210 Grenades on T/O guy makes the impossible turn.

Can you replace that camshaft without splitting the case?
 
Lachlan said:
Would the tension on the bolts be inadequate at operating temps if it was built cold? Seems like it could be a factor to consider.
Click to expand...
FYI: Not really. Now if you were measuring part interfaces and half the parts were cold-soaked outside and the other half were sweating inside you may see a slight difference than if all the parts were the same temp. And for comparison, in some component work there are interference fit requirements where one part is chilled or heated (or both parts oppositely) for a proper fit. Regardless the goal for all the limits on fits/clearances to work together when the engines assembly expands to operating temps.
 
PaulS said:
He explains in the description of the video. He read an article that he claims says to minimize run time on the ground for a rebuilt engine. Seems like a not smart idea.
Click to expand...
My Lycoming Rebuilt has 25 hours now. The process is to keep ground operation to a minimum, but not to rush the runup. So things like idling while waiting for a clearance, etc. is not advisable. Start it up and get going with proper procedures, just don't linger unnecessarily. But if he did a bottom overhaul - I would think he didn't replace the cylinders. The new cylinder glazing is the reason for limited ground ops, I believe, but I'm no expert!.
 
k9medic said:
Not to derail but the previous owner of one of my planes didn't want to spend the extra $2500 to get a "full overhaul" despite almost everything being replaced so I have an engine with 1400 hours instead of 900.
Click to expand...
Even with a full overhaul, you would still have 1,400 hours on the engine.
 
Lachlan said:
Serious question: does the temperature of the case, cylinders, bolts, studs, etc factor into longevity/strength/reliability of an engine? Example- an engine overhauled in a cold hangar (unheated, Winter in the northeast) vs a heated shop (68F, all materials/components at shop temp at time of assembly.) So then, would an engine assembled (fasteners torqued) at cold temperatures (say under 30F) suffer from any issues at warmer temperatures? (Built in the Winter, torqued with cold everything, issues in warm weather with warmer <minimally larger> parts?) Would the tension on the bolts be inadequate at operating temps if it was built cold? Seems like it could be a factor to consider. (Cold torque specs vs hot? Such a thing for engine builds?)
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are itching to spend the long cold winter in North Creek in an unheated hangar overhauling your O-200? If so, I'll bring a big jacket, some hot cocoa, and watch.
 
Guy just posted a new video with more detail on the engine work. Sounds like he was given terrible advice from the shop that replaced just the lifters. His decision to IRAN the engine seems primarily based on the desire to not be without his airplane for so long. Still no word of what exactly happened but a few more video shots of the engine appear to me to say the rod bolts just weren't properly tightened. I don't see any evidence of overheating like it was starved for oil.
 
Grum.Man said:
Guy just posted a new video with more detail on the engine work. Sounds like he was given terrible advice from the shop that replaced just the lifters. His decision to IRAN the engine seems primarily based on the desire to not be without his airplane for so long. Still no word of what exactly happened but a few more video shots of the engine appear to me to say the rod bolts just weren't properly tightened. I don't see any evidence of overheating like it was starved for oil.
Click to expand...

The bearing surfaces on the crank looked in bad condition to me too. If I were in this guys situation I would have asked for a full rebuild or more likely bought either a remanufactured engine, or a new one. He said money is not an issue, that's what I would have wanted. Here is the video.

 
Freeze the video and look at the data. Lots of weird stuff going on, including a loss of fuel pressure and flow before the failure coupled with a sharp drop in oil pressure and a couple of cylinder temps that went up pretty good in a very short period of time along with a sharp TIT rise.

Pure speculation but a fuel pressure and flow problem taking a couple of cylinders overly lean in a few seconds leading to detonation maybe?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Sounds like you are itching to spend the long cold winter in North Creek in an unheated hangar overhauling your O-200? If so, I'll bring a big jacket, some hot cocoa, and watch.
Click to expand...

Not at all. My engine ran great this year. My airplane is safely tucked in the hangar til Spring, but I was thinking about the cold Winter ahead and how things shrink, get brittle, and get hot/cold cycled in this part of the year if you’re lucky enough to fly off skis.
 
I’m having a tough time accepting his “since I was at 400 feet, I couldn’t use that field since I’d be long and wind up in the new neighborhood” statement. Seems like a slip and/or S-turns would easily drop enough altitude to make the field an option, unless I’m misinterpreting how close he was at the time.
 
wanttaja said:
I did a little diagram to illustrate the sequence. I was certainly aware that a simple 180 degree turn would not suffice, but what caught my attention is the fact that the runway is BEHIND and ABOVE the pilot for much of the maneuver.
View attachment 102136
This makes the maneuver more difficult, especially with a high-wing aircraft . The runway isn't apparent in the "normal" orientation until one is well into the maneuver itself.

Second factor that occurred to me is that this is very difficult to train for, in a real airplane. This isn't just a 270-degree-turn followed by a 90 degree turn; it involves maneuvering at low altitude and low airspeed *in relation to a ground reference*. You can make the turns at 1500 feet, but you can't really tell how well you would have lined back up on the runway again.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I was taught by my Uncle, who always did the post maintenance flights on any engines he overhauled, to get off of centerline after takeoff during these first flight, or even in a normal takeoff at an airport where you have no options straight ahead. In other words, on your diagram, take off and move to the right, or upwind side of the runway. Makes the turn back a whole lot easier if needed.

In a couple of weeks, I'll be picking up my new plane, with it's freshly overhauled engine at an airport that doesn't have a lot of options.
 
Looks like he used about twenty degrees of bank in the turn. Mathematical analysis predicts that forty-five degrees will produce the least altitude loss in the turn. (Of course, 45 degrees requires more skill and practice.)

A link in the following post leads to a Web site that contains a link to the derivation.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/testing-the-impossible-turn.35794/#post-587879

That thread has a lot of good discussion on the subject of turnbacks, by the way.
 
BladeSlap said:
Lol

How many of these have you done?
Click to expand...
Not sure how my experience is relevant to his piloting skills. He did a lot of silly things in a very short period of time.

But since you asked and were not clear on what you mean by “these”:
  • First flights after an overhaul: 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (unplanned): 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (Planned): 1
  • Planned Landings with no engine (glider): 43
  • Unplanned landings with no engine (glider tow rope break simulated or real below 300ft): 8
I’m no expert, but I have an opinion. It’s worth pretty much the same as anyone else’s in this case.

All of my engine out scenarios were resolved in the air and did not require an engine out landing.
 
Salty said:
Not sure how my experience is relevant to his piloting skills. He did a lot of silly things in a very short period of time.

But since you asked and were not clear on what you mean by “these”:
  • First flights after an overhaul: 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (unplanned): 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (Planned): 1
  • Planned Landings with no engine (glider): 43
  • Unplanned landings with no engine (glider tow rope break simulated or real below 300ft): 8
I’m no expert, but I have an opinion. It’s worth pretty much the same as anyone else’s in this case.

All of my engine out scenarios were resolved in the air and did not require an engine out landing.
Click to expand...

So you’ve been in the same spot as him and did much better?

I don’t claim to know much about fixed wing, however the only fault my untrained eye could see was maybe he could have waited longer to drop his gear. That said proof of the pudding is in its taste, and his tastes like he didn’t even scratch the thing.
 
BladeSlap said:
So you’ve been in the same spot as him and did much better?

I don’t claim to know much about fixed wing, however the only fault my untrained eye could see was maybe he could have waited longer to drop his gear. That said proof of the pudding is in its taste, and his tastes like he didn’t even scratch the thing.
Click to expand...
What part of
I’ll still give him credit for a safe return.
Click to expand...
isn't clear to you?
 
There were some similarities to that Mooney that ASI featured, as far as how the turn was handled. He landed on a different runway, got the nose down, was at a familiar airport, etc. He was also almost certainly on higher alert because of the new engine. I think he did a fantastic job.
 
BladeSlap said:
It wasn’t that part of your post, it was the rest of it
Click to expand...
It’s my opinion his flying was sloppy. You don’t have to agree, but I’m not changing my mind.
 
Salty said:
It’s my opinion his flying was sloppy. You don’t have to agree, but I’m not changing my mind.
Click to expand...

So sloppy he had a catastrophic engine failure right after takeoff, his flying had so much slop he not only brought the plane back in without even scuffing the paint, but had a smooth landing too

So much slop!!!
 
BladeSlap said:
So sloppy he had a catastrophic engine failure right after takeoff, his flying had so much slop he not only brought the plane back in without even scuffing the paint, but had a smooth landing too

So much slop!!!
Click to expand...
Yep. Yanking the mixture by accident, not once but twice in about 60 seconds, while taking a test flight is pretty sloppy. Doubt it had any impact on the engine, but it certainly didn’t help anything. And there were other things I don’t recall now, and I’m not watching it again to remember.
 
I think his debrief is pretty much a big FU to most of the pilotage comments here and on the tube A lot more gracious than I would be.

His second set of lifters going to crap is interesting because just a few weeks ago I saw a very reputable race car engine builder go on and on about the reliability of lifters falling off a cliff the last couple of years. Were these made of the same Chineseium?
...and how many times have those rod bolts been torqued = stretched? They might find the other piece with the nuts still on them.
 
Salty said:
Not sure how my experience is relevant to his piloting skills. He did a lot of silly things in a very short period of time.

But since you asked and were not clear on what you mean by “these”:
  • First flights after an overhaul: 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (unplanned): 2
  • Engine shutoff in flight (Planned): 1
  • Planned Landings with no engine (glider): 43
  • Unplanned landings with no engine (glider tow rope break simulated or real below 300ft): 8
I’m no expert, but I have an opinion. It’s worth pretty much the same as anyone else’s in this case.

All of my engine out scenarios were resolved in the air and did not require an engine out landing.
Click to expand...

Were the two engine failures full engine failures, like what happened to that 210?

Did they occur low level right after takeoff

Did your outcome turn out as well as his?


Your comment on this guy reminds me of the folks who point out how it was no big deal when someone pulls it out and scores a touch down or something.

Dude did a hell of a job
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I would not have put the gear up so quickly on a first flight. I’m unimpressed with his piloting skills frankly in a bunch of ways, but I’ll still give him credit for a safe return.
Click to expand...
I'm unimpressed with some of his decision making leading up to this. In one video he says he didn't have 50-60k for an overhaul, which after just purchasing the plane I get it. Then says the original shop that replaced the lifters only did it to try to save him some money and that it wasn't about money in the latest video. He never got a second opinion during the first couple metal making events. He chose the shop he went with because time down was his biggest issue. It doesn't sound like he went to an engine shop but rather a shop that also works on engines because the engine shops were backed up, not that there's anything wrong with that. But it makes you wonder if he was pressuring them to cut corners so he could get his plane back faster. With the amount of metal that thing was making why wouldn't you turn that iran into an overhaul? It doesn't sound like they ever found out why it was making metal. Based on the metal found I think it was more than pitted lifters.
 
As someone who has done the "impossible turn" after having an engine blow I take a bit of an issue with Ron W's characteristic. The thing wasn't a 270 followed by 90, more of a continual 210 degree turn. I didn't worry about making it to the numbers nor even getting precisely aligned to the centerline until the last minute.
 
flyingron said:
As someone who has done the "impossible turn" after having an engine blow I take a bit of an issue with Ron W's characteristic. The thing wasn't a 270 followed by 90, more of a continual 210 degree turn. I didn't worry about making it to the numbers nor even getting precisely aligned to the centerline until the last minute.
Click to expand...
This better?
impossible2.JPG
Ron Wanttaja
 
Here is what the actual ground track would look like for a C172. ( I hope reproducing just this one page will fall within fair use.)

5a.png
 
Yep, I like PalmPilot's graphic a lot better and that's pretty much how mine went other than that I made the runway. You're taking off into the wind, that is going to push you back toward the airport a bit (and if there is a crosswind, you want to turn into it to help out as well). I also left from a longer runway which meant that the threshold was a bit closer.
 
Once again, I think his engine was still producing some power until short final. I think if that prop had just stopped, he would not have made it.
 
PaulS said:
Once again, I think his engine was still producing some power until short final. I think if that prop had just stopped, he would not have made it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not sure it was. I think he got slow enough that the thing stopped windmilling. There would have probably been less drag if it had stopped earlier.
 
PaulS said:
Once again, I think his engine was still producing some power until short final. I think if that prop had just stopped, he would not have made it.
Click to expand...
I just checked the video, and the prop stopped during the flare, which suggests that it had been producing drag, not thrust.

He could have improved his glide performance by pulling back on the prop control.
 
We'll probably never know, but the outside view still showed the engine making regular puffs of smoke, which to me means the camshaft was still turning, the mags were probably working, and fuel was getting in there. Doesn't take much to extend a glide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top