Instructing in Twins - Aerodynamics of Vmc Rollover
Jonah Rogin
So I just passed my MEI checkride, but I'm realizing that my
understanding of Vmc rollover dangers ought to be a bit better before
I actually start instructing in the twin (Cessna 303). Here's what I
know so far: there are actually two distinct risks associated with one
engine inoperative (OEI) flight at low airspeed: spin and Vmc
rollover. Which one you get will depend on stall speed vs. Vmc.
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about this, tendency to just
lump them into one, and my DE even told me a story about an FAA pilot
who got spun in a twin, lost maybe 1000 feet, and came back telling
stories of his Vmc roll. But according to the DE, you would lose
upwards of 3000 feet in a real Vmc roll...
So I guess the bigger danger is Vmc rollover, and I feel comfortable
enough with spins that I could imagine getting out of one alive, even
in a twin. But with Vmc, I really can't visualize the aerodynamics
that would make it Roll Over, and why it would result in such
catastrophic altitude loss. Vmc demos, in my experience, are very
gentle affairs, just a gradual loss of directional control that almost
looks like a standard rate turn toward the failed engine. Obviously
it would happen faster if you pitched up faster, but even with an
over-enthusiastic student at the controls, I have trouble imagining
that it could happen fast enough to get out of hand. Comments, advice
here? What is the best way to recover if you do get Vmc rolled?
I guess the worse scenarios would be for example practicing power on
stalls (low airspeed, high power) and one engine fails, or you are
singled up on final, get low and slow, and jam the power, causing it
to tip up on one wing; I can kind of understand how the propwash
causes excessive lift on one side, and a rolling moment. But if
anyone could discuss the aerodynamics in greater detail, that would be
helpful.
Thanks,
Jonah Rogin
Mike Granby
> But with Vmc, I really can't visualize the aerodynamics
> that would make it Roll Over, and why it would result in
> such catastrophic altitude loss.
This site is normally pretty good on these things...
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/how/htm/multi.html#sec-1out-coordination
--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane
Dennis O'Connor
direction it's already going until upright again... Try not to dive it too
hard in the process, i.e. gentle forward pressure while upside down, gentle
back pressure when coming around upright......
"Jonah Rogin" <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71a311e9.02082...@posting.google.com...
Nathan Parker
another instructor, so I was a little complacent.
The accident data that I've seen show the source of accidents to be
from three sources:
1) Loss of directional control
2) Stall/spin
3) Loss of performance
I suspect, however, that loss of performance leads pilots to get the
airplane slow in an effort to pitch for altitude, thus leading to loss
of directional control or a stall/spin.
As for the rolling tendency, in addition to the induced airflow from
the working engine, roll forces will come from yaw (overbanking
tendency) and dihedral.
Mac McClellan of Flying Magazine did an article entitled "Stalling a
Twin" a few years ago. Raytheon did some spin testing on a B55 Baron
and Mac's summary:
"Aviation is full of myths that endure for decades and one of those is
that if a Baron is stalled with an engine out it will instantly snap
over into some sort of unrecoverable spin. That simply isn't true.
...test show that even if a pilot sits there whle the airplane
completes a full turn in a spin, recovery is possible, and if the
pilot is even somewhat competent and applies normal stall-spin
recovery controls, the recovery is nearly instantaneous."
But at least one time the test pilot had to pop the spin chute, so
there are no guarantees in life.
Dan Thompson
complete aileron roll? At what bank angle do you decide to keep rolling
instead of rolling back the opposite way (after closing the throttle on the
operative engine)?
JerryK
ground. So there is not the room to compete a roll.
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:um7mu4e...@corp.supernews.com...
Larry Dighera
<dt...@NOSPAMswbell.net> (Dan Thompson) wrote in Message ID
<EyU89.575$MH1.56...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
When a pilot closes the throttle on the only operational engine of a
twin in landing configuration, the sink rate can nearly approach
infinity very near the ground. The temptation to keep some power to
arrest descent (into the terrain) results in asymmetrical thrust.
If the pilot in the pattern is forced to turn into the dead engine, he
may reach a bank angle of as little as 5-degrees from which he cannot
return to wings level (so I've been told), and thus continue rolling.
He then MUST close the throttle to regain some control, which will
likely result in landing short.
It would seem that a low-level roll would likely result in contact
with the terrain while out of control of the aircraft; that is not
nearly as survivable as being in control (I've also been told).
Apparently, there is information for a given type aircraft regarding
maximum bank angle into the dead engine contained in its POH.
Lacking first-hand experience, that's my 2¢.
Nathan Parker
The "don't turn into the dead engine" is a myth.
Dennis O'Connor
doesn't it...
Perhaps a better solution is GOOD training so that going below Vmc simply
is not allowed to develop...
Denny
"JerryK" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0QW89.199453$sA3.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Dennis O'Connor
The comment was based on being inverted, or nearly so...
Denny
"Dan Thompson" <dt...@NOSPAMswbell.net> wrote in message
news:EyU89.575$MH1.56...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Rick Durden
> If the pilot in the pattern is forced to turn into the dead engine, he
> may reach a bank angle of as little as 5-degrees from which he cannot
> return to wings level (so I've been told), and thus continue rolling.
> He then MUST close the throttle to regain some control, which will
> likely result in landing short.
Absolute nonsense. The "don't turn into a dead engine" old wive's
tales should not be repeated. It is total and complete crap. Any
turn, whether into or away from the dead engine is actually two turns,
one into it and one away from it. The issue is maintaing enough
airspeed to have control of the aircraft. If one allows speed to
deteriorate below that which is necessary to overcome the effect of
thrust from the operative engine the solution is to either increase
speed or reduce power. Either may result in ground contract.
However, if ground contact occurs while right side up, the statistics
are pretty good on the chances for survival. When the pilot attempts
to get performance out of an airplane that was never built in, and
does not accelerate or reduce power on the operative engine, the
airplane will roll, just as if rudder were applied. Hitting the
ground upside down, or in a steep nose down attitude has a much lower
chance of survival.
In the pattern with an engine out, the airplane is flown through a
normal pattern, however, gear and flap deployment may be delayed
somewhat (depending on the airplane and its systems) because once the
airplane is in landing configuration the altitude that must be
sacrificed while cleaning up the airplane for a go around (if indeed
the airplane will climb on one engine...many will not) may exceed the
altitude available. You do not fly a higher than normal pattern as
those who do so tend to overshoot as they discover a feathered prop
has much less drag than a windmilling prop and the airplane does not
decelerate as they expect on final. Also adding an abnormal procedure
or perspective during an emergency is one good way to arrange to
mishandle the emergency.
In general, if the pilot treats the aerodynamics of a failed engine as
if it were application of rudder, things are pretty easy to
understand. Bob Garnder's books have more detailed explanations.
Stalling a twin with one engine at idle or inoperative is not usually
a wise thing to do (practice bleeding as it were) and, as with
applying lots of rudder at the stall, there is the risk of a spin.
This discussion started with the person describing getting the rating
in a Cessna T303, which is probably the most benign handling twin ever
built. I can understand why Vmc is tough to understand after flying
that airplane because it is so very easy to fly with one engine out.
I would suggest the pilot go get some time in a more conventional
twin, one that does not have counter rotating props, to see what Vmc
feels like. The T303 is a fabulous personal airplane, but kind of
docile to be a good trainer...it doesn't teach one about the bad
habits of older twins, designed before some of the information on
stability and control that was applied to the T303 was available.
All the best,
Rick
Dan Thompson
nearly inverted" situation.
Michael
> understanding of Vmc rollover dangers ought to be a bit better before
> I actually start instructing in the twin (Cessna 303). Here's what I
> know so far: there are actually two distinct risks associated with one
> engine inoperative (OEI) flight at low airspeed: spin and Vmc
> rollover. Which one you get will depend on stall speed vs. Vmc.
So far, so good.
> There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about this, tendency to just
> lump them into one, and my DE even told me a story about an FAA pilot
> who got spun in a twin, lost maybe 1000 feet, and came back telling
> stories of his Vmc roll. But according to the DE, you would lose
> upwards of 3000 feet in a real Vmc roll...
Once again, the main source of confusion seems to be the FAA.
Typical.
How much altitude you would lose in a Vmc roll is a function of the
airplane, the conditions, the entry, and the recovery. The real
problem is that Vmc rolls are not a maneuver commonly performed more
than once. That's not to say they couldn't be, but they're not so
there's not a lot of good information out there.
> So I guess the bigger danger is Vmc rollover, and I feel comfortable
> enough with spins that I could imagine getting out of one alive, even
> in a twin.
Some twins seem to spin and recover OK. I've heard lots of stories of
people spinning Apaches, for example. I've never heard of anyone
spinning a Twin Comanche and surviving. Not sure about the Cessna
303. Actaully, I'm amazed that a high maintenance turbocharged cabin
class twin like that is being used as a trainer, and I'm even more
amazed that a green MEI is insurable to teach in it. I'm assuming
this means you have plenty of flight time in the 303, so you will know
the handling characteristics.
More to the point, I think you're far more likely to get a spin than a
Vmc roll in the training environment. More on that later.
> But with Vmc, I really can't visualize the aerodynamics
> that would make it Roll Over, and why it would result in such
> catastrophic altitude loss. Vmc demos, in my experience, are very
> gentle affairs, just a gradual loss of directional control that almost
> looks like a standard rate turn toward the failed engine. Obviously
> it would happen faster if you pitched up faster, but even with an
> over-enthusiastic student at the controls, I have trouble imagining
> that it could happen fast enough to get out of hand. Comments, advice
> here?
This, once again, depends on the airplane. There are twins where you
can literally do complete 360's, with one engine going full bore and
the other one idle, controlling the rate of turn with pitch. There
are other airplanes where that exercise will flip you on your back the
moment you hit the first bit of turbulence. Somehow I'm amazed the
303 falls into the former category.
I happen to own an airplane that for many years was virtually
uninsurable as a trainer. The Twin Comanche was the entry level twin
that Piper had Swearingen make out of the single Comanche as the new
entry level twin. It was a replacement for the grossly underpowered
but incredibly docile Apache, which was really the first of the
trainer twins, designed by Stinson as a rag-and-tube bird and
metallized by Piper. Many MEI's in those days had cut their teeth on
the Apache, and were the first to teach in the Twin Comanche. The
result was carnage on a large scale.
You see, the same people who did 360's in the Apache and could not
imagine things happening fast enough to get out of hand were flipping
over and dying. The FAA's policy of doing Vmc demos as low as
possible (to have maximum engine power available) was also not helping
matters.
> What is the best way to recover if you do get Vmc rolled?
You know, I asked that question a lot. I was told that as long as I
caught it before I went knife edge, pulling the throttles to idle,
lowering the nose, and rolling level would do the trick. Let it go
past knife edge, and, well, my multi instructor, who has well over
10,000 hours, over 500 in the Twin Comanche (and hundreds more in
other light twins), and used to hold a 300 ft aerobatic waiver just
didn't have any ideas. He said maybe if you are very good you could
complete the roll. I know I'm not that good.
> I guess the worse scenarios would be for example practicing power on
> stalls (low airspeed, high power) and one engine fails
Yes, but not for a Vmc roll. You typically do power-on stalls in a
twin with no more than 65% power - less if it's a very high
performance twin, and with a forward cg because there are only the two
of you in the airplane. At 65% power or less and forward cg, most
twins can't Vmc roll - the minimum control speed is less than stall
speed. What will happen in the event of an engine failure is worse.
You will lose speed rapidly, you will be uncoordinated, you will stall
the wing with the dead engine far more deeply than the one with the
good engine because the one with the good engine will have an
accelerated slipstream while the one with the dead engine will have a
windmilling propeller blanking airflow - and you will get a violent
wing drop and, if you're not on the ball, a spin.
> or you are
> singled up on final, get low and slow, and jam the power, causing it
> to tip up on one wing
This actually kills more Twin Comanche pilots than engine failures on
takeoff. To understand why, you need to think about how Vmc is
defined.
The definition of Vmc includes 5 degrees of bank into the good engine.
With wings level, the minimum control speed goes up. Banked into the
dead engine, it goes up still more. Depending on the airplane, the
difference between 5 degrees of bank into the good engine and 5
degrees of bank into the dead engine can mean a difference in excess
of 15 kts.
So here you are, left engine not making power, coming down final, and
you have a crosswind from your left. On short final, you have
abandoned blue line and have comitted to landing. Your power is set,
speed is stable at Vmc or maybe Vsse (if you can afford that much
speed with the runway length you have - unless you have a very long
runway, you can't afford to do that with a cabin class twin), and you
lower the left wing and put in right rudder to establish the slip.
Your airspeed starts bleeding off and you start sinking out. You're
already dirty and behind the power curve. You start raising the nose
to point at the numbers as you advance the throttle...
Once an instructor actually survived a Vmc rollover in a Twin
Comanche. They had shoulder harnesses and were really low when it
happened. Thus we know his story.
> I can kind of understand how the propwash
> causes excessive lift on one side, and a rolling moment. But if
> anyone could discuss the aerodynamics in greater detail, that would be
> helpful.
Well, you've described the accelerated slipstream effect. This is a
rolling tendency, exacerbated by the fact that on the dead side the
windmilling prop is blanking air to the midsection of the wing,
stealing energy from it to turn the dead engine.
In addition, you have yaw-roll coupling issues. In most airplanes, as
you get slow the yaw-roll coupling becomes more pronounced and you can
pretty much steer with your feet. Obviously the good engine is adding
lots of thrust and the dead one drag, so there is great differential
yaw that is coupled into roll.
Not sure how much more detail there is to provide.
Michael
Jonah Rogin
> direction it's already going until upright again... Try not to dive it too
> hard in the process, i.e. gentle forward pressure while upside down, gentle
> back pressure when coming around upright......
>
That doesn't sound too hard (I'm already an aerobatic instructor).
Couldn't imagine it using up much more than 500 feet. Maybe people
usually try to split-S out of it? Talking about a training scenario
here at ~4000 AGL, rather than low level ...
Jonah
Tien Dao
TD
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.02082...@posting.google.com...
Bob Gardner
lost, I hope your student is smaller and weaker than you are, or that you
carry something to render him or her unconscious. Aerobatic students expect
to be upside down, MEL students do not...so you might find yourself fighting
for control. After the only twin training fatal at the school where I got my
MEL, the yoke on the student's side was found to be torn completely off of
the shaft when the wreckage was recovered from Puget Sound. Hate to think
what the instructor was faced with in those last moments.
Bob Gardner
"Jonah Rogin" <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71a311e9.02082...@posting.google.com...
highflyer
Unless you are at the top of a loop or purposely doing a split ess
maneuver, the best way to get an airplane right side up is to roll. The
easiest way to roll is in the direction you are already rolling. No
inertia to alter.
An Apache will do it quite nicely. Been there, done that! :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
Airplanes differ so I don't think you can give a hard and fast rule. In
my case I elected to continue the roll after passing knife edge
position. I was definately not fully inverted. I used a bit of forward
pressure and full aileron in the direction of roll. Equal power on both
engines. Lost 400 feet. Which was good, because I only had about 425
to start with. ( On final approach, roll due to wake turbulence ) Came
wings level a few seconds prior to touchdown on the runway.
Wouldn't care to make another landing that way, but I did successfully
make ONE! :-)
highflyer
>
> <<If the pilot in the pattern is forced to turn into the dead engine>>
>
> The "don't turn into the dead engine" is a myth.
Bob Hoover used to do rolls into the dead engine in the Shrike Commander
in his airshow routine. However, he usually feathered both engines
before he landed! :-)
highflyer
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:33:08 GMT, "Dan Thompson"
> <dt...@NOSPAMswbell.net> (Dan Thompson) wrote in Message ID
> <EyU89.575$MH1.56...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>
> >I don't see a smiley, so I assume you are serious about recommending a
> >complete aileron roll? At what bank angle do you decide to keep rolling
> >instead of rolling back the opposite way (after closing the throttle on the
> >operative engine)?
>
> When a pilot closes the throttle on the only operational engine of a
> twin in landing configuration, the sink rate can nearly approach
> infinity very near the ground. The temptation to keep some power to
> arrest descent (into the terrain) results in asymmetrical thrust.
>
> If the pilot in the pattern is forced to turn into the dead engine, he
> may reach a bank angle of as little as 5-degrees from which he cannot
> return to wings level (so I've been told), and thus continue rolling.
> He then MUST close the throttle to regain some control, which will
> likely result in landing short.
>
I have done both. In the pattern. Even on final. Never landed
"short." :-)
> It would seem that a low-level roll would likely result in contact
> with the terrain while out of control of the aircraft; that is not
> nearly as survivable as being in control (I've also been told).
>
> Apparently, there is information for a given type aircraft regarding
> maximum bank angle into the dead engine contained in its POH.
>
There is a recommended bank angle given in the POH for engine out.
Banking away from the dead engine creates a turning moment that cancels
at least a portion of the turning moment created by the asymetrical
thrust of the operative engine.
Normally you apply rudder and bank both to cancel the turning moment in
a twin with one feathered. This is the bank angle given in the POH for
engine out operation. It is usually about 5 degrees.
> Lacking first-hand experience, that's my 2¢.
Without some experience, that is all it was worth! :-)
highflyer
>
> Mac McClellan of Flying Magazine did an article entitled "Stalling a
> Twin" a few years ago. Raytheon did some spin testing on a B55 Baron
> and Mac's summary:
>
> "Aviation is full of myths that endure for decades and one of those is
> that if a Baron is stalled with an engine out it will instantly snap
> over into some sort of unrecoverable spin. That simply isn't true.
> ...test show that even if a pilot sits there whle the airplane
> completes a full turn in a spin, recovery is possible, and if the
> pilot is even somewhat competent and applies normal stall-spin
> recovery controls, the recovery is nearly instantaneous."
>
> But at least one time the test pilot had to pop the spin chute, so
> there are no guarantees in life.
The retired FBO at my field used to give MEI ratings in a Beech
Travelair. A "Baby Baron" if you will! :-)
Had a ham handed student who did a fine VMC demo. As the airplane
started to turn, my friend said "Ok, recover it now."
The student proceeded to haul the yoke back into his lap. The airplane
did a nice roll to full inverted and fell into a split ess. My friend
took the controls and continued the roll easing it back into level
flight. Lost about a thousand feet pretty quickly. The student never
did figure out why he hauled it back instead of easing it forward. :-)
Nathan Parker
easing it forward. :-)>>
Great lesson for instructors...never take anything for granted!
Jonah Rogin
has replied so far. I went to the link provided by Mike Granby
www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/how/htm/multi.html#sec-1out-coordination
(see section 17.2.7)
and read their discussion of the matter. They actually mention three
possibilities for OEI loss of control: Vmc, spin, and (?!) rudder
stall. They describe rudder stall as having pretty nasty effects, but
I have never even heard of it before, so we'll leave that alone for
now. They also claim that a true Vmc "loss of control" in a Vmc demo
scenario is a non-event, I suppose because you are approaching the
_airspeed_ relatively gradually, rather than suddenly developing
asymmetric _power_, as in the low-and-slow scenario. And this is
consistent with my observations,
> Many MEI's in those days had cut their teeth on
> the Apache, and were the first to teach in the Twin Comanche. The
> result was carnage on a large scale.
so I guess my question is - what makes an Apache so docile, where a
Twin Comanche will flip you over? It just doesn't make sense to me
how this could happen so abrubtly in any airplane. I've done snap
rolls in a Cap 10, so I've seen how abrubt an asymmetric stall can be,
but just asymmetric thrust with gradually eroding rudder authority ..?
> my multi instructor, who has well over
> 10,000 hours, over 500 in the Twin Comanche (and hundreds more in
> other light twins), and used to hold a 300 ft aerobatic waiver just
> didn't have any ideas.
But why? What would make it so much harder to complete an aileron
roll in a twin than a Cap 10? I know, not a lot of good information
about Vmc aileron rolls in a twin. But it seems like we should at
least be able to speculate about the aerodynamics. Maybe it's the low
airspeed? Come to think of it, I've never done an aileron roll at
anything remotely close to stall speed, maybe I'll go up in the Cap
and give it a try.
Jonah
P.S. I got my initial multi in a PA-34 200 (Seneca?), so I've
probably explored Vmc more in that ship than in the Crusader.
Dylan Smith
>so I guess my question is - what makes an Apache so docile, where a
>Twin Comanche will flip you over?
Big, fat forgiving wing versus a much more slippery airfoil (with a more
abrupt stall).
Even so, the Apache can bite you. An MEI friend of mine was giving some
dual to a particularly "mechanical" student, who (not during a VMC
demo, just a power-off stall) when instructed to pick up a dropping wing
with a little rudder as opposed to aileron during a stall, decided to
slam in FULL rudder. My MEI friend was quite surprised about how quickly
the Apache entered an incipient spin, because it's normally just so docile.
I also know a new MEI who almost got the same Apache in a spin during
a VMC demo. In the docile Apache!
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Larry Dighera
(Rick Durden) wrote in Message ID
<d9fecbe.02082...@posting.google.com>:
>Larry,
>
>> If the pilot in the pattern is forced to turn into the dead engine, he
>> may reach a bank angle of as little as 5-degrees from which he cannot
>> return to wings level (so I've been told), and thus continue rolling.
>> He then MUST close the throttle to regain some control, which will
>> likely result in landing short.
>
>Absolute nonsense. The "don't turn into a dead engine" old wive's
>tales should not be repeated. It is total and complete crap.
Perhaps. I got my information in this newsgroup. I have included
representative messages from that thread below which originally gave
me the notion. (Please see --> below)
>Any turn, whether into or away from the dead engine is actually two turns,
>one into it and one away from it. The issue is maintaing enough
>airspeed to have control of the aircraft. If one allows speed to
>deteriorate below that which is necessary to overcome the effect of
>thrust from the operative engine the solution is to either increase
>speed or reduce power. Either may result in ground contract.
>However, if ground contact occurs while right side up, the statistics
>are pretty good on the chances for survival. When the pilot attempts
>to get performance out of an airplane that was never built in, and
>does not accelerate or reduce power on the operative engine, the
>airplane will roll, just as if rudder were applied. Hitting the
>ground upside down, or in a steep nose down attitude has a much lower
>chance of survival.
That seems to have been a factor in the accident summary I included
below, but I find it curious, given the pilot was an experienced
fighter pilot. Perhaps you might be able to analyse that accident and
reach a different conclusion.
--> From: Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
--> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
--> Subject: Re: Aerostar
--> Message-ID:
<5pgq6ug2klhl1c63o...@news-server.socal.rr.com>
--> References: <3C6C95D5...@fergworld.com>
<u6p7aun...@corp.supernews.com> <3C6D134C...@fergworld.com>
-->
-->
--> Whenever I hear the name Aerostar it reminds me of the last flight
of
--> a good friend. He flew F-4s in Viet Nam, had a degree in
engineering,
--> and became an aviation attorney. He was careful and
knowledgeable,
--> but somehow that Aerostar killed him. The summary of the NTSB
report
--> is here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35941&key=1
--> But, it fails to provide the full story as does the full 90+ page
--> NTSB report.
-->
--> I'm happy to see you have mentioned the fuel system as a possible
--> source of concern. So does the NTSB report. (I believe there is
also
--> a recent engine related Airworthiness Directive about to be issued
by
--> the FAA: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regaerostar.html
)
-->
-->
--> =============================================================
--> Northridge Lawyer Handled Air-Crash Cases Dead Pilot Known as
--> Skilled, Careful Flier
--> Los Angeles, Calif.; Mar 8, 1985; BIEDERMAN;
-->
--> Abstract:
--> [Lewis M. Brody] was an experienced, safety-conscious pilot who
had
--> survived being shot down while an Air Force flier in Vietnam,
--> according to Jeffrey Matz, Brody's partner in the Encino law firm
of
--> Matz, Brody & Albert.
-->
--> In the past five years, Brody had handled 12 cases involving
airplane
--> crashes, Matz said. He said the firm on Thursday retained such a
--> specialist who will study Brody's crash with an eye toward a
lawsuit.
-->
--> Matz said the Aerostar in which Brody died was owned by the law
firm.
--> Brody flew it several times a week, always taking along the
battered
--> khaki flight bag he had carried in Vietnam. Like his colleagues,
he
--> referred to the plane, in aviators' jargon, by its registration
--> number-Triple Seven Papa Lima (777PL).
-->
--> The pilot killed Wednesday night when his light plane crashed into
a
--> San Fernando Valley residence was identified Thursday as Lewis M.
--> Brody of Northridge, a lawyer whose specialties included air-crash
--> litigation.
-->
--> Brody, 41, died when his Piper Aerostar crashed into a residence
at
--> 9545 Ruffner Ave. in Sepulveda.
-->
--> Ken Ashton, 38, the only occupant of the house, was watching
--> television in the living room. He escaped from the burning
building
--> with minor injuries by diving through a blown-out window. No one
else
--> was hurt. The house was reduced to rubble.
-->
--> Brody went down at 6:58 p.m. as he was attempting to take his
disabled
--> plane into Van Nuys Airport, Audrey Schutte, head of the National
--> Transportation Safety Board team investigating the crash, said
--> Thursday. The cause of the crash will probably not be known for
--> several weeks, she said.
-->
--> On Thursday, Schutte supervised the removal of the wrecked plane
from
--> the charred site. About two dozen spectators stood on the street
and
--> sidewalk. A neighbor said Ashton had stood silently among the
--> onlookers for a while.
-->
--> Called Safety-Conscious
-->
--> Brody was an experienced, safety-conscious pilot who had survived
--> being shot down while an Air Force flier in Vietnam, according to
--> Jeffrey Matz, Brody's partner in the Encino law firm of Matz,
Brody &
--> Albert.
-->
--> In the past five years, Brody had handled 12 cases involving
airplane
--> crashes, Matz said. He said the firm on Thursday retained such a
--> specialist who will study Brody's crash with an eye toward a
lawsuit.
-->
--> Matz said the Aerostar in which Brody died was owned by the law
firm.
--> Brody flew it several times a week, always taking along the
battered
--> khaki flight bag he had carried in Vietnam. Like his colleagues,
he
--> referred to the plane, in aviators' jargon, by its registration
--> number-Triple Seven Papa Lima (777PL).
-->
--> "Flying was his first love," Matz said. "He used to tell me if he
--> couldn't fly as part of his law practice he wouldn't practice law.
--> He'd be a professional flier instead."
-->
--> Brody lived with his wife, Bonnie; a daughter, Lauren, 5, and a
son,
--> Jason, 3.
-->
--> Matz said Brody was flying back from Costa Mesa when the accident
--> occurred.
-->
--> "He was covering a deposition in Orange County," Matz said. "He
flew
--> down there in the middle of the day and started back about 6:15.
-->
--> "He called our office just before leaving the airport, and he
called
--> his wife to say he was on his way. It's about a 16-minute flight."
-->
--> The NSTB's Schutte was asked for specifics of Brody's last flight.
--> "Some of these things I could never know unless I was in the
cockpit
--> with him," she said. "And, thank God, I wasn't."
-->
--> Matz tried to reconstruct the flight, based on his knowledge of
the
--> route and a police officer's report of witnesses' accounts.
-->
--> "He was flying from John Wayne Airport back to Van Nuys, where we
kept
--> the plane," Matz said. "When he got over the Encino
--> Reservoir-according to witnesses, there were about 15 witnesses-he
--> called `Mayday' and said he was losing power in his right engine.
-->
--> "The tower flew him around to the north end of the airport. As he
was
--> making the U-turn to land, he had to bank the plane, and about
that
--> time the right engine caught on fire. In order to get in faster,
he
--> pushed the left engine to the firewall. That means pushing the
--> accelerator all the way to the floor. When he did that, the plane
--> stalled, and it just went straight into a house.
-->
--> "He used to tell me, if you're going to lose an engine, you don't
want
--> to do it on final approach because you're very close to the
ground,
--> and you don't have much time or room to make a correction.
-->
--> "He must have had 900 hours in on that plane. He's flown in bad
--> weather. He's flown in icing conditions. Everybody who had contact
--> with him in the aviation business always praised him for his
--> competence."
-->
--> Engineering, Law Degrees
-->
--> Brody had a degree in mechanical engineering from California State
--> University, Northridge, and a law degree from the University of
San
--> Fernando. The affable redhead took an engineer's pleasure in
keeping
--> the Aerostar in top-flight condition, Matz said.
-->
--> "He was meticulous about that plane," Matz said. "He personally
--> supervised all the maintenance. He took pride in knowing how each
and
--> every item on that airplane worked. Being an engineer, he was
capable
--> of understanding all the devices on that plane. And he always did
an
--> extremely thorough pre-flight check."
-->
--> Matz said Brody's family members were frequent passengers on the
--> plane, as were his law partners.
-->
--> "In fact, I was supposed to be on Wednesday's flight," he said. "I
was
--> sick with the flu."
-->
--> =================================================================
-->
--> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:59:23 GMT, Ryan Ferguson
<ry...@fergworld.com>
--> (Ryan Ferguson) wrote in Message ID
<3C6D134C...@fergworld.com>:
-->
--> >... and farther. My business travel needs are changing and I
need more
--> >speed, yes. The Aerostar (Super 700) is very attractive to me
because it's
--> >piston-powered and can give 240 kts cruise while burning around
44gph. Not
--> >bad. Pressurized. Cruise in the flight levels. Carry 5 in
comfort. 6 is
--> >a stretch, which may be a problem. There are lots of complicated
systems
--> >specific to the type which is something I'm not so keen on -
especially the
--> >fuel system, and electric nosewheel steering - so I'm learning as
much as I
--> >can before I get too far into this. I don't see much of an
alternative for
--> >an airplane with these speed/range capabilities which I can
justify as a
--> >business expense. (And just barely, at that... obviously, it'd
still be a
--> >lot cheaper to let Southwest do the flying, but the
time/opportunity cost of
--> >traveling that way tilts the playing field back towards owning a
faster,
--> >pressurized twin.) I have to leave the kerosene-burning to the
folks with
--> >bigger wallets, so it's piston power for the foreseeable future.
--> >
--> >At the end of it all I may end up electing to stick with my lil'
Twin
--> >Comanche. We'll see.
--> >
--> >-Ryan
--> >
--> >Mike Rapoport wrote:
--> >
--> >> So you need to go faster....
--> >>
--> >> Mike
--> >> MU-2
--> >>
--> >> "Ryan Ferguson" <ry...@fergworld.com> wrote in message
--> >> news:3C6C95D5...@fergworld.com...
--> >> > Hi folks,
--> >> >
--> >> > Anyone here own an Aerostar, or know anything about Aerostar
Aircraft
--> >> > Corporation? If you're willing to answer a couple of
questions about
--> >> > the breed and the company, please drop an email to
ry...@fergworld.com.
--> >> > Thanks in advance.
--> >> >
--> >> > -Ryan
--> >> >
--> From: Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
--> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
--> Subject: Re: Aerostar
--> Message-ID:
<iikq6ukq2603ts81s...@news-server.socal.rr.com>
--> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:43:36 PST
-->
-->
--> Thank you for the pertinent information about Aerostar
--> performance/systems. Anything which will help shed some light on
the
--> cause of his fatal accident is welcome.
-->
-->
--> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:06:05 -0800, "Mike Rapoport"
--> <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> (Mike Rapoport) wrote in Message ID
--> <u6qkevm...@corp.supernews.com>:
-->
--> >I believe the Aerostar has only one hydraulic pump and if you
lose that
--> >engine, the gear can't be retracted. I don't think the Aerostar,
which has
--> >anemic single engine performance to begin with, could possibly
climb (or
--> >stay level?) with the gear down.
--> >
--> >Mike
--> >MU-2
-->
--> Here's what an eye witness said:
-->
--> "I observed the plane fly directly overhead at approx 250 ft
--> AGL eastbound along Plummer Ave.
-->
--> I estimated the craft near Hayvenhurst when it banked slightly
--> right, as if to turn final [right hand pattern], and then
--> abruptly banked 90 degrees to the left and dove almost
--> straight down."
-->
--> Here's a partial transcript of the radio transmissions:
-->
--> 0256:05 7PL and aerostar triple seven papa lima is
--> turning downwind abeam.
-->
--> 0256:27 LC1 aerostar seven papa lima wind calm
--> cleared to land one six right long
--> landing approved.
-->
--> 0256:32 7PL seven papa lima roger
-->
--> 0257:22 7PL tower this is ah triple seven papa
--> lima ah looks like I lost my left
--> engine so I'm gonna squeak er around
--> to final here be declaiming an
--> emergency
-->
--> 0257:31 LC1 roger you want us to call the
--> equipment out
-->
--> 0257:33 7PL ahhh well it looks pretty good now i'd
--> hold off on the equipment
-->
--> 0257:37 LC1 all right the wind is calm
-->
--> 0257:40 7PL seven papa lima roger
-->
--> 0258:23 LC1 aerostar seven papa lima van nuys
-->
--> =================== END OF TRANSCRIPT =====================
-->
-->
--> Wreckage and Fire
--> -----------------
--> The aircraft impacted the roof of a single family residence ...
and
--> came to rest inside the residence where it exploded and burned.
--> [Pictures show it in the driveway outside.]
-->
--> The wreckage was found oriented in a southeasterly direction and
in an
--> upright position. ...
-->
--> The wreckage was relatively intact and all control surfaces and
--> related components were accounted for at the accident site. The
flaps
--> were found in the up position, the landing gear was found in the
down
--> position. The condition of the wreckage precluded determination
of
--> control continuity.
-->
--> The fuel quantity could not be established, however, it was
determined
--> that the aircraft was "topped" by the addition of 104.4 gallons of
100
--> octane fuel prior to flight from Van Nuys to Santa Ana earlier in
the
--> day. Both propellers remained attached to their respective
engines.
--> ... There was no indication of any pre-impact malfunction of
--> structural failure of the aircraft.
-->
--> Medial and Pathological Information
--> -----------------------------------
--> An autopsy was conducted ... did not disclose any preaccident
--> physical condition which would have effected [sic] the pilot's
ability
--> to operate the aircraft. The cause of death was reported as
multiple
--> traumatic injuries, thermal burns and smoke inhalation.
-->
--> Results of the toxicological tests for basic, acidic and ... were
--> negative. The carbon monoxide level was 31 percent in blood
--> containing 16.8 gm percent hemoglobin. The cyanide level was 3.06
--> mg/ml.
-->
--> Tests and Research
--> ------------------
--> ... The left engine, Lycoming IO-540... was examined. It was
noted
--> that the turbocharger wastegates were open. The right exhaust
stack
--> was clean and gray in color. The left exhaust stack was
gray/black in
--> color and was coated with oil. The condition of the engine was
--> otherwise unremarkable.
--> ...
--> There was no evidence found to indicate an engine malfunction or
--> failure which would have prevented the left or right engine from
--> normal operation prior to impact.
-->
--> The fuel servos ... showed evidence of severe heat damage. The
left
--> servo, ...: the idle adjustment was found to be set in the full
lean
--> position, and the mixture valve was partially lean. Right
servo...:
--> the idle adjustment was set in the rich position and the mixture
valve
--> was full rich. The fuel servos were otherwise unremarkable and,
--> according to Bendix personnel, were capable of normal operation
prior
--> to the accident.
-->
--> ...The left propeller ... all three propeller blades were found in
the
--> feathered position.
-->
--> ... all four turbochargers did not reveal any pre-impact
malfunction
--> which would have precluded normal operation of the turbochargers.
--> ...
-->
-->
-->
-->
--> >"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
-->
>news:5pgq6ug2klhl1c63o...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
--> >>
--> >> Whenever I hear the name Aerostar it reminds me of the last
flight of
--> >> a good friend. He flew F-4s in Viet Nam, had a degree in
engineering,
--> >> and became an aviation attorney. He was careful and
knowledgeable,
--> >> but somehow that Aerostar killed him. The summary of the NTSB
report
--> >> is here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35941&key=1
--> >> But, it fails to provide the full story as does the full 90+
page
--> >> NTSB report.
--> >>
--> >> I'm happy to see you have mentioned the fuel system as a
possible
--> >> source of concern. So does the NTSB report. (I believe there
is also
--> >> a recent engine related Airworthiness Directive about to be
issued by
--> >> the FAA:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regaerostar.html )
--> >>
--> >>
--> >> =============================================================
--> >> Northridge Lawyer Handled Air-Crash Cases Dead Pilot Known
as
--> >> Skilled, Careful Flier
--> >> Los Angeles, Calif.; Mar 8, 1985; BIEDERMAN;
--> >>
--> >> Abstract:
--> >> [Lewis M. Brody] was an experienced, safety-conscious pilot who
had
--> >> survived being shot down while an Air Force flier in Vietnam,
--> >> according to Jeffrey Matz, Brody's partner in the Encino law
firm of
--> >> Matz, Brody & Albert.
--> >>
--> >> In the past five years, Brody had handled 12 cases involving
airplane
--> >> crashes, Matz said. He said the firm on Thursday retained such
a
--> >> specialist who will study Brody's crash with an eye toward a
lawsuit.
--> >>
--> >> Matz said the Aerostar in which Brody died was owned by the law
firm.
--> >> Brody flew it several times a week, always taking along the
battered
--> >> khaki flight bag he had carried in Vietnam. Like his
colleagues, he
--> >> referred to the plane, in aviators' jargon, by its registration
--> >> number-Triple Seven Papa Lima (777PL).
--> >>
--> >> The pilot killed Wednesday night when his light plane crashed
into a
--> >> San Fernando Valley residence was identified Thursday as Lewis
M.
--> >> Brody of Northridge, a lawyer whose specialties included
air-crash
--> >> litigation.
--> >>
--> >> Brody, 41, died when his Piper Aerostar crashed into a
residence at
--> >> 9545 Ruffner Ave. in Sepulveda.
--> >>
--> >> Ken Ashton, 38, the only occupant of the house, was watching
--> >> television in the living room. He escaped from the burning
building
--> >> with minor injuries by diving through a blown-out window. No
one else
--> >> was hurt. The house was reduced to rubble.
--> >>
--> >> Brody went down at 6:58 p.m. as he was attempting to take his
disabled
--> >> plane into Van Nuys Airport, Audrey Schutte, head of the
National
--> >> Transportation Safety Board team investigating the crash, said
--> >> Thursday. The cause of the crash will probably not be known for
--> >> several weeks, she said.
--> >>
--> >> On Thursday, Schutte supervised the removal of the wrecked
plane from
--> >> the charred site. About two dozen spectators stood on the
street and
--> >> sidewalk. A neighbor said Ashton had stood silently among the
--> >> onlookers for a while.
--> >>
--> >> Called Safety-Conscious
--> >>
--> >> Brody was an experienced, safety-conscious pilot who had
survived
--> >> being shot down while an Air Force flier in Vietnam, according
to
--> >> Jeffrey Matz, Brody's partner in the Encino law firm of Matz,
Brody &
--> >> Albert.
--> >>
--> >> In the past five years, Brody had handled 12 cases involving
airplane
--> >> crashes, Matz said. He said the firm on Thursday retained such
a
--> >> specialist who will study Brody's crash with an eye toward a
lawsuit.
--> >>
--> >> Matz said the Aerostar in which Brody died was owned by the law
firm.
--> >> Brody flew it several times a week, always taking along the
battered
--> >> khaki flight bag he had carried in Vietnam. Like his
colleagues, he
--> >> referred to the plane, in aviators' jargon, by its registration
--> >> number-Triple Seven Papa Lima (777PL).
--> >>
--> >> "Flying was his first love," Matz said. "He used to tell me if
he
--> >> couldn't fly as part of his law practice he wouldn't practice
law.
--> >> He'd be a professional flier instead."
--> >>
--> >> Brody lived with his wife, Bonnie; a daughter, Lauren, 5, and a
son,
--> >> Jason, 3.
--> >>
--> >> Matz said Brody was flying back from Costa Mesa when the
accident
--> >> occurred.
--> >>
--> >> "He was covering a deposition in Orange County," Matz said. "He
flew
--> >> down there in the middle of the day and started back about
6:15.
--> >>
--> >> "He called our office just before leaving the airport, and he
called
--> >> his wife to say he was on his way. It's about a 16-minute
flight."
--> >>
--> >> The NSTB's Schutte was asked for specifics of Brody's last
flight.
--> >> "Some of these things I could never know unless I was in the
cockpit
--> >> with him," she said. "And, thank God, I wasn't."
--> >>
--> >> Matz tried to reconstruct the flight, based on his knowledge of
the
--> >> route and a police officer's report of witnesses' accounts.
--> >>
--> >> "He was flying from John Wayne Airport back to Van Nuys, where
we kept
--> >> the plane," Matz said. "When he got over the Encino
--> >> Reservoir-according to witnesses, there were about 15
witnesses-he
--> >> called `Mayday' and said he was losing power in his right
engine.
--> >>
--> >> "The tower flew him around to the north end of the airport. As
he was
--> >> making the U-turn to land, he had to bank the plane, and about
that
--> >> time the right engine caught on fire. In order to get in
faster, he
--> >> pushed the left engine to the firewall. That means pushing the
--> >> accelerator all the way to the floor. When he did that, the
plane
--> >> stalled, and it just went straight into a house.
--> >>
--> >> "He used to tell me, if you're going to lose an engine, you
don't want
--> >> to do it on final approach because you're very close to the
ground,
--> >> and you don't have much time or room to make a correction.
--> >>
--> >> "He must have had 900 hours in on that plane. He's flown in bad
--> >> weather. He's flown in icing conditions. Everybody who had
contact
--> >> with him in the aviation business always praised him for his
--> >> competence."
--> >>
--> >> Engineering, Law Degrees
--> >>
--> >> Brody had a degree in mechanical engineering from California
State
--> >> University, Northridge, and a law degree from the University of
San
--> >> Fernando. The affable redhead took an engineer's pleasure in
keeping
--> >> the Aerostar in top-flight condition, Matz said.
--> >>
--> >> "He was meticulous about that plane," Matz said. "He personally
--> >> supervised all the maintenance. He took pride in knowing how
each and
--> >> every item on that airplane worked. Being an engineer, he was
capable
--> >> of understanding all the devices on that plane. And he always
did an
--> >> extremely thorough pre-flight check."
--> >>
--> >> Matz said Brody's family members were frequent passengers on
the
--> >> plane, as were his law partners.
--> >>
--> >> "In fact, I was supposed to be on Wednesday's flight," he said.
"I was
--> >> sick with the flu."
--> >>
--> >>
=================================================================
--> >>
--> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:59:23 GMT, Ryan Ferguson
<ry...@fergworld.com>
--> >> (Ryan Ferguson) wrote in Message ID
<3C6D134C...@fergworld.com>:
--> >>
--> >> >... and farther. My business travel needs are changing and I
need more
--> >> >speed, yes. The Aerostar (Super 700) is very attractive to me
because
--> >it's
--> >> >piston-powered and can give 240 kts cruise while burning
around 44gph.
--> >Not
--> >> >bad. Pressurized. Cruise in the flight levels. Carry 5 in
comfort. 6
--> >is
--> >> >a stretch, which may be a problem. There are lots of
complicated systems
--> >> >specific to the type which is something I'm not so keen on -
especially
--> >the
--> >> >fuel system, and electric nosewheel steering - so I'm learning
as much as
--> >I
--> >> >can before I get too far into this. I don't see much of an
alternative
--> >for
--> >> >an airplane with these speed/range capabilities which I can
justify as a
--> >> >business expense. (And just barely, at that... obviously,
it'd still be
--> >a
--> >> >lot cheaper to let Southwest do the flying, but the
time/opportunity cost
--> >of
--> >> >traveling that way tilts the playing field back towards owning
a faster,
--> >> >pressurized twin.) I have to leave the kerosene-burning to
the folks
--> >with
--> >> >bigger wallets, so it's piston power for the foreseeable
future.
--> >> >
--> >> >At the end of it all I may end up electing to stick with my
lil' Twin
--> >> >Comanche. We'll see.
--> >> >
--> >> >-Ryan
--> >> >
--> >> >Mike Rapoport wrote:
--> >> >
--> >> >> So you need to go faster....
--> >> >>
--> >> >> Mike
--> >> >> MU-2
--> >> >>
--> >> >> "Ryan Ferguson" <ry...@fergworld.com> wrote in message
--> >> >> news:3C6C95D5...@fergworld.com...
--> >> >> > Hi folks,
--> >> >> >
--> >> >> > Anyone here own an Aerostar, or know anything about
Aerostar Aircraft
--> >> >> > Corporation? If you're willing to answer a couple of
questions about
--> >> >> > the breed and the company, please drop an email to
--> >ry...@fergworld.com.
--> >> >> > Thanks in advance.
--> >> >> >
--> >> >> > -Ryan
--> >> >> >
--> >>
--> >
--> From: Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
--> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
--> Subject: Re: Aerostar
--> Message-ID:
<0sur6use3sg0jutqd...@news-server.socal.rr.com>
--> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:37:33 PST
-->
--> On 15 Feb 2002 15:11:19 -0800, crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael)
--> (Michael) wrote in Message ID
--> <449a3d6e.02021...@posting.google.com>:
-->
--> >"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
--> >> I believe the Aerostar has only one hydraulic pump and if you
lose that
--> >> engine, the gear can't be retracted. I don't think the
Aerostar, which has
--> >> anemic single engine performance to begin with, could possibly
climb (or
--> >> stay level?) with the gear down.
--> >
--> >I can't think of any retractable gear piston twin that can climb
with
--> >the gear down on one engine. The single hydraulic pump driving
--> >hydraulic gear is not unique to the Aerostar; it occurs on other
Piper
--> >products like the Apache and derivatives.
--> >
--> >I can't imagine that this would be an issue in a VFR engine
failure in
--> >the pattern. I can't think of any piston twin that can't hold a
three
--> >degree glideslope on one engine with the gear down, and certainly
not
--> >the Aerostar.
--> >
--> >Determination of VMC allows up to a 5 degree bank into the good
--> >engine. On some designs, this is not a significant factor. On
--> >others, the difference between Vmc and minimum control speed
wings
--> >level can exceed 15 kts. Banking into the bad engine can make
things
--> >even worse. This has killed twin pilots before, and it will kill
--> >again.
--> >
--> >I note that the pilot was on downwind for 16R, meaning he was
likely
--> >flying right traffic, and that he had feathered the left engine.
--> >
--> >Michael
-->
--> Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
-->
--> Because the left engine is shutdown, the aircraft wants to yaw
toward
--> the left, but banking right (into the engine developing power)
will
--> overcome the heading change associated with the yaw. However, a
bank
--> _toward_ the feathered engine will induce a dynamically unstable
roll
--> and result in "falling off on one wing" and ultimately a pitch
down
--> attitude. Is that correct?
-->
-->
-->
--> From: Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
--> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
--> Subject: Re: Aerostar
--> Message-ID:
<tc837u4s5krvq65eo...@news-server.socal.rr.com>
--> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:49:20 PST
-->
--> Thank you for taking the time to educate me in the arcana of
--> multi-engine aircraft. That seems like a reasonable explanation
for
--> the accident. But, I still find it difficult to believe that this
--> particular pilot would fall victim to such a well known
phenomenon;
--> surely he must have practiced engine-out operation in his
Aerostar.
-->
--> I was beginning to wonder if his faculties weren't impaired due to
CO
--> poisoning, or his law partner (recently convicted of fraud) had in
--> some way been involved. Lew was a sharp guy, quick, bright, and
--> educated, with an aptitude for physical science.
-->
-->
--> On 18 Feb 2002 08:47:17 -0800, crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael)
--> (Michael) wrote in Message ID
--> <449a3d6e.02021...@posting.google.com>:
-->
--> >Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote
--> >> Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
--> >
--> >I think you basically do - I've inlined comments which clarify
some
--> >things, but your understanding of the problem is basically sound.
--> >
--> >> Because the left engine is shutdown, the aircraft wants to yaw
toward
--> >> the left
--> >
--> >Yaw AND roll. The prop producing power causes an accelerated
--> >slipstream over the right wing, which causes it to produce
increased
--> >lift. The prop sitting out in front of the left wing disturbs
the
--> >slipstream and causes the left wing to produce less lift. Thus
the
--> >right wing wants to come up.
--> >
--> >> but banking right (into the engine developing power) will
--> >> overcome the heading change associated with the yaw.
--> >
--> >It will HELP overcome the heading change and thus allow you to
--> >maintain control at lower airspeeds. You could achieve the same
--> >effect by increased yaw to the right, but at Vmc the rudder is
already
--> >hard over.
--> >
--> >> However, a bank
--> >> _toward_ the feathered engine will induce a dynamically
unstable roll
--> >> and result in "falling off on one wing"
--> >
--> >If you are slow enough, yes. Overbanking tendency is very
pronounced
--> >when you are banking into the failed engine on a twin. The
really
--> >dangerous place is the base-to-final turn when the failed engine
is on
--> >the outside of the turn and the pattern is tight. I seem to
remember
--> >the pilot making a coment suggesting that he was planning to fly
a
--> >tight pattern.
--> >
--> >> and ultimately a pitch down
--> >> attitude. Is that correct?
--> >
--> >Well, the pitch down attitude will occur one of two ways. Either
the
--> >pilot will recognize that he is about to depart from controlled
flight
--> >or not. If he recognizes it, he will immediately retard the
throttle
--> >on the operating engine and lower the nose to regain airspeed.
Thus
--> >the pitch down. If he fails to recognize it, the nose down
pitching
--> >will occur later and be more severe. But either way, the nose is
--> >coming down.
--> >
--> >BTW, everythig I am describing is pretty much common knowledge
among
--> >multiengine pilots.
--> >
--> >Michael
Dennis O'Connor
engines ar 12 feet apart and 350# each... Get that started rotating and it
wants to keep on..
Denny
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnamerhd...@vexed2.alioth.net...
Nathan Parker
Q: However, a bank toward_ the feathered engine will induce a
dynamically unstable roll and result in "falling off on one wing"
A: If you are slow enough, yes. Overbanking tendency is very
pronounced when you are banking into the failed engine on a twin. The
really
<-----------snip---------------->
I've reformatted the posts you quoted to make them easier to read.
OK, I see where you got your idea. Follow me here:
1) Yaw due to losing a failed engine is primarily controlled via
rudder.
2) Banking into the good engine reduces drag by stopping the sideslip
into the failed engine.
3) Banking into the good engine also reduces Vmc by making the rudder
more effective.
4) The desired result is a zero sideslip condition. The relative
wind is meeting the plane head on, rather than from the left or right.
5) If you get slow, then bank towards the dead engine (by removing
the bank you have towards the good engine), and if you do NOT adjust
your rudder accordingly, you may lose the zero sideslip condition and
experience an increase in Vmc, leading to a loss of directional
control.
6) This problem will not occur if a) you maintain recommended
airspeeds, or b) you maintain zero sideslip by releasing a bit of
rudder when you bank towards the dead engine.
Bob Gardner
last word I had is that he was going to change the text. I had furnished him
with quotes and e-mails from folks like Barry Schiff and Bill Kershner
saying, in effect, that he was nuts...there is no such thing as rudder
stall.
Bob Gardner
"Jonah Rogin" <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71a311e9.0208...@posting.google.com...
Nathan Parker
I have quite a bit of aerodynamic literature describing the fin stall
phenomenon.
Rick Durden
You have referenced a truly sad accident. The pilot had an engine
probably not only fail, but catch fire while close in to the airport
and then get into a position in which he had to maneuver. The
material I glanced at didn't indicate whether the gear was down or
not, something that could have had an adverse impact on the situation.
The fact that a pilot was a fighter pilot has no bearing on how safe
or how good he was. The only thing that matters is what a pilot has
been doing recently...when was his last recurrent training where he
practiced emergencies...because the skills get rusty incredibly fast.
His military training/experience may have actually worked against him
as his time was in the F-4 Phantom, which is considered a "centerline
thrust twin". Military pilots who flew them and then were issued
civilian ratings got centerline thrust ratings, which would only be
good on the Cessna Skymaster. As a result, his military flying was in
an airplane that did not have a Vmc to worry about.
The "don't turn into a dead engine" myth has been around since before
WWII. Lockheed, North American and Martin used to send their pilots
out to do aerobatics in twins with one engine shut down to show the
pilots going through training that you could turn into a dead engine
all day long, in fact you could do rolls into the dead engine just
fine, so long as you kept your speed up. It's very, very basic, so
long as you stay above Vmc, and I teach my multi engine students to
always stay at or above Vyse (single engine best rate of climb speed)
you are going to have plenty of control, although you may have to push
pretty hard on a rudder pedal. Below Vyse, I want them to have one
hand on the throttles, no matter what, because they may get into a
situation where they are going to have to pull the power back in order
to regain control of the airplane.
The accident you referenced will never be solved. There are simply
too many things that could have happened. One would be tempted to
assert that he simply got the airplane too slow. Because there was a
fire and because many twins have an airflow inside the wing from the
tip inboard, he may have been overcome by the the gases produced by
the fire or by the products of combustion. He may have simply been
doing everything right but hadn't had recent recurrent training and
didn't pull the power back on the good engine when things started to
go south on him.
The fact that he turned one way or another had nothing to do with the
accident unless he simply got below Vmc.
There is a piece on this and other aviation myths on AVweb
(www.avweb.com). Click on "articles" then on "columns" and scroll
down a ways to "myths for the last millenium".
BTW, with all due respect, the quality of the information you are
getting on this forum isn't all that great. There is a tremendous
amount of misinformation put out by well meaning, but unqualified
folks. If you want an aviation forum where you can get more accurate
information, go to avsig on compuserve. In addition, for aerodynamic
questions, you might want to pick up a copy of Aerodynamics for Naval
Aviators, one of the best books around on the subject.
All the best,
Rick
Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message news:<sugfmuc7q7bh976qi...@news-server.socal.rr.com>...
Phil Rynn
and power setting. Higher weight, greater AOB, stall speed increases.
Higher power settings stall speed decreases.
VMCair depends on four things. Density altitude, power setting on operative
engine(s), position of engine(s) out, and angle of bank. Notice that
aircraft weight is not a factor in there. So, at heavier weights, VMCair
can actually be less than stall speed. Operating speeds should be chosen to
keep a margin above the higher speed. VMCair decreases as density altitude
increases and power settings on operating engine(s) are reduced. Position
of engine out effects VMCair as well. If the critical engine(s) are
shutdown VMCair will be higher. Chart VMCair is based on the critical engine
shutdown. A favorable bank angle of 5 degrees away from the dead
engine(s) -- raising the dead wing -- is desired. As you level the wings,
or worse, lower the dead wing, VMCair speed increases accordingly (for my
aircraft is 2.6 kts per degree, so wings level would equate to a 13 knot
increase -- I confess I don't know if this is standard or not).
In all cases, you want VMCair to be as low as possible. So if you are
operating near the VMCair regime, your goal should be to adjust one of the
factors that effects VMCair speed - usually power on operating engine(s).
VMCair demos are just that--demos. When you actually experience VMCair, it
is scary. Basically the plane is turning into the dead engine(s) and you
cannot stop it. Usual cases for entering VMCair are when you are low to the
ground, and cannot trade altitude for airspeed. You can stop the effects of
VMCair by pulling power on your good engine (effectively decreasing your
VMCair speed), setting 5 degrees bank angle away from dead engine(s) and
reapplying power. You may need to descend to regain directional control.
It is more important to maintain directional control than altitude at this
point - it is much better to hit the ground wheels first at a reasonable
rate of descent than inverted.
Basically, VMCair is very difficult to recover from, so the best way to
combat it it to know what VMCair speed is for your aircraft during all
regimes of flight, and be aware when you are actually operating at airspeeds
that would put you below VMCair if you suddenly lost your critical
engine(s).
Phil
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:um7mu4e...@corp.supernews.com...
> Both throttles closed, right now ... Continue the roll with ailerons in
the
> direction it's already going until upright again... Try not to dive it too
> hard in the process, i.e. gentle forward pressure while upside down,
gentle
> back pressure when coming around upright......
>
> "Jonah Rogin" <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:71a311e9.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > So I just passed my MEI checkride, but I'm realizing that my
> > understanding of Vmc rollover dangers ought to be a bit better before
> > I actually start instructing in the twin (Cessna 303). Here's what I
> > know so far: there are actually two distinct risks associated with one
> > engine inoperative (OEI) flight at low airspeed: spin and Vmc
> > rollover. Which one you get will depend on stall speed vs. Vmc.
> > There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about this, tendency to just
> > lump them into one, and my DE even told me a story about an FAA pilot
> > who got spun in a twin, lost maybe 1000 feet, and came back telling
> > stories of his Vmc roll. But according to the DE, you would lose
> > upwards of 3000 feet in a real Vmc roll...
> >
> > So I guess the bigger danger is Vmc rollover, and I feel comfortable
> > enough with spins that I could imagine getting out of one alive, even
> > in a twin. But with Vmc, I really can't visualize the aerodynamics
> > that would make it Roll Over, and why it would result in such
> > catastrophic altitude loss. Vmc demos, in my experience, are very
> > gentle affairs, just a gradual loss of directional control that almost
> > looks like a standard rate turn toward the failed engine. Obviously
> > it would happen faster if you pitched up faster, but even with an
> > over-enthusiastic student at the controls, I have trouble imagining
> > that it could happen fast enough to get out of hand. Comments, advice
> > here? What is the best way to recover if you do get Vmc rolled?
> >
> > I guess the worse scenarios would be for example practicing power on
> > stalls (low airspeed, high power) and one engine fails, or you are
> > singled up on final, get low and slow, and jam the power, causing it
> > to tip up on one wing; I can kind of understand how the propwash
> > causes excessive lift on one side, and a rolling moment. But if
> > anyone could discuss the aerodynamics in greater detail, that would be
> > helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonah Rogin
>
>
Michael
> Twin Comanche will flip you over? It just doesn't make sense to me
> how this could happen so abrubtly in any airplane. I've done snap
> rolls in a Cap 10, so I've seen how abrubt an asymmetric stall can be,
> but just asymmetric thrust with gradually eroding rudder authority ..?
The Twin Comanche has a 40% laminar flow wing. When it quits, it
quits all at once. The Apache has a turbulent flow wing, originally
meant to be fabric covered. Completely different beast.
> But why? What would make it so much harder to complete an aileron
> roll in a twin than a Cap 10? I know, not a lot of good information
> about Vmc aileron rolls in a twin. But it seems like we should at
> least be able to speculate about the aerodynamics. Maybe it's the low
> airspeed? Come to think of it, I've never done an aileron roll at
> anything remotely close to stall speed, maybe I'll go up in the Cap
> and give it a try.
Speed is the answer. The Twin Comanche can do very nice aileron
rolls, but the correct entry speed is about 150 mph.
An aileron roll CAN'T be done close to stall speed. Think about it -
full deflection of the aileron at close to stall will stall the wing
with the aileron deflecting down, dropping the wing you want to lift.
> P.S. I got my initial multi in a PA-34 200 (Seneca?), so I've
> probably explored Vmc more in that ship than in the Crusader.
A Seneca, if I remember correctly, has counterrotating props and a Vmc
of only 80 mph. It's quite a popular trainer, mainly because it is
quite docile. I had assumed a cabin class turbocharged twin wouldn't
be, but I have no experience with the Crusader and Rick Druden says
otherwise.
Michael
Rick Durden
If you ever get a chance to fly a T303 take it. It is the nicest
handling, most docile twins around. Vmc is below stall speed much of
the time (loading, temperature, altitude considerations). I've shot a
number of circle to land approaches with the weather right at
published minimums in the T303. It can be slowed to 80 knots with
approach flaps and maneuvered easily, so I was able to get into a
small airport in visbility conditions that I wouldn't have attempted
in a 310, Seneca or Baron. It is light enough on the controls that I
found I liked having a good autopilot in cruise, however.
The T303 was the result of advance design work of Dave Ellis (now a
prof at Wichita State) and flight test under Bruce Barrett and Tom
Wallis. All are highly respected in the industry. Between those
three, you get airplanes with superb handling. They were also
responsible for the 208 (Caravan), an airplane even easier to fly and
more forgiving than any of the Cessna 100 series.
All the best,
Rick
crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<449a3d6e.02082...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
> dual to a particularly "mechanical" student, who (not during a VMC
> demo, just a power-off stall) when instructed to pick up a dropping wing
> with a little rudder as opposed to aileron during a stall, decided to
> slam in FULL rudder. My MEI friend was quite surprised about how quickly
> the Apache entered an incipient spin, because it's normally just so docile.
> I also know a new MEI who almost got the same Apache in a spin during
> a VMC demo. In the docile Apache!
What makes an Apache docile is not that you can't get it to enter an
incipient spin if you really mishandle it. Anything will enter an
incipient spin if mishandled.
What makes an Apache docile is that you can actually recover it from
that condition without superhuman skills.
Michael
Jonah Rogin
> > Twin Comanche will flip you over? It just doesn't make sense to me
> > how this could happen so abrubtly in any airplane. I've done snap
> > rolls in a Cap 10, so I've seen how abrubt an asymmetric stall can be,
> > but just asymmetric thrust with gradually eroding rudder authority ..?
>
> The Twin Comanche has a 40% laminar flow wing. When it quits, it
> quits all at once. The Apache has a turbulent flow wing, originally
> meant to be fabric covered. Completely different beast.
Sounds like an asymmetric stall, not a roll ...
TheMarshMan1
First of all, congrats on getting your MEI. Secondly, I'm not an MEI yet
(almost though), just commercial/multi so take what I think for what
its worth...
In a Vmc demo, you set idle power on the left, full power on the right,
and slow airspeed until the first indication of a stall or loss of
directional control. It would seem that a Vmc roll would be the result
of loss of directional control before the stall occurs. On the other
hand, a spin would occur after the stall warning occurs, but the right
rudder is kept mashed to the stops until the airplane actually stalls
and you run out of rudder. At that point, you're cross controlled,
stalled, and that engine screaming at full power over there isn't going
to help matters- all the ingrediants for a spin, right?
On my commercial multi checkride, the DE demonstrated some things to me
that were pretty interesting. He did a Vmc demo, and kept the wings
level and the ball centered (as in, engine failure just after Vr). Vmc
jumped from 56 (Seminole) to about 75. Obviously, well above stall
speed. His point was to show me why he thinks its rediculous to rotate
at 75 instead of above blue line (88), but I think that would be one
situation where you could get into a Vmc roll. He also did a Vmc demo
with a few degrees of bank into the inop engine. This time, Vmc jumped
from 56 to about 86.
Anyways, I know thats not too aerodynamically in detail, but I just
thought I'd contribute to the discussion anyways. Interesting topic. I
too would like to hear a good aerodynamic description of it.
http://www.v1rotate.com
View this thread: http://www.v1rotate.com/portal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=18413
Ronn Walker
>>>>>>>>>>>There is a tremendous
amount of misinformation put out by well meaning, but unqualified
folks. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmmmmm................Well............I could say
something.............naw.
Michael
> > quits all at once. The Apache has a turbulent flow wing, originally
> > meant to be fabric covered. Completely different beast.
>
> Sounds like an asymmetric stall, not a roll ...
I think you're probably right - but that only makes it worse, because
completing the roll under those circumstances seems impossible to me.
Michael
Dennis O'Connor
once going inverted due to engine failure... Expecting the stalled wing to
suddenly regain enough lift to stop the momentum of the roll, including a
couple of engines on 6 foot torque arms each, and then rotate that 3,000 or
4,000 pounds back in the direction whence you came, is unlikely...
Expecting the pilot to fly the plane inverted while he shuts down the dead
engine, feathers the prop, and regains Vmc is also unlikely... So, I
suggested that chopping the throttles and completing the roll once you are
approaching inverted is about it... I didn't claim it was a great option...
I didn't suggest that it was always do able... It's just the one shot you
have... Getting a couple of hours of aerobatic dual in Citabria, et. al.,
could really help...
Better yet, is recurrent engine out training so that you never let that Vmc
roll get started...
Denny
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.0208...@posting.google.com...
Michael
> once going inverted due to engine failure...
I understand. I think the realistic options are cremation and burial
in most cases.
> Expecting the stalled wing to
> suddenly regain enough lift to stop the momentum of the roll, including a
> couple of engines on 6 foot torque arms each, and then rotate that 3,000 or
> 4,000 pounds back in the direction whence you came, is unlikely...
Agreed.
> Expecting the pilot to fly the plane inverted while he shuts down the dead
> engine, feathers the prop, and regains Vmc is also unlikely... So, I
> suggested that chopping the throttles and completing the roll once you are
> approaching inverted is about it... I didn't claim it was a great option...
> I didn't suggest that it was always do able... It's just the one shot you
> have...
Put that way, I have to agree. If that won't work, I can't imagine
anything that will. I do believe that as long as you catch it before
you go knife edge, you can recover by bringing power to idle, lowering
the nose, and rolling level. Past knife edge...
> Getting a couple of hours of aerobatic dual in Citabria, et. al.,
> could really help...
I've got some aerobatic time (dual and solo) in a Starduster Too. I
can't say that I feel like that would help me in any way. I'm not a
hardcore aerobatic pilot. I've done the basics - I can loop, spin,
and roll. I've been inverted and didn't like it. I think a hardcore
aerobatic pilot might be able to do better - and then again he might
not. I think the really big question is - is the wing with the dead
engine stalled? If so, I don't think completing the roll is at all
viable, for anyone, because it's not a roll in the first place but an
asymmetric stall. I think in something with a fatter wing and lower
stall speed, where it really is a Vmc roll, it might be possible. In
that situation, I think a hardcore aerobatic pilot would do better
than I could. I might or might not do better than someone who has
never done a roll at all.
> Better yet, is recurrent engine out training so that you never let that Vmc
> roll get started...
That's about the size of it.
Michael
Larry Dighera
(Michael) wrote in Message ID
>jcr...@yahoo.com (Jonah Rogin) wrote
>> Sounds like an asymmetric stall, not a roll ...
>
>I think you're probably right - but that only makes it worse, because
>completing the roll under those circumstances seems impossible to me.
How would those circumstances differ from a snap-roll?
C J Campbell
hard on the wrong rudder after the instructor had pulled an engine in a
Seminole. The Seminole flipped hard over onto its back and it took several
thousand feet to recover.
The instructor's points: Trust no one, no matter how experienced they appear
to be. Block the rudders with your own feet to prevent the student from
making a mistake like that. Be ready to take control of the plane
instantly -- no complacency allowed.
John Clonts
C J Campbell <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:umpop9a...@corp.supernews.com...
> My own MEI instructor related the experience of having an ATP candidate
step
> hard on the wrong rudder after the instructor had pulled an engine in a
> Seminole. The Seminole flipped hard over onto its back and it took several
> thousand feet to recover.
>
> The instructor's points: Trust no one, no matter how experienced they
appear
> to be. Block the rudders with your own feet to prevent the student from
> making a mistake like that. Be ready to take control of the plane
> instantly -- no complacency allowed.
>
I've always wondered if something like that is what took the life of my
instructor, who was kill in a Beech 58 (thats a Baron, right?) while
instructing: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X34170&key=1
John,
Temple, Texas
Model Flyer
the minute'.
--
.
---
Cheers
Jonathan Lowe,
Model Flyer
printe...@eircom.netnews:sugfmuc7q7bh976qi...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 10/09/02
Dale
In article <zx0n9.19431$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>, "Model Flyer"
<printe...@JUNK.eircom.net> wrote:
--
Dale L. Falk
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
Model Flyer
Dale <df...@NOSPAMak.net> wrote in message
news:dfalk-16B16A....@news.gci.net...
> Makes me wonder why you forwarded the whole thing. <G>
>
Well, I donnnnnoooooooo. <SG>.
--
.
---
Cheers
Jonathan Lowe,
Model Flyer
printe...@eircom.net
> In article <zx0n9.19431$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>, "Model Flyer"
> <printe...@JUNK.eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > Snip a bit off the end, that's an awfull lot of message for we who 'pay
by
> > the minute'.
> > --
> > .
There that's better.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/02