 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KingCJ6(at)aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
 |
|
By my count, this is easily the most elongated string in theYak list's history! Can we try a new topic like MMO or Flight Suit Policy?
Dave
In a message dated 10/19/2010 5:40:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eric(at)buffaloskyline.com writes:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com>
He my have been referring only to the Yak-52, and apparently, you
misread what is below. I said 1/10th or an inch PER ROTATION.
May very well not apply to the Yak-50.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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
================================================e ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Once again, a nose gear collapse is not a regular gear up landing. Also, if the plane lands gear up and then rolls out into a brick wall just as a bomb goes off, that wouldn't be the same either.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Roger Baker wrote:
| Quote: | Mark,
For what it's worth, some of us "lurkers" out here have seen a V530 prop smite the earth and we do know what a disaster it is.
A pal of ours, for whatever reason, collapsed the nose gear (but not the mains) of a 52 on landing. The rate of sink of the nose after the gear broke was quite high (the tail would have had quite a high rate of climb for a short while, as well) and the nose hit the runway with a great thumping noise.
I suspect that it is hard to imagine for those who haven't seen it, what a violent result this creates with the prop. It was as if the prop exploded. The shank and a few inches of the blades were recognizable...the remaining wood still attached to what had been the blades was more like shreds of wood fiber from a cellulose factory than anything else. Sizable shards of prop wood were scattered over a 50+ foot area.
It may be that this situation had a higher sink rate than the usual gear up incident. However, it is certain that a V530 prop can dismantle itself very quickly, and in spectacular fashion
Not what I read about, but what I saw. For insurance reasons, we weren't able to open up the engine, but I imagine that the content of the nose case was mush.
BR,
Roger Baker
On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
| Quote: | 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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com) <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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; - List Contribution Web Site -
[/url] |
[url=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List]
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Mark:
I was paraphrasing from a paper written by an expert (Carl Hayes) and
never claimed to be one myself. As I mentioned, it's on the M-14P
website. However, here it is for your convenience: -Eric
On Oct 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 2:28 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
He said, per strike
--- On Tue, 10/19/10, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
>
Subject: Re: 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" =======
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
M-14P_Sudden_Stoppage.doc |
| Filesize: |
27.5 KB |
| Downloaded: |
401 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ph451(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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; - List Contribution Web Site -
|
| Quote: |
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
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
talew(at)bellsouth.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Let's not forget what the result of what an engine failure will be . It will be an unplanned landing , right now, in a place that maybe off the airport .
The engine and prop is the least most important point of considerations at this point . The most important consideration is the survival
of your ass . With the gear up you may not become inverted and crushed in an off field landing . The idea of landing with the gear down in these
aircraft should be only be considered on a prepared surface . The idea of using the gear down is fine for a high wing . This may minmises the
damage to the a/c .
However this type of landing will probably crush you with this type of canopy . The insurance company can replace the rudder ,upper canopy etc . but not you .
That is why they recommend using the gear to slow the aircraft .
Terry Lewis
From: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com>
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 8:45:25 PM
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
Once again, a nose gear collapse is not a regular gear up landing. Also, if the plane lands gear up and then rolls out into a brick wall just as a bomb goes off, that wouldn't be the same either.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Roger Baker wrote:
[quote] Mark,
For what it's worth, some of us "lurkers" out here have seen a V530 prop smite the earth and we do know what a disaster it is.
A pal of ours, for whatever reason, collapsed the nose gear (but not the mains) of a 52 on landing. The rate of sink of the nose after the gear broke was quite high (the tail would have had quite a high rate of climb for a short while, as well) and the nose hit the runway with a great thumping noise.
I suspect that it is hard to imagine for those who haven't seen it, what a violent result this creates with the prop. It was as if the prop exploded. The shank and a few inches of the blades were recognizable...the remaining wood still attached to what had been the blades was more like shreds of wood fiber from a cellulose factory than anything else. Sizable shards of prop wood were scattered over a 50+ foot area.
It may be that this situation had a higher sink rate than the usual gear up incident. However, it is certain that a V530 prop can dismantle itself very quickly, and in spectacular fashion
Not what I read about, but what I saw. For insurance reasons, we weren't able to open up the engine, but I imagine that the content of the nose case was mush.
BR,
Roger Baker
On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
| Quote: | 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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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; - List Contribution Web Site -
[/url] |
[url=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List]
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution |
======================= [b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
ERIC! BIG OLE ONE FOOT LONG PIECES OF WOOD. SHARDS ALL LONGER THAN 1/10TH OF AN INCH.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?
Question. Have you ever seen an aircraft with a 530 wooden prop hit the runway. YES OR NO? If the answer is no, then you really need to stop talking like you are an expert on the matter because you read an article on the internet.
Regardless of what you are thinking, when the 530 wooden prop hits the ground at idle RPM, the prop does not come apart at 1/10th of an inch per rotation. The prop hits and then shatters. The stress of the prop hitting the ground sends harmonic energy into the wooden structure of the prop which results in a an overloaded burst of energy causing in some cases a literal explosion of the remaining material.
I've read everything you have said a few times now. What I am saying is your statements are completely wrong based on personal experience and personal observation. If you do not have the same personal experience and personal observations and are basing your comments on some article you read and are simply demanding that they must be right and my own eyes must be wrong.... then really... that's pretty stupid. Sorry, but's that how I feel about it.;
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:39 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
PEOPLE!! READ BEFORE YOU POP OFF!! Less that 1/10th PER ROTATION!!!
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:28 PM, pilko2 wrote:
[quote]
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
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
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(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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; - 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
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Good point.
Let's talk about the requirement for RPA Formation Pilots to wear a flight suit, even when training for their FAST card. Now there's a hot topic.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of KingCJ6(at)aol.com
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:44 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
By my count, this is easily the most elongated string in theYak list's history! Can we try a new topic like MMO or Flight Suit Policy?
Dave
In a message dated 10/19/2010 5:40:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eric(at)buffaloskyline.com writes:
He my have been referring only to the Yak-52, and apparently, you
misread what is below. I said 1/10th or an inch PER ROTATION.
May very well not apply to the Yak-50.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:23 AM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:27 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:47 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>================================================e ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Mark, tranquilizers are available.
Read the article I referred to. I didn't say it must be right, but I
would be reticent to dispute an expert like Carl Hayes.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
[quote]
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
ERIC! BIG OLE ONE FOOT LONG PIECES OF WOOD. SHARDS ALL LONGER THAN
1/10TH OF AN INCH.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?
Question. Have you ever seen an aircraft with a 530 wooden prop hit
the runway. YES OR NO? If the answer is no, then you really need
to stop talking like you are an expert on the matter because you
read an article on the internet.
Regardless of what you are thinking, when the 530 wooden prop hits
the ground at idle RPM, the prop does not come apart at 1/10th of
an inch per rotation. The prop hits and then shatters. The stress
of the prop hitting the ground sends harmonic energy into the wooden
structure of the prop which results in a an overloaded burst of
energy causing in some cases a literal explosion of the remaining
material.
I've read everything you have said a few times now. What I am
saying is your statements are completely wrong based on personal
experience and personal observation. If you do not have the same
personal experience and personal observations and are basing your
comments on some article you read and are simply demanding that they
must be right and my own eyes must be wrong.... then really...
that's pretty stupid. Sorry, but's that how I feel about it.;
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:39 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
PEOPLE!! READ BEFORE YOU POP OFF!! Less that 1/10th PER ROTATION!!!
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:28 PM, pilko2 wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> --
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: 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:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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; - 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
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pfstelwagon(at)earthlink.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Come on guys, enough is enough. When the wooden prop hits the ground it is going to come apart. As an A&P I don't care if is a tenth on an inch or 10 inches the engine needs to be opened up and checked especially the gears front and rear. When and engine runs out of oil it will freeze up the only question is how long will it take. When the engine freezes and the prop still turns something broke. Who cares what or why the answer is the engine frozen. Lets not make this a MMO thing.
Frank CJ6-A N23021
.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Carl is indeed an expert.
My eyes are pretty expert too.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:19 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
Mark, tranquilizers are available.
Read the article I referred to. I didn't say it must be right, but I
would be reticent to dispute an expert like Carl Hayes.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
[quote]
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
ERIC! BIG OLE ONE FOOT LONG PIECES OF WOOD. SHARDS ALL LONGER THAN
1/10TH OF AN INCH.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?
Question. Have you ever seen an aircraft with a 530 wooden prop hit
the runway. YES OR NO? If the answer is no, then you really need
to stop talking like you are an expert on the matter because you
read an article on the internet.
Regardless of what you are thinking, when the 530 wooden prop hits
the ground at idle RPM, the prop does not come apart at 1/10th of
an inch per rotation. The prop hits and then shatters. The stress
of the prop hitting the ground sends harmonic energy into the wooden
structure of the prop which results in a an overloaded burst of
energy causing in some cases a literal explosion of the remaining
material.
I've read everything you have said a few times now. What I am
saying is your statements are completely wrong based on personal
experience and personal observation. If you do not have the same
personal experience and personal observations and are basing your
comments on some article you read and are simply demanding that they
must be right and my own eyes must be wrong.... then really...
that's pretty stupid. Sorry, but's that how I feel about it.;
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 8:39 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
>
PEOPLE!! READ BEFORE YOU POP OFF!! Less that 1/10th PER ROTATION!!!
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:28 PM, pilko2 wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> --
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
<http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: 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;/> - 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/>
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
I concur.
And especially since I already said the exact same thing. More than once.
Come on guys ...... is exactly right. Sometimes I just have to say what I have seen with my own eyes is correct.
Excuse me for doing that. I know I shouldn't.
Mark
p.s. Sorry Frank. I know you'[re right.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Frank Stelwagon
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 11:19 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
Come on guys, enough is enough. When the wooden prop hits the ground it is going to come apart. As an A&P I don't care if is a tenth on an inch or 10 inches the engine needs to be opened up and checked especially the gears front and rear. When and engine runs out of oil it will freeze up the only question is how long will it take. When the engine freezes and the prop still turns something broke. Who cares what or why the answer is the engine frozen. Lets not make this a MMO thing.
Frank CJ6-A N23021
.
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kregg(at)balancemyprop.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
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 Epicâ„¢ 4G
"Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:
| Quote: |
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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>
>
>
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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;/> - 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/>
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Yes.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Kregg Victory
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:05 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
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(tm) 4G
"Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:
| Quote: |
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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>
>
>
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
> >
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: 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:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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;/
> > - 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/
> >
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ph451(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
Thanks
--- On Wed, 10/20/10, Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com>
Subject: Re: Engine failure in Yak-50
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 5:32 AM
--> Yak-List message posted by: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com (eric(at)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:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
--> Yak-List message posted by: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com (eric(at)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:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)
>>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:17 PM
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 5:12 PM
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det
> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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;/> - 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/>
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
nics.com/Navigator?Yak-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigsp; - MATRONICS WEB FO/" ; -Matt Dralle, List Admin==========
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:16 pm Post subject: Engine failure in Yak-50 |
|
|
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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: yak-list(at)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(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>>
> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: 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
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:38 am Post subject: 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:
| Quote: |
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 12:32 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Wobschall
> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 10:24 PM
> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: 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(at)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(at)matronics.com on behalf of Paul Hamlin
>> Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:32 PM
>> To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>>
>> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
>> To: yak-list(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: 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(at)navy.mil> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil
>>>
>> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
>> To: yak-list(at)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(at)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(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: 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(at)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(at)navy.mil
>>>
>> Subject: RE: Engine failure in Yak-50
>> To: http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-list(at)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(at)navy.mil
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.bitterlich(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>> list(at)matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>> list(at)matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: 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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-yak-list-server(at)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(at)matronics.com
>> <http://us.mc511.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=yak-
>> list(at)matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
