Well, I certainly found the most expensive way to get to Florida.

Skyrys62 said:
Wondering what #8's function is.



View attachment 104700
Click to expand...
My mechanic at home clued me into Lycoming SI 1560, which shows the assembly much better.
Screenshot_20220217-152010_Drive.jpg

I'm assuming this is what happened to me, although I don't really understand what caused the shaft to jump out. IO-540 owners would probably be wise to do this check next time the prop is off considering the failure mode.
 
That's a great diagram. The only thing I'm wondering is why the anti-seize needs to be food grade... :)

(I know, the reason is probably that Henkel decided to run some version of anti-seize through all the compliance checks, FDA, FAA, etc., to simplify things and save money. But it's more fun to think of it as a 235 HP Kitchenaid.)
 
Albany Tom said:
The only thing I'm wondering is why the anti-seize needs to be food grade... :)
Click to expand...
Albany Tom said:
Henkel decided to run some version of anti-seize through all the compliance checks, FDA, FAA, etc., to simplify things and save money
Click to expand...
Ha. No. The main difference is that food grade anti-seize is aluminum based and contains no copper/nickel/silver as other anti-seize. More a galvanic corrosion issue for certain installations.
 
Bell206 said:
Ha. No. The main difference is that food grade anti-seize is aluminum based and contains no copper/nickel/silver as other anti-seize. More a galvanic corrosion issue for certain installations.
Click to expand...

That's even more disturbing than the use of an aircraft engine as a mixer. I don't want metal in my milkshake. Well, except a little calcium from the cow.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: the container usually states "Food Grade" and has to meet a certain spec which nickel-anti-seize does not.
Click to expand...

upload_2022-2-18_9-34-3-png.104732



Question: It helps with constipation?
 
Last edited:
gov drive failure jpi data.jpg

OK. Here's what I've been waiting to see. Definitely some surprises.
18:06:40 oil pressure drops ~10 psi
18:06:51 Alternator stops making power: oil on belt or on brushes?...this is probably the onset of the noise we heard
18:07:19 I saw the oil and pulled power back a bit, oil pressure drops ~50 psi to the mid-teens
18:12 Landing happened somewhere in here. Power to idle, oil pressure is in single digits.
18:14 shutdown

I was really expecting to see the RPM's jump when the oil pressure dropped. I guess the oil was trapped in the prop? Does this mean something? Can't quite wrap my head around it.

I'm not feeling great about the oil pressure being that low for that long. I also can't believe how fast it dropped! Like 45 seconds from 78-12. The temperature doesn't appear on the above graph, but it went from 178-185, peaking at 18:07, then slowly falling to 150 by shutdown. Maybe the oil was gone and it was measuring the air temp in the case?

Here's a link to the .jpi flie if anyone wants to take a deep dive & tell me what happened:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M0c7YXF58EFkHGBLe-4VPZI6MvSgDXcG/view?usp=sharing

I couldn't figure out how to pull out just the last flight, so there's a bunch in there. Obviously it's the last one....

It also logged gps points, which I didn't realize it did. I was 11 miles from the airport when it happened.
 
Interesting, I wonder if it lost oil pressure at the moment the plug/shaft came off. So it could not longer generate full pressure as it was pumping oil overboard which is why it still showed 10 psi and was probably at least providing some oil to the important parts.

We used to have (maybe we still do I haven’t been to a fair is over 10 years) a guy that would bring an old farmall tractor to the fair and have it sitting their idling with the oil pan removed. He marketing either his miracle oil or additive I don’t recall which, but every hour or so he would squirt some up on to the crank shaft. I remember he did this for 15 years or more as I recall. Not sure his Miracle stuff had anything to do with it, I think it had more to do with the engine was just idling making very low power and was a very robust loose tolerance engine to begin with. Obviously not an aircraft engine, but makes me think that running a few minutes with low oil pressure at reduced power has a reasonable chance of not causing any damage.
 
It's a shame that it would have been financially better to have damaged the plane beyond repair during the forced landing that to have done such a good job and now have to pay for a new engine.:(
 
thito01 said:
It's a shame that it would have been financially better to have damaged the plane beyond repair during the forced landing that to have done such a good job and now have to pay for a new engine.:(
Click to expand...
His reward for his skill and performance is having him and his family safe and uninjured.

Our reward (as fellow insured owners, and including him) is that our rates will not go up forever to cover his one time loss.
 
thito01 said:
It's a shame that it would have been financially better to have damaged the plane beyond repair during the forced landing that to have done such a good job and now have to pay for a new engine.:(
Click to expand...
Well, probably not as it's about $40k underinsured in the current market.

I tend to agree though that it does create a perverse incentive, and that engine failure in flight should really be covered. Pro-rating it SMOH/TBO would be fair. As rare as in-flight engine failures are, I can't imagine it would add that much. That would require a competitive insurance market though. If I was smart I would've ran over a taxi light after landing. The prop strike inspection would've been covered, and I couldn't see the damn things anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
Well, probably not as it's about $40k underinsured in the current market.

I tend to agree though that it does create a perverse incentive, and that engine failure in flight should really be covered. Pro-rating it SMOH/TBO would be fair. As rare as in-flight engine failures are, I can't imagine it would add that much.
Click to expand...
Can’t believe the insurance companies have missed this opportunity- a add on rider, small fee - right in the middle of their business model.:rolleyes:
 
I don't think the oil pressure drop is going to be an issue for a couple of reasons. 1. 10 psi indicates it was still moving oil thru the system giving you some lubricity between moving parts. 2. Anything affected first by lack of oil is a consumable part ie crank, rod, and cam bearings. Highly unlikely to have caused any bluing or removed the heat treating on the cam or crank journals.

This is all just my opinion and I'm sure to get ripped by someone here much smarter than me.....:cool:
 
Kitch said:
I don't think the oil pressure drop is going to be an issue for a couple of reasons. 1. 10 psi indicates it was still moving oil thru the system giving you some lubricity between moving parts. 2. Anything affected first by lack of oil is a consumable part ie crank, rod, and cam bearings. Highly unlikely to have caused any bluing or removed the heat treating on the cam or crank journals.

This is all just my opinion and I'm sure to get ripped by someone here much smarter than me.....:cool:
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, but here’s the problem. I don’t know what or if there is something downstream of the prop governor that maybe was getting zero. Probably nothing, but maybe something.
 
well dang, narrow deck 540 has same configuration on that shaft, will be putting an eye ball on that.
 
thito01 said:
It's a shame that it would have been financially better to have damaged the plane beyond repair during the forced landing that to have done such a good job and now have to pay for a new engine.:(
Click to expand...
Jim K said:
I tend to agree though that it does create a perverse incentive, and that engine failure in flight should really be covered. Pro-rating it SMOH/TBO would be fair. As rare as in-flight engine failures are, I can't imagine it would add that much. That would require a competitive insurance market though. If I was smart I would've ran over a taxi light after landing. The prop strike inspection would've been covered, and I couldn't see the damn things anyway.
Click to expand...

I've heard some Cirrus owners say if the engine goes they would rather pull the chute than glide to a perfectly good landing as insurance would cover the plane under the chute, but they be on the hook for the new engine if they glided to a nice landing at an airport.
 
Salty said:
I don’t disagree, but here’s the problem. I don’t know what or if there is something downstream of the prop governor that maybe was getting zero. Probably nothing, but maybe something.
Click to expand...

I'll go along with you on that. I'm curious to hear what the IRAN reveals.
 
Jim K said:
View attachment 104768
:(
Baby steps.

Said there was about 2 quarts left in it.
Click to expand...

That is what you call a critical engine...twin folks understand that the critical engine of a multi-engine fixed-wing aircraft is the engine that, in the event of failure, would most adversely affect the performance or handling abilities of an aircraft.

In a singe engine the critical engine is the only engine...
 
How many hours were on that engine? To this novice, it looks almost new? Maybe because they cleaned it up?

Is 2qts enough or is that yet to be seen?
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
How many hours were on that engine? To this novice, it looks almost new? Maybe because they cleaned it up?

Is 2qts enough or is that yet to be seen?
Click to expand...
It was washed at annual in October, but it didn't hardly leak a drop. Obviously it got a good oil bath like the rest of the plane. 850 SMOH in 2006. It was a beautiful engine that they obviously put a lot of time & effort into painting.

In theory it could run with two quarts, but as low as the oil pressure was who knows. The striking part to me is that it pumped out 6+ quarts in about 6 minutes.
 
This has to be one of my biggest fears while flying. But hey, this is a good argument for having synthetic vision like with a G3X or Skyview.
 
NotarPilot said:
having synthetic vision like with a G3X or Skyview.
Click to expand...

You know... that never even crossed my mind. I have syn vis available (I think) in garmin pilot. I've never really used it as I just didn't see much value in it. It would've made lining up to the RW so much easier. I need to start training with that feature.

Another thing I've been thinking about....I never picked up a checklist or ran through the ABC's. Arguably I didn't have time, but if we'd had to land in a field, it would've been good to do some of those things. I should've given the checklist to Teresa and had her read it to me. If I'd remembered to go to best glide immediately, it would've been easier on the engine, and given me more time to find the airport, communicate, etc. I think because the engine was running more or less normally, it caused me to fly it more or less normally.
 
I'm thinking you did the right thing.....slowing the engine could have meant the engine failure sooner and an off field landing.
 
Zeldman said:
That is what you call a critical engine...twin folks understand that the critical engine of a multi-engine fixed-wing aircraft is the engine that, in the event of failure, would most adversely affect the performance or handling abilities of an aircraft.

In a singe engine the critical engine is the only engine...
Click to expand...
The critical engine is the engine without enough oil in it.
 
Jim K said:
You know... that never even crossed my mind. I have syn vis available (I think) in garmin pilot. I've never really used it as I just didn't see much value in it. It would've made lining up to the RW so much easier. I need to start training with that feature.
Click to expand...

A CFI I know mentioned to me once that he was flying with a student, who owned his own plane with a glass cockpit and synthetic vision, and his student was doing an ILS approach. He challenged the student to keep the foggles on almost all the way to the runway, with the CFI acting as a good safety pilot to make sure the airplane remained safe. Using the synthetic vision the student was able to get the plane nearly all the way to the runway.
 
Jim K said:
Teresa was able to see it out her side window and get me lined up with the RW until we were low enough I could see the edge through my little corner.
Click to expand...

Is Teresa a pilot, too? Seems like a heck of a cool head to keep calm and guide you in when you can't see!
 
Taft said:
Is Teresa a pilot, too? Seems like a heck of a cool head to keep calm and guide you in when you can't see!
Click to expand...
No...I've tried to convince her to do a "pinch hitter" type course but she has zero interest.

She told me later, "I could see the airport out my window, and you stopped turning and I could tell you were looking for it....I thought, 'oh my God he doesn't know where the airport is...I need to say something!'". So it was mainly survival instinct lol. It would've been real hard to do by myself though. I was very grateful she didn't start screaming or grabbing on to me. She stayed very calm. She said that the fact I wasn't panicking made her feel better.

This sounds silly... but I attribute at least some of my calmness to a couple of YouTube videos. I watched one some time ago about a student pilot who had a similar issue with an oil covered windshield, but a still-running engine. I think it was an AOPA ASF video. Anyway that one introduced to me the idea that that's a thing that can happen, and it's survivable. Another one that actually went through my head in the moment was Jason Miller constantly talking about "the Lindbergh reference". He teaches his students to gauge their landing looking out the lower left corner of the windshield. I had tried this a bit and didn't really care for it that much, but I did know that it was doable. When that was the only part of my windshield I could see through, it gave me some peace that if I could get it over the runway I could put it down safely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top