Warbird Information Exchange

Hi All,

In case anyone can make use of this in a Flight Ops setting, here's my helmet-cam upload of engine-cuts-to-touchdown during checkrides this year, in a PT-26, Fleet Finch, and Harvard/T-6.

https://youtu.be/zJebLnq4tRs

[youtube]https://youtu.be/zJebLnq4tRs[/youtube]

Dave

Thank you for posting, I watched it twice and may watch again. A friend of my dad had a Fleet Finch and I think it went to the CWM. Looks fun to fly. I appreciate that you say, "get the nose down" . My first engine failure in a J-3C-90 I froze and the nose was sticking way up in the air. The prop quit turning and I had to lower the nose to keep from a massive stall about 150' above the ground. I've had five engine failures and two prop failures over the years.
A couple of things I add is "When the engine stops, ask yourself , why did it just quit?" Many people have landed off field when all they had to do is apply carb heat or switch tanks, etc. A lot of people miss that on the flight review. Another thing is I tell them when the engine quits to look right below you and see if there's a field. Many times I've had students pick a field out the window when there was a grass strip or better field right below them.
Last, here the FAA teaches flying a square pattern in the emergency. Set up for a downwind, base and final. Again, this is great if you have the luxury of altitude. Sometimes i suggest point the nose directly at the intended landing area. When you get there you can decide how much base and final to add to bleed off altitude. Often, the pilot miscalculates the sink rate, wind, and the adverse effect of the prop wind milling which is significant. We had a triple fatality at a nearby airport where the pilots engine was failing immediately after takeoff. Landing straight ahead would've been great but she had started a turn to the right. For some reason they tried to continue the turn to the right. The Piper PA-28-235 hates turning against the torque and they developed a hellish sink rate. The airplane flat and didn't spin but the sink rate and impact resulted in fatalities. It's important to know if the airplane has some quirks like that. The Maule M-7-260 also won't turn to the right at low airspeeds and high angle of attack.

That's a great video and good to see a culture of currency being taught!

Related-but-unrelated question: part of all of my checkouts in vintage aircraft have always involved simulated engine failures - by "suddenly" (relative term) cutting the throttle to idle. As I'm starting to dabble into the warbird world I'm now getting to operate aircraft with geared engines. How do you go about simulated engine failures on geared-engine equipped airplanes so you aren't abusing the equipment? Unfortunately, because of this concern I've never done a full-idle landing in one airplane. Am I over-concerned about being rough on the gear box or is there another approach to this? How do you handle the Spitfire or Hurricane?

_________________
Ryan Pemberton
www.pembertonandsons.com

Training does not equal abuse and you would just be doing this occasionally. Overhaul costs might go up due to parts replacement from worn out gears, but an engine should not fail because of it. Think of all the TB-25s used in training for example. Didn't Art Scholl use a GO-480 in his Super Chipmunk?

Great video! Especially the PT-26!

_________________
Rauhbatz
Commemorative Air Force
CAF Ohio Wing/Airbase Georgia Member
PT-19/26, T-34 CAF Pilot


Favorite quote from Wind, Sand & Stars - A. St. Exupuery "friends are like trees...when they are gone we miss their shade"

Agreed - and that is generally how I've tried to rationalize it in my head. Doing something that is considered "not great practice" just a few times will probably have no negative impacts. But it's good to hear it out-loud or see it written down


I've thought of that too. Also, those airplanes were operated with a military budget and a pile of mechanics with a shop full of brand-new parts.


That one still amazes me. The GO-480 is a notoriously finicky engine, I don't know how anybody thought that combination was a good one! I also think of all of the M-14P powered Yak-55's and Sukhoi 26/29's out there tearing it up!

_________________
Ryan Pemberton
www.pembertonandsons.com

Many years ago I completed the course at Stallion 51. Lee Louderback and I performed a simiuated engine out to land in the TF-51D. I don't remember the exact power setting but I remember he added some flaps and a bit of power. This approximated the sink rate and glide ratio of the P-51 engine out in the clean configuration. I have since done the same when giving checkouts in light aircraft when the engine type is known to be temperamental, like the IO-520, for example. With the GO-480 you would want to add enough flaps that the engine produces some thrust so as to not strain the propellor, gearbox , etc. Also, I don't repeat. Usually, I brief and then give them a chance. If they screw it up, then I demonstrate. It's important to make sure the turns are coordinated and the ball is centered. this ensures the engine is getting proper airflow for cooling. Keeping the ball centered is important to reduce the chance of a stall spin while maneuvering close to the ground.

Nice work, Dave. Over the past 20ish years, Youtube has transformed from a dubious novelty to what has become a quality tv channel. The airlines, citing the learning habits of the younger generation, have transitioned to training videos and I like them; yet the phrase, "A picture's worth 1000 words" is certainly not new. Much in the way that Randy Sohn's "Warbird Notes" have a deserved following, maybe there should/could be a set of videos for the future?

As an aside, I also brief and, under the right circumstances, teach takeoff power loss in a modern aircraft. Well, it's more of a pitch attitude change demo due to lack of time and for risk management. A key point, IMHO, is that years of practice at altitude have created a mental picture of how much "dirt vs sky" is seen as framed by the windshield and windows when gliding on speed. In addition, the simulated power loss typically begins at cruise speed attitude, not that of initial climbout. At very low altitudes, as you know, there is a very different picture while gliding, with much more "dirt" visible. The required change from nose high to nose low just doesn't seem right. The result is an insidious tendency to raise the nose in order to fix the perceived pitch error and the airplane gets dangerously slow. Your advice about pointing down first, flying the airplane, and saving remedy actions is spot on.

Thanks for taking the time to produce and share this!
Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Thanks! Yeah, YT is a lot like conversation in a bar: some of it can be very useful, some is posturing crap.

We sold our dual-control P-40, so all flights in the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang are solo. Training for them takes place in the classroom, and as an over-wing briefing; but ability is confirmed in the Harvard.

The WWII system of "Elementary Trainer-then-Harvard/T-6" is really the best. We value it highly. If you can demonstrate competency in the Harvard then the fighters won't challenge your hands and feet too much. Flying the front-line aircraft was mostly about fighting and weapons, not basic skills; which had been proven by then if you got your wings in a Harvard.

In the Merlins we try to keep "positive boost": manifold pressure above 30"/0lbs. This is generally considered helpful to extract longevity from high-performance supercharged piston engines. (Simply put, it pushes seals into place rather than sucks them out.) So we avoid yanking the throttle off. An overhaul now costs 4 times what my first house did.

It's not great for a 1340 either of course, but the fix is a lot cheaper.

Yes, as Ken said, immediately after takeoff, 100-200 AGL, the change from a climbing attitude to an engine-out gliding attitude in a trainer is a bit shocking. It takes a strangely large nose-down rotation. But the airspeed is decaying almost instantly, so there's no alternative.

Dave

Thanks for the response and input. That's pretty much in line with the path I've taken. Experience in primary trainers, now flying a T-6 and soon to move to faster/heavier equipment. "Unfortunately" (only unfortunate b/c the training aspect!) for me, the T-6 I'm flying has a 1340-AN2 (geared) engine in it so we baby it just like the Allisons, Merlins and bigger radials. I'm confident I can "feel the wing" and keep the thing flying if it ever came to a full blown engine failure, but I'd like to get the sight picture, speeds and energy decay feel at least once or twice. None of it is my equipment, so I want to respect the equipment and treat it all well!

_________________
Ryan Pemberton
www.pembertonandsons.com