Propeller Breaks at 13K

Glad he's ok. Bet no shoulder harness. Seen those same injuries before.
 
Almost a completely preventable failure, and rare to begin with.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I don't know but I have heard they are dirt cheap to add
Click to expand...

As long as there is an STC available, this is true. I had them added to my plane as soon as I bought it. One of the cheapest mods I've made to the plane. If there is an STC available for your plane and you don't put them in, IMO, you're pretty dumb. I'll bet this guy wishes he had them amongst the other things he wishes he'd done different.
 
What i don't understand is how his sink rate was 2K/minute after the break. How would a broken prop negatively affect Vg?
 
bbridges51 said:
What i don't understand is how his sink rate was 2K/minute after the break. How would a broken prop negatively affect Vg?
Click to expand...

I suspect that was a reporter taking a portion of his story out of context.
 
Dav8or said:
Go for the inertial reels. I love 'em! It was a little cheaper for the Mooney, but still well worth it IMO.
Click to expand...

I bought a Y harness, no inertia. It's not as convenient, but ultimate safety.
 
bbridges51 said:
What i don't understand is how his sink rate was 2K/minute after the break. How would a broken prop negatively affect Vg?
Click to expand...
I took it as the plane was difficult to control from the shaking, so he basically dove down to get on the ground quickly.

If so, I think that was a bad move. I would've cut the mixture stopped the prop, then glided down. Even if he still went to that same location, he could've made a mostly normal landing and not been hurt even if the plane was damaged from a likely collapsed gear.
 
Last edited:
Could he of handled it better, maybe.

Could he have prevented it, not so much. He got dealt a weird and unlikely card.

Could have been better, also could have been way worse.

For a hobby pilot, Id still tell him "good job"
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I took it as the plane was difficult to control from the shaking, so he basically dove down to get on the ground quickly.

If so, I think that was a bad move. I would've cut the mixture stopped the prop, then glided down. Even if he still went to that same location, he could've made a mostly normal landing and not been hurt even if the plane was damaged from a likely collapsed gear.
Click to expand...

A little armchair quarterbacking? You weren't there. How do you know what he did and didn't do?
 
bnt83 said:
Almost a completely preventable failure, and rare to begin with.
Click to expand...

Feel free to elaborate.

Dav8or said:
Good lesson there. Always make sure you have an airport with multiple runways directly underneath you when your prop blows. Fire trucks are good to plan on too.
Click to expand...

I sense sarcasm.

Norman said:
A little armchair quarterbacking? You weren't there. How do you know what he did and didn't do?
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I took it as the plane was difficult to control from the shaking, so he basically dove down to get on the ground quickly.

If so, I think that was a bad move.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Is the engine going to stay on the mounts? Is the mount going to stay on the airframe? If the engine departs, game over. I'd want down fast.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I don't know. Is the engine going to stay on the mounts? Is the mount going to stay on the airframe? If the engine departs, game over. I'd want down fast.
Click to expand...

Yeah, having the engine tear loose would result in a rather sudden and catastrophic change in CG rearward.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
How, perform an ultrasonic strength test every preflight?
Click to expand...

Ultrasonic inspection does not test strength. It measures thickness and can also detect cracks, altho here, on aluminum surfaces eddy current and dye penetrant are used almost exclusively with heavy emphasis on eddy current.

All blade cracking like this starts with a ding and the last 1/3 of the prop is the most critical area. Careful attention to dings on preflight can prevent these.

In the rare case the prop sucks up a rock or screw on takeoff roll it could technically damage the prop to where by the time you land it could fail, although unlikely. Chances are the prop has been cracked for the last few flights and no one saw it on preflight.

The ding is a warning sign. When a mechanic takes a file or sotchbrite pad to the dinged area and the metal gets shiny as it's blended, cracks are easily detected with naked eyes or magnifying glass.
 
Last edited:
HighFlyingA380 said:
I took it as the plane was difficult to control from the shaking, so he basically dove down to get on the ground quickly.

If so, I think that was a bad move. I would've cut the mixture stopped the prop, then glided down. Even if he still went to that same location, he could've made a mostly normal landing and not been hurt even if the plane was damaged from a likely collapsed gear.
Click to expand...

Years ago, local crusty pilot Joe told me about this scenario possibly happening. He said, if you lose a prop blade the engine will be so far out of balance that it will shake violently. He said to cut the mixture RIGHT NOW - as the imbalance can rip the engine off the airframe, then pull the nose up to stop the prop. From there it's an engine out emergency, Best Glide and find a place for the forced landing.
 
Really makes pusher aircraft attractive hu? Tires throwing crap into the props :vomit:. Prop dings leak to cracks. Cracks lead to blade separation.

Every airplane is a compromise.
 
It is relatively common for the engine to dismount following a major prop failure.
 
KRyan said:
It is relatively common for the engine to dismount following a major prop failure.
Click to expand...


The Reno racers worry about it enough that they install cables from the frame to the engine to hold the engine to the airframe in case it breaks away from the mounts, and keep the CG flyable.
 
airguy said:
The Reno racers worry about it enough that they install cables from the frame to the engine to hold the engine to the airframe in case it breaks away from the mounts, and keep the CG flyable.
Click to expand...

Would be better to have an engineered shear shaft when subjected to those massive stresses the prop departs entirely.

Shear shafts are common on accessory drives in aviation. Might be tricky bugger tho
 
airguy said:
The Reno racers worry about it enough that they install cables from the frame to the engine to hold the engine to the airframe in case it breaks away from the mounts, and keep the CG flyable.
Click to expand...

I want one
 
Jaybird180 said:
Years ago, local crusty pilot Joe told me about this scenario possibly happening. He said, if you lose a prop blade the engine will be so far out of balance that it will shake violently. He said to cut the mixture RIGHT NOW - as the imbalance can rip the engine off the airframe, then pull the nose up to stop the prop. From there it's an engine out emergency, Best Glide and find a place for the forced landing.
Click to expand...

Totally agree:yes:
 
Dav8or said:
Go for the inertial reels. I love 'em! It was a little cheaper for the Mooney, but still well worth it IMO.
Click to expand...

Inertial reels may be comfy, but they will not hold you down in the seat in strong turbulence, especially as in mountain flying turbulence. They only keep you from flying forwards into the instrument panel and do little to nothing to help hold you down in your seat and bashing your head into the cabin roof or canopy. The lap belt portion of the harness is insufficient for that, and my seatbelt system is 5-point with inertial shoulder belts.

My first trip across the Rockies to Idaho in my RV-6 proved that one to me, so one of my next upgrades to my plane when I can afford it is to ditch the inertial reels and install conventional fixed 5-point harnesses.
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
A little armchair quarterbacking? You weren't there. How do you know what he did and didn't do?
Click to expand...
Yup, isn't that pretty much what we all do on here? Even if we're all way off of the actual happenings, we still benefit by discussing various scenarios and how to handle them in the future.

Bill Jennings said:
I don't know. Is the engine going to stay on the mounts? Is the mount going to stay on the airframe? If the engine departs, game over. I'd want down fast.
Click to expand...
That's why cutting the mixture would stop the shaking, then it's not gonna depart.

SixPapaCharlie said:
What are the stats on that happening?
Anyone know?
Click to expand...
Don't know any stats, but one of our captains had a DA-42 sheer all the mounts on one side. I've seen the pictures. The engine was just laying there inside the cowling.
 
Neal Howard said:
Inertial reels may be comfy, but they will not hold you down in the seat in strong turbulence, especially as in mountain flying turbulence. They only keep you from flying forwards into the instrument panel and do little to nothing to help hold you down in your seat and bashing your head into the cabin roof or canopy. The lap belt portion of the harness is insufficient for that, and my seatbelt system is 5-point with inertial shoulder belts.

My first trip across the Rockies to Idaho in my RV-6 proved that one to me, so one of my next upgrades to my plane when I can afford it is to ditch the inertial reels and install conventional fixed 5-point harnesses.
Click to expand...

I think this is another one of those, "it depends" topics. In a old single engine Cessna, with the upright seating, I don't think the harness assists in "holding you down during turbulence" whatsoever. The lapbelt is responsible for that task.

I put hooker harnesses in my 172 immediately after I bought it. Dumb move, I couldn't reach the "Johnson bar flaps" when strapped in tight so I had to fly with them loosened up all the time...defeated the purpose.

So when I bought my 182, also with Johnson bar flaps, I installed an inertia reel system....much better functionality.

Other planes have other geometries and likely other best solutions.

It depends.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
That's why cutting the mixture would stop the shaking, then it's not gonna depart.
Click to expand...

I agree with the stops the shaking part, the question is, what is already busted? That race plane someone linked to on youtube had a busted mount and a big hole in the case.
 
That would be some extremely violent shaking.

I hope I would have the presence of mind to shut it down immediately before the mounts failed. Just thinking about the forces involved, I imagine I'd have very little time depending on where the break occurred.

On the post-crash side of things, I do carry a few things to help my chances if I do survive. I carry mountain survival gear (which would apply to other non-aqueous landing sites as well). It is amazing how much survival stuff you can get into a 20-lb kit - especially if you are willing to pay a little more and pack it with modern light-weight gear.

Also I use a 406 ELT, I have a backup handheld radio, a SPOT messenger and a cell phone, iPad all with backup batteries/charging capabilities. One of those or the ship's radios ought to be functional if I am.

I file flight plans and use IFR or FF.

Still. There, but for the Grace of God,...
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Yup, isn't that pretty much what we all do on here?
Click to expand...
No, not all of us.

HighFlyingA380 said:
Even if we're all way off of the actual happenings, we still benefit by discussing various scenarios and how to handle them in the future.
Click to expand...
... And what does it matter if it bears no resemblance to reality, conventional operations, or even physics? If we read some of the harebrained speculation that comes out of these threads in mainstream media we'd be wailing about the incompetence of the media. But hey, no harm no foul, right?

Nauga,
who has had to clean up the mess
 
Father of a friend of mine used to operate Ford Tri-motors for the Forest service. He once told me that his dad had a prop break on one of the outboard engines. It shook loose from the mounts and fell off before they could shut it down. They flew it back to the airport and landed safely on two.

When he told me this I had the mental picture of the Classified ad...
Lost: one aircraft engine in the vicinity of...

The next mental picture was of his dad standing in someones living room saying, Sorry that's not my engine:)

In reality it landing in a plowed field and they retrieved it.

Brian
 
petrolero said:
On the post-crash side of things, I do carry a few things to help my chances if I do survive. I carry mountain survival gear (which would apply to other non-aqueous landing sites as well). It is amazing how much survival stuff you can get into a 20-lb kit - especially if you are willing to pay a little more and pack it with modern light-weight gear.

Also I use a 406 ELT, I have a backup handheld radio, a SPOT messenger and a cell phone, iPad all with backup batteries/charging capabilities. One of those or the ship's radios ought to be functional if I am.
Click to expand...

Put me squarely in the camp with those who say, if you're not carrying it on your person (i.e. a survival vest) then it's not survival gear, it's camping equipment. (But I don't wear one).

nauga said:
No, not all of us.

... And what does it matter if it bears no resemblance to reality, conventional operations, or even physics? If we read some of the harebrained speculation that comes out of these threads in mainstream media we'd be wailing about the incompetence of the media. But hey, no harm no foul, right?
Click to expand...

I abhor post crash speculation threads with every fiber of my being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top