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

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,755
Location
NEPA
Display Name

Display name:
benyflyguy
Saw this over on Reddit. Fresh overhaul first flight engine grenades itself about 600 AGL on takeoff. Guy remains cool as a cucumber and makes the near impossible turn.

hopefully the guy updates on causes of engine coming apart.
 
This guy had some great luck and showed some awesome skill. Low altitude engine failure on take off. Newly rebuilt engine, apparently following Savvy article advice to "minimize ground run time". Well done video.
 
The impossible made possible! Glad to see this have such a good ending out of what could’ve been very bad.
 
Job well done, on the flying part that is, but I think I would have been on the phone to the shop before the wheels stopped turning.

Any word on why the engine came from together.??
 
A lot of things really went his way and it handled it really well all things considered. Easy to critique when watching from the safety of my computer but I would have waited on the gear until I knew I had the runway made. Will be curious what they find if they do. Obviously something wasn't put back together properly.
 
You could see the bottom end of a rod with no bolt in one of the pics at the end of the vid and on the initial screen shot. I have a problem with not ground running the engine before flying.
 
A lot of things really went his way and it handled it really well all things considered. Easy to critique when watching from the safety of my computer but I would have waited on the gear until I knew I had the runway made. Will be curious what they find if they do. Obviously something wasn't put back together properly.
I would not have put the gear up so quickly on a first flight. I’m unimpressed with his piloting skills frankly in a bunch of ways, but I’ll still give him credit for a safe return.
 
He ground ran his twice as long as I did mine.
 
I would not have put the gear up so quickly on a first flight. I’m unimpressed with his piloting skills frankly in a bunch of ways, but I’ll still give him credit for a safe return.
I thought about that too but wasn't sure what the gear retraction speed is on a 210. I know on my airplane you have to get it in right away or you will blow through the retraction speed.
 
Wish we could follow the aftermath.
My guess is he is down for 4 months and will be out of pocket 5 digits.
I am told full, honest warranties are very uncommon.
 
I have practiced the turn back from 600 feet agl with a 3 sec delay before taking action in my Tiger, and have been able to execute, but it sure requires precise flying. But, if there is anything suitable forward of the wings, that is where I am going.
 
Wish we could follow the aftermath.
My guess is he is down for 4 months and will be out of pocket 5 digits.
I am told full, honest warranties are very uncommon.

I hope the shop (and engine shop) will stand behind the work. $10K after a life threatening event would **** me off massively.
 
It took him a little over a second to start turning back.


The altitude tape is a little blurry, but I see 740 msl when the engine grenades, Tracey airport is at 193, so he was 640 feet agl when he started turning.
 
Last edited:
A lot of things went his way. He barely cleared that fence. Personally, I'd probably put it down in that field right off the nose.
 
I hope the shop (and engine shop) will stand behind the work. $10K after a life threatening event would **** me off massively.
$10k? That would cover about 20% of it.
 
$10k? That would cover about 20% of it.
Yea this guy will be buying a new or at least an engine for sale by a reputable shop and want even have a core to return. The loss of a core is easily 6+K.

Edit: The core charge from Airpower for a factory overhauled IO-520 is 14k. So just over 70k for a factory reman with no core.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to tell in the pictures but the very last one he shows in the video looks like the end of a rod. The stud looks damaged, but not really broken, like the nut was never put on or just came off.
 
It's hard to tell in the pictures but the very last one he shows in the video looks like the end of a rod. The stud looks damaged, but not really broken, like the nut was never put on or just came off.
That’s what I thought when I saw it as well. Improper torqued connector rod bolts was my recurring nightmare for the first 200 hours after my overhaul. We did were meticulous about it and did it slowly and methodically. We scheduled one session to do that one step only and make sure we did it perfectly.
 
I wonder if having the stol kit on the plane helped in the outcome.
 
Yea this guy will be buying a new or at least an engine for sale by a reputable shop and want even have a core to return. The loss of a core is easily 6+K.

Edit: The core charge from Airpower for a factory overhauled IO-520 is 14k. So just over 70k for a factory reman with no core.

Depending on who built the engine, it could very well have a warranty. I know the 540 in my RV-10 has a warranty - 200 hours, IIRC.
 
I have no criticisms for this pilot; he did a great job with zero damage to the airplane or property, no injuries. That's huge.
When I get mine, well if I get mine back, I am going up light for the first few flights. No need to top off.
 
I have practiced the turn back from 600 feet agl with a 3 sec delay before taking action in my Tiger, and have been able to execute, but it sure requires precise flying. But, if there is anything suitable forward of the wings, that is where I am going.
As Doc Chien pointed out, this was *not* a classic "Impossible Turn"... he returned to a different runway.

I saw a 150 pull off the "Impossible Turn" a couple of years back, though in that case, the engine was still developing power.

I've recently been running an in-depth analysis on homebuilt accidents stemming from engine failures. About 32% of fixed-wing homebuilt accidents begin with an engine failure, and in about 16% of those, the pilot stalls while attempting the emergency landing. When the pilot DOES stall, over 60% of the cases are fatal. So please, keep your airspeed up.

I've been looking at the "Impossible turn" for this analysis. Obviously, the ability to pull it off depends on the aircraft's location and altitude when the decision is made. With my airplane, for instance, I think the engine-off glide angle is steeper than the full-power climb angle...which makes it mathematically unlikely. But, of course, a higher-performance aircraft, a little further from the airport, would have a better chance.

I did a little diagram to illustrate the sequence. I was certainly aware that a simple 180 degree turn would not suffice, but what caught my attention is the fact that the runway is BEHIND and ABOVE the pilot for much of the maneuver.
impossible turn2.jpg
This makes the maneuver more difficult, especially with a high-wing aircraft . The runway isn't apparent in the "normal" orientation until one is well into the maneuver itself.

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

I did run a test at altitude in my airplane, and was surprised at how much altitude I lost (700 feet). I'll pick the softest thing straight ahead or (slightly) off to the sides, please....:)

My homebuilt 2011-2020 data set shows a total of 172 engine failures on initial climb. Thirteen accidents occurred when the pilot tried the turn, about 7.5%. Of course, there's no data on *successful* performance of the turn, either.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Nice job getting back safely.

The engine overhaul shop will say we said to keep the mixture rich until X:00 and you clearly leaned it out after 30 seconds. You voided the warranty. :)
 
Keep in mind that airports are usually pretty flat. You don't have to make it back to the centerline of the runway. You can land on the grass, land across the runway, land on a taxiway, land on the overrun, whatever works to make the save.
 
Keep in mind that airports are usually pretty flat. You don't have to make it back to the centerline of the runway. You can land on the grass, land across the runway, land on a taxiway, land on the overrun, whatever works to make the save.

Depends on the airport. Our home drone isn’t forgiving of an early engine out, just the way it is.

 
Pilot was in the moment judging it - we weren't, I can't fault him. I'm sure it looks very different in the plane vs at my desk. He did a fine job of it, he didn't even have to use the overrun. Seemed to react relatively quickly, kept his speed up, didn't stall it, and made the crossing runway. I don't know if it was intentional, but on a first flight after maintenance, I like the idea on using a runway where a crossing runway is easily available.
 
A lot of things really went his way and it handled it really well all things considered. Easy to critique when watching from the safety of my computer but I would have waited on the gear until I knew I had the runway made. Will be curious what they find if they do. Obviously something wasn't put back together properly.

Initially I thought I would have waited on the gear too. Then I remembered that the 210 gear uses an engine driven hydraulic pump. No engine = no gear.
 
Any word on why the engine came from together.??

It was a conti and someone tried running it?

how-to-get-away-with-murder-throwing-shoes.gif

:goofy::stirpot:
 
What is the thinking behind a short runup after an overhaul? If anything I'd want to run it longer because I'd rather it grenade in the runup zone than become internet famous...
 
What is the thinking behind a short runup after an overhaul? If anything I'd want to run it longer because I'd rather it grenade in the runup zone than become internet famous...

He explains in the description of the video. He read an article that he claims says to minimize run time on the ground for a rebuilt engine. Seems like a not smart idea.
 
He explains in the description of the video. He read an article that he claims says to minimize run time on the ground for a rebuilt engine. Seems like a not smart idea.
Apparently cylinders can glaze over due to not being under load on the ground

full load like on takeoff needed to properly break in
 
A couple of thoughts after looking at the stills for a bit....The stud with the threads showing, is a cylinder stud and not for the rod. Looking at the one photo showing the rod journal, there's lots of bearing welded to the center of the journal, and it has the appearance that the crank either bent or fractured at the right end of that journal.
 
What is the thinking behind a short runup after an overhaul? If anything I'd want to run it longer because I'd rather it grenade in the runup zone than become internet famous...
Apparently cylinders can glaze over due to not being under load on the ground

full load like on takeoff needed to properly break in
Yes, I've been reading a bit on proper engine break in procedure lately as my motor is currently getting new rings all around.
From https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7_P_4u7j0AhXwSDABHbLOArwQFnoECAIQAQ&url=http://pceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/M-0standardpractice2017-01-15.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1nheIScTa7_8OhWL-aZvKT pages 7-6 through 7-8. Ground runs limited to 4 minutes maximum and full power runup limited to 10 seconds maximum. Glazing is the concern.

on a first flight after maintenance, I like the idea on using a runway where a crossing runway is easily available.
I would like that also. My Lancair is at a field with only 1 runway. I am planning on starting a turn to the right off runway heading immediately after getting airborne. That would put the plane closer to a downwind position should the need arise to return to the field.
 
Back
Top