-14 engines have failed in many ways, and I
have yet to hear of one instance of the engine coming out of the mounts
and departing the aircraft.
This is not to say that you are wrong. This is not to say I have more
experience than you do. I very clearly do NOT. However, being an
engineering mentality, I like to see the data when something like this
is said.
Prop strikes on M-14 engines is a very nebulous topic. Advice runs the
full gamut and depending on who you talk to, if you scrape the paint on
the blades you need a full engine tear-down, while many others take a
more pragmatic viewpoint. Clearly in the matter of prop strikes, how
much you grind off and exactly how it happened come into play with that
decision. I've read what you have written on prop strikes, and also
what others have said as well, and many of them I consider experts too.
Then there are those that always advise to err on the side of safety...
although they have no personal expertise what-so-ever. I've looked into
this subject and studied it for about a month now very carefully and the
real answer I have come up with is: IT DEPENDS.
But coming back to the topic at hand .... have we any documented cases
of M-14 engines failing under power and ripping themselves right out of
the mounts? Failing M-14's, what about any other radials of any era,
model, or design? I'm not debating here, I am really just very
interested in the facts.
Mark Bitterlich
--- On Sat, 3/5/11, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
wrote:
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Engine failure
We had a Su-26 that had a ground strike-reasonably hard,and lost about
10 inches from one blade [2-blade].
Against advice the owner just put on a new prop and went flying.About 4
hours later,when taxiing in,after aerobatics,one of the satellite gears
in the gearbox broke up and the gearbox locked solid,and this broke 2 of
the 4 engine mounts.
Had it happened a couple of minutes earlier,at full power,I=99m
sure the engine would have come out!!
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.invictawiz.com/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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: | Egress from the YAK |
Josh,
Outstanding post. Everybody talks about roll inverted, pull the lap belt release
and fall free. I personally have stated that without pointing out that with
given time trim for nose slightly pitch up for inverted flight. Pull your feet
back off the rudder pedals. Canopy open, unlock the seatbelt and push hard on
the stick to propel yourself free. Otherwise, your fall free of the aircraft
may result in a second encounter with the very aircraft you were trying to leave.
Think about the direction God's G is pointed. You are both going to be headed
in that direction. Physics is physics. You are not slowing down when you
exit that aircraft until you pull the D ring. A windmilling prop maybe offering
more drag than anticipated as the two objects fall on initially parallel courses.
The Russian translated flight manual devotes 3 pages to Emergency abandon of the
airplane by parachute jump in section 5.16.
5.16.1 in all flight cases when the pilot's life is endangered, he must leave the
airplane by jumping with the parachute.
The decision to abandon the airplane is taken by the crew--commander.
For the airplane abandon, the crew--commander orders:
1. for the abandon of the airplane which responds to controls
-"prepare the jump" and then "jump".
For the abandon of the airplane which doesn't respond to controls
- "JUMP"
5.16.2 Before the abandon of the airplane which responds to controls the pilot
must:
-bring the airplane in horizontal flight:
-close the fire cock and disconnect the magneto, the ignition, the storage battery
and the generator
-set the airspeed at 200 Km/h maximum:
-unfasten the belts and the radios station coupling cord:
-take out the feets from the rudder pads and tighten them towards the seat cup:
-open the canopy.
5.16.3 The abandon of the airplane in horizontal flight is operated in the following
sequence:
-the pilot catches the left side of the frontal window with the right hand, leaning
his left hand against the left board of the cockpit;
-then, the leans forward, raising, and takes out the parachute from the seat cup:
-still inclined, he brings his legs in the seat cup and turn on the left:
-the left hand is aimed towards the upper side of the opened part of the canopy:
-the left knee is laid on the left board of the cockpit, the pilot impels the hands
strongly and the right foot and leaves the airplane with the head downwards,
over the trailing edge of the wing.
ATTENTION! 1. The pilot from the first cabin leaves the first, then the pilot from
the rear cabin.
2. If the airplane is abandoned by jumping over the right board, all actions are
similar; symmetrical to that in the case of abandon over the left board.
5.16.3a. Abandoning the airplane which doesn't respond to controls, the pilot will
proceed rapidly to:
-the unfastening of the belts and of the earphone cord;
- retracts the legs from the rudder pads and tightens them towards them toward
the seat cup;
-opens the canopy:
-leaves the airplane about the trailing edge of the wing' following the sequence
indicated at the 5.16.3 paragraph and , taking into account the airplane attitude.
(normal or inverted flight, climb, rotation on the right or left) performs
the jump.
-in turning, spinning a.s.o , the jump is made outside the rotation side;
-in inverted flight, after unfastening the belts and the headphones coupling, coordinating
the opening the canopy, the airplane is abandoned by pushing with
the legs in the seat cup.
5.16.4. The abandon of the airplane which is burning, when the height allows, is
performed with a delay of the parachute opening ( 3-5 sec. at least).
In the case of rapid abandon of the airplane which is on fire, the following procedure
is advisable:
- the pilot unfastens the belts and the headphones;
-opens the canopy;
-reverts the airplane in the inverted configuration;
-pushes the stick strongly and leaves the cabin.
Sorry about the long post. The above is directly from the Russian IPs mouths. So,
it appears for rapid egress from a burning airplane 5.16.4 gives guidance.
I am assuming "-reverts the airplane in the inverted configuration" means roll
inverted after disconnecting the belts, the headphones, and push aggressively
on the stick. That will be a bit entertaining with the belts released and the
canopy open as you roll inverted at the same time pushing strongly on the stick.
"And leaves the cabin..." Hope somebody gets a video of that. If you search
You Tube for parachute jumping from the YAK-52 you will see what a firm push
on the stick will get you.
Someone with bigger cahounnies than I has already tried it.
Still the mindset to step over the side is made before you reach the "Oh Shit"
point. It remains fluid based on the circumstances.
Consider practicing your egress actions before having to actually utilize them
though. It will be a confidence builder. Don't particularly like being suspended
in the harness in the life support shop flying the parachute sim with the straps
pulling up on my groin but you sure learn a lot about making sure the straps
are secure before the ladder is taken away! If one of the jewels is caught
under the crotch strap, you are probably going to forget about the rest of the
egress checklist...after the pull firmly away from the body on the D ring with
the jolt of the chute opening...!!!
So if you fly with a chute, make sure it is fitted to you properly before you step
to fly and plan to use it if the need arises.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
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: | engine failure over water |
What would you do in the event of
an engine failure over open water?
Bail out or ditch the aircraft?
In the case of ditching, would the
NACA cowling on the Yaks/CJs stop
the plane dead and flip it over,
breaking the pilot's neck before
drowning?
cheers
Elmar
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 |
|
Leaving your Aircraft. Even a fast pat on the cylinder head is not good. You
have to be as rude as a Nazi and as ruthless as two Japs. Parachute Sense
NAVY 1944
Navy Parachute Sense
George Coy
CAS Ltd.
714 Airport Rd.
Swanton VT 05488
802-868-5633 off
802-363-5782 cell
802-868-4465 Fax
<mailto:george.coy@gmail.com> george.coy@gmail.com
<http://coyafct.com/> http://coyafct.com/
SKYPE george.coy
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 over water |
Elmar,
Interesting question. The US Navy teaches in case of water ditching be prepared
for the aircraft to end upside down. Cinch your seat belt and shoulder harness
tightly, disconnect the headset, open the canopy, touch down at stall speed
tail first, take a big breath, and expect to be inverted as well as confused.
Remember, follow the air bubbles.
That is if you don't Jump. If I do I'm going to wish I had had the LPUs added to
my harness.
Doc
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: | Re: Engine failure |
Curious if this thread is motivated by the thought that the M14 is more prone to
coming apart than, say, a radial Pratt & Whitney?
Would that be due to the fact that the M14 has a reduction gear box, where as the
others don't?
If so, perhaps the group could detrmine where the weakness in the design is, and
suggest fixes?
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Richard Goode [mailto:richard.goode@russianaeros.com]
+Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 01:24 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure
+
+Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31 prop,at full power,and [very
luckily] at low level,and with a lot of runway ahead of him.
+
+But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore off the engine;all the engine
mounts were either broken /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of damage to other
parts of the airframe-and this on probably the strongest airframe that there
is!!
+
+
+
+Richard Goode
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 |
|
Losing a blade on a propeller will cause=C2-a massive imbalance and will
clearly tend to pull any engine out of any airframe ever made.=C2- There
are indeed recorded cases of that happening=C2-with many models of engine
s and airframes be it radial or opposed (flat) engine designs.=C2-
=C2-
This in fact happened at MCAS Cherry Point where a VariEze had a prop fail
in flight (again a single blade came off) and the engine ripped right out o
f the aircraft and fell onto the field.=C2- The aircraft managed to land
safety at MCAS Cherry Point, which considering the weight and balance issue
s, is an amazing feat unto itself.=C2-
=C2-
It is clear that the=C2-gyroscopic imbalance caused by such a catastrophi
c failure will cause instantaneous torque loads well beyond what any struct
ural design anticipated.=C2- So clearly what happened to Jurgis in your e
xample is clear proof that=C2-this kind of failure can pull an engine out
of it's mounts and anyone that has that happen to them is lucky to walk aw
ay from.=C2-
=C2-
However, this is not the=C2-type of failure that I was trying to gain ins
ight on Richard.=C2- =C2-
=C2-
Mark
=C2-
=C2-
--- On Sun, 3/6/11, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> wrote:
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure
Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31 prop,at full power,and [
very luckily] at low level,and with a lot of runway ahead of him.
But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore off the engine;all the
engine mounts were either broken /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of damage
to other parts of the airframe-and this on probably the strongest airframe
that there is!!
=C2-
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
=C2-
Tel:=C2- +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
=C2-
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Yak Pilot
Sent: 06 March 2011 03:05
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure
=C2-
Well this is exactly what I was talking about Richard, and you've given thi
s advice before.=C2-
=C2-
My point is simply this.... an engine was run without oil until it seized.
=C2- As you said, several pistons were welded to the cylinders.=C2- I'd
call this a pretty dramatic example of an engine that locked up.=C2-
=C2-
The prop was spinning and developing power at the time.=C2- Instead of th
e engine coming out of the mounts, the mounts were not even damaged.=C2-
Instead, the planetary gears let go and the prop continued to windmill.=C2
-
=C2-
This tells me that it is hard to really know WHAT is going to happen.=C2-
Obviously if the parts in the engine hold together and everything stops ve
ry quickly, engine mounts can fail as they become the weak link.=C2- On t
he other hand, it is very possible that if the engine was operating at full
power, the gears that let go could have been crushed into powder and the p
rop would have ended up spinning around just like the one you just reported
on did.=C2-
=C2-
I would think that there must be some sort of data on this someplace.=C2-
Radial engines have been shot to pieces for many years.=C2- They are ren
owned for running as long as they have oil in them even with cylinders blas
ted off by anti-aircraft fire.=C2- I've not seen reports of them busting
out of their mounts and departing the aircraft.=C2-
=C2-
A lot of these Housai and M-14 engines have failed in many ways, and I have
yet to hear of one instance of the engine coming out of the mounts and dep
arting the aircraft.=C2-
=C2-
This is not to say that you are wrong.=C2- This is not to say I have more
experience than you do.=C2- I very clearly do NOT.=C2- However, being
an engineering mentality, I like to see the data when something like this i
s said.=C2-
=C2-
Prop strikes on M-14 engines is a very nebulous topic.=C2-Advice runs the
full gamut and depending on who you talk to, if you scrape the paint on th
e blades you need a full engine tear-down, while many others take a more pr
agmatic viewpoint.=C2- Clearly in the matter of prop strikes, how much yo
u grind off and exactly how it happened come into play with that decision.
=C2- I've read what you have written on prop strikes, and also what other
s have said as well, and many of them I consider experts too.=C2- Then th
ere are those that always advise to err on the side of safety... although t
hey have no personal expertise what-so-ever.=C2- I've looked into this su
bject and studied it for about a month now very carefully and the real answ
er I have come up with is:=C2- IT DEPENDS.=C2-
=C2-
But coming back to the topic at hand .... have we any documented cases of M
-14 engines failing under power and ripping themselves right out of the mou
nts?=C2- Failing M-14's, what about any other radials of any era, model,
or design?=C2- I'm not debating here, I am really just very interested in
the facts.=C2-
=C2-
Mark Bitterlich
--- On Sat, 3/5/11, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> wrote:
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Engine failure
We had a Su-26 that had a ground strike-reasonably hard,and lost about 10 i
nches from one blade [2-blade].
Against advice the owner just put on a new prop and went flying.About 4 hou
rs later,when taxiing in,after aerobatics,one of the satellite gears in the
gearbox broke up and the gearbox locked solid,and this broke 2 of the 4 en
gine mounts.
Had it happened a couple of minutes earlier,at full power,I=99m sure
the engine would have come out!!
=C2-
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
=C2-
Tel:=C2- +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
=C2- =C2- =C2-=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?Yak-Listet=_blank>http://forums.matronics.comllow target=_blank
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/con
tribution =C2-
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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 over water |
And always remember to NEVER EVER fly in a Helicoptor under ANY circumstances!
Mark Bitterlich
--- On Sun, 3/6/11, Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: engine failure over water
> To: "yak-list@matronics.com" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 12:22 PM
> "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> Elmar,
> Interesting question. The US Navy teaches in case of water
> ditching be prepared for the aircraft to end upside down.
> Cinch your seat belt and shoulder harness tightly,
> disconnect the headset, open the canopy, touch down at stall
> speed tail first, take a big breath, and expect to be
> inverted as well as confused. Remember, follow the air
> bubbles.
> That is if you don't Jump. If I do I'm going to wish I had
> had the LPUs added to my harness.
> Doc
>
>
>
> Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Engine failure |
I don't take that from this thread. Many Pratts and other radials have gear reduction.
Gear box failure isn't a common cause of total engine failure in the M-14P
or any other radial. The incident Richard Goode referred to involved a prop
strike where one blade was sheared off at the root!! The airplane was then
flown without teardown, and I think it was a satellite gear that failed and caused
gearbox seizure. Can't blame the engine for that.
If there were an inherent design flaw, no one in this group would be fixing it.
On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:15 PM, William Halverson wrote:
>
>
> Curious if this thread is motivated by the thought that the M14 is more prone
to coming apart than, say, a radial Pratt & Whitney?
>
> Would that be due to the fact that the M14 has a reduction gear box, where as
the others don't?
>
> If so, perhaps the group could detrmine where the weakness in the design is,
and suggest fixes?
>
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Richard Goode [mailto:richard.goode@russianaeros.com]
> +Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 01:24 AM
> +To: yak-list@matronics.com
> +Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure
> +
> +Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31 prop,at full power,and [very
luckily] at low level,and with a lot of runway ahead of him.
> +
> +But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore off the engine;all the engine
mounts were either broken /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of damage to other
parts of the airframe-and this on probably the strongest airframe that there
is!!
> +
> +
> +
> +Richard Goode
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Engine failure |
Concur with Eric.
The M-14 is not "prone" to coming apart at all. In fact, just the opposite. It
is an extremely strong engine with a superior design. Anyone who has taken
one apart and looked at the insides of this engine will know tha
The M-14 radial develops more power to weight that any Pratt and Whitney ever flown.
The Russians have made a damn good engine and I am proud to be the owner
of one... well.... actually two.
My questions are pointed towards what exact inspections are recommended following
prop strikes. Just to let everyone know... the FAA listens in to these conversations.
My initial reaction to this fact was to "cover up and check six".
After some more thought, my reaction is: "so what?". I hope they listen in
and realize that the folks that are involved with this list server are interested
in learning more about the engines and airplanes they fly in (and behind).
I am NOT going to be afraid of what the FAA reads on the "YAK LIST" and neither
should anyone else. Enough said.
--- On Sun, 3/6/11, Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 2:29 PM
> Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>
>
> I don't take that from this thread. Many Pratts and other
> radials have gear reduction. Gear box failure isn't a common
> cause of total engine failure in the M-14P or any other
> radial. The incident Richard Goode referred to involved a
> prop strike where one blade was sheared off at the root!!
> The airplane was then flown without teardown, and I think it
> was a satellite gear that failed and caused gearbox seizure.
> Can't blame the engine for that.
>
> If there were an inherent design flaw, no one in this group
> would be fixing it.
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:15 PM, William Halverson wrote:
>
> <william@netpros.net>
> >
> >
> > Curious if this thread is motivated by the thought
> that the M14 is more prone to coming apart than, say, a
> radial Pratt & Whitney?
> >
> > Would that be due to the fact that the M14 has a
> reduction gear box, where as the others don't?
> >
> > If so, perhaps the group could detrmine where the
> weakness in the design is, and suggest fixes?
> >
> >
> > +-----Original Message-----
> > +From: Richard Goode [mailto:richard.goode@russianaeros.com]
> > +Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 01:24 AM
> > +To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > +Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure
> > +
> > +Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31
> prop,at full power,and [very luckily] at low level,and with
> a lot of runway ahead of him.
> > +
> > +But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore
> off the engine;all the engine mounts were either broken
> /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of damage to other parts of
> the airframe-and this on probably the strongest airframe
> that there is!!
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > +Richard Goode
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Engine failure |
My experience with the FFA and my CJ has been uniformly positive. Had my aircraft
re-inspected last Thursday morning by two FSDO guys following lots of changes:
new registration number, M-14P engine, new prop, structural repairs, long
range tanks, etc. As long as the paperwork and logbooks were all in order, they
were happy. In fact, they were quite interested in why the changes were made
and the advantages that came from all of this. Knowledgable, friendly and very
professional. It was actually a pleasant experience. I think that as long as
we stay within the regulations, we'll get treated no differently that anyone
else.
Warren Hill
N464TW
On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Yak Pilot wrote:
>
> Concur with Eric.
>
> The M-14 is not "prone" to coming apart at all. In fact, just the opposite.
It is an extremely strong engine with a superior design. Anyone who has taken
one apart and looked at the insides of this engine will know tha
>
> The M-14 radial develops more power to weight that any Pratt and Whitney ever
flown. The Russians have made a damn good engine and I am proud to be the owner
of one... well.... actually two.
>
> My questions are pointed towards what exact inspections are recommended following
prop strikes. Just to let everyone know... the FAA listens in to these conversations.
My initial reaction to this fact was to "cover up and check six".
After some more thought, my reaction is: "so what?". I hope they listen in
and realize that the folks that are involved with this list server are interested
in learning more about the engines and airplanes they fly in (and behind).
I am NOT going to be afraid of what the FAA reads on the "YAK LIST" and neither
should anyone else. Enough said.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/6/11, Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 2:29 PM
>> Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>
>>
>> I don't take that from this thread. Many Pratts and other
>> radials have gear reduction. Gear box failure isn't a common
>> cause of total engine failure in the M-14P or any other
>> radial. The incident Richard Goode referred to involved a
>> prop strike where one blade was sheared off at the root!!
>> The airplane was then flown without teardown, and I think it
>> was a satellite gear that failed and caused gearbox seizure.
>> Can't blame the engine for that.
>>
>> If there were an inherent design flaw, no one in this group
>> would be fixing it.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:15 PM, William Halverson wrote:
>>
>> <william@netpros.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> Curious if this thread is motivated by the thought
>> that the M14 is more prone to coming apart than, say, a
>> radial Pratt & Whitney?
>>>
>>> Would that be due to the fact that the M14 has a
>> reduction gear box, where as the others don't?
>>>
>>> If so, perhaps the group could detrmine where the
>> weakness in the design is, and suggest fixes?
>>>
>>>
>>> +-----Original Message-----
>>> +From: Richard Goode [mailto:richard.goode@russianaeros.com]
>>> +Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 01:24 AM
>>> +To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> +Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure
>>> +
>>> +Jurgis Kairius lost an entire blade from his Su-31
>> prop,at full power,and [very luckily] at low level,and with
>> a lot of runway ahead of him.
>>> +
>>> +But the gearbox,with what was left of the prop tore
>> off the engine;all the engine mounts were either broken
>> /bent /cracked.Also quite a lot of damage to other parts of
>> the airframe-and this on probably the strongest airframe
>> that there is!!
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Richard Goode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Forum -
>> FAQ,
>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> List Contribution Web Site -
>> -Matt
>> Dralle, List Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Wanted: cowlings |
Craig Payne,
Are you interested in our cowlings? Please see the attached pictures.
If yes, pls contact me off list.Thanks!
Sarah
--------
Sarah's E-mail:lcdzkj@live.cn
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=333003#333003
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/20080607134_207.jpg
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: | Re: Wanted: cowlings |
Picture
--------
Sarah's E-mail:lcdzkj@live.cn
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=333006#333006
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/down_cowl_153.jpg
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 over water |
Over water above 1k I am out of the airplane 100% of the time. With that said
I spent a hundred bucks on a C02 inflatable life preserver that fits very comfortable
under my chute even during negative g aerobatics. Bailing out, I am guaranteed
to live minus a very rare chute malfunction. Ditching is iffy at best
(Again if anyone has ditch statistics that would be awesome) The best case
would be that the plane stayed upright and floated. Worst case is that it flipped
and sank and I fumbled to get my chute off.
I fly over the Chesapeake bay quite regularly. I fly as high as I can to leave
plenty of time to coordinate for rescue over the radio and I note where the boats
are and what direction they are heading. My plan is to glide to a spot where
I would drift down in the path of someone that may see me in the chute.
Average chutes fall at about 1000 feet/min, getting out at a higher altitude would
probably give the boater a little more time to see your chute.
If you fly regularly over the water with a chute but without a 100 dollar LPU (Life
Preserver Unit) you may need to re-evaluate. While you are reading this,
go to Sportys and place an order and it will be here in a few days. Treading
water with full clothing on - I give most non swimmers about 5 minutes or 1/4
mile from shore to live. You can extend that by taking your jeans off, tying
a knot in the leg and blowing them up for flotation. In that case you may want
to take your chances ditching. If you ditch I would add undoing your chute
straps to the checklist above so you have one less thing to worry about.
In the silk on the way down, think about trying your cell phone. Call 911 if you
have a signal. Don't drop it. Leave it on, select speaker and put it back
in your flight suit pocket at around 1000 feet so you can start thinking about
landing.
Again, this is technique only. The bottom line is to have a plan involving a decision
matrix that you know you will follow. The time to think about how you
will ditch or bail out is right now, not at 2k over trees with a windmilling
prop. A massive fire is probably the easiest decision to make, unless you are
over water without a life preserver. Then it is going to be a short ride to think
that you should have called sportys for that LPU while you are in the silk.
Yes I have thought about this a little.....
Brief the plan and fly the brief.
-j
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=333015#333015
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! --
|