Rutan Defiant

[Skylane81E]

what makes you think they have a better glide range than a "normal" airplane?

They are more efficient as both horizontal surfaces lift rather than having a tail pushing down.

 

[tonycondon]

then why is the early Wright Gliders and the Rutan Solitaire the only canard equipped gliders I can think of? Even the 1911 Wright Glider that set a world duration record of just over 9 minutes had the tail in the right place

I know they are aerodynamically clean but with the swept wings and wide root chord i didn't expect them to glide as good as they do. I've never really looked at one up close in person though.

 

[Skylane81E]

Donno, aparently the Horton brothers did well with their flying wing gliders.

It would be interesting to see what a canard glider could do with proper glider wings

 

[kyleb]

then why is the early Wright Gliders and the Rutan Solitaire the only canard equipped gliders I can think of? Even the 1911 Wright Glider that set a world duration record of just over 9 minutes had the tail in the right place

I know they are aerodynamically clean but with the swept wings and wide root chord i didn't expect them to glide as good as they do. I've never really looked at one up close in person though.

A couple of things...

Thermalling in a flock of gliders is an eyes-out exercise to avoid midairs. The canard's location is a detriment.

Also, to prevent the main wing from stalling, its max AOA is limited by allowing the canard to stall first and with a substantial margin. That means the main wing never reaches a high AOA, so the minimum flying speed is relatively high. That limits tight circling to stay within a thermal and may also raise the minimum sink rate.

 

[tonycondon]

A couple of things...

Thermalling in a flock of gliders is an eyes-out exercise to avoid midairs. The canard's location is a detriment.

Also, to prevent the main wing from stalling, its max AOA is limited by allowing the canard to stall first and with a substantial margin. That means the main wing never reaches a high AOA, so the minimum flying speed is relatively high. That limits tight circling to stay within a thermal and may also raise the minimum sink rate.

yea my understanding was that the Solitaire had a decent glide but it didn't climb very well.

 

[Goofy]

The reasons were simple. Beech guaranteed the buyers of the first batch of ship-sets (~60 planes IIRC) with certain performance numbers. If the plane didn't achieve the specs when the certification process was completed, the buyers could walk their contract and receive a full refund of their down-stroke. Most did.

Beech then leased most of the completed but unsold airplanes for a while, while searching for a solution to the weight and performance issues, but quickly concluded the problem was insurmountable. To cut their fleet support losses, the company eventually bought back most of the fleet from owners who had taken delivery. In some cases they took the old starship and gave the customer a new 350 in exchange. Within the last few years I managed the acquisition of one of those 350's for a Dallas-based client.

The FAA screwed around with the certification process for a very long time. They had no idea what they were looking at and insisted on a bunch of stupid crap that was not necessary:

"Before the Starship came along, the FAA had never certificated a composite airframe, so they were naturally very cautious when approached with the Starship design. In an effort to err on the safe side, the FAA essentially told Beech that although their design looked good on paper, the design would have to be significantly strengthened to receive certification.

Beechcraft did so, adding significant additional structure to both the fuselage and wing. Of course, this added quite a bit of weight to the aircraft, so other components had to be beefed up as well, adding yet more weight.

In the end, the Starship's max ramp weight rose by over 2,500 lbs to 15,010 lbs. All of these trips back to the drawing board had another detrimental effect; Certification, production and customer delivery of the first airframes kept slipping, slipping, slipping, into the future."

By the time the bureaucrats were happy the plane was many months late, overweight and slower than it needed to be. Hence the bailing of the customers - can't blame them:

"The higher weight of the Starship also reduced Beech's projected performance claims for the Starship. The Starship was supposed to have a max cruise speed of 352 knots, a useful load of 4,599 lbs, stall at 79 knots and fly for over 2,500 nm at max range power. But after the FAA was done beefing up the airframe, those numbers became 338 knots, 4,710 lbs, 89 knots and 1,575 nm respectively. But even with the extra weight and reduced performance, the Starship still outperformed the King Air B-200. This is an amazing thing, and speaks volumes for the strength of the Starship's original design.

How many other aircraft designs could even fly after such a weight gain, let alone climb to 41,000 feet? All this while actually increasing the useful load by 111 lbs. The Starship is a truly great aircraft, even with her extra heft. Imagine how fabulous the Starship would have been if the FAA had certificated her original design."

There are a couple owners, to this day, that love theirs and fly as often as they can afford to. Burt flew to Oshkosh last year (2011) in the beauty that still flies chase for Scaled when needed. I taxied out behind them when we were both leaving for home, they got there before me......

 

[DouglasBader]

Anyone who has turned wrenches on the C337 would not use the word
"simplicity" to describe the airframe or experience.

I would. It's a simple light twin; it's not hard to work on, and it's simple to fly.

The problem is that canard airplanes do not have flaps typically.

The P.180, which isn't considered a true canard because it doesn't have a flight control surface on the forward wing, and does have a horizontal stab, has flaps on the forward wing and on the main wing.

Is it the Piaggio, Starship, or "both" that sweep the canard when the main wing is clean and "un-sweep" the canard when the main wing flaps are out?

The Beech swept; the Piaggio does not.

The Piaggio isn't a strict canard. It has a forward fixed canard (no control surfaces) that provides a bit of lift up front, but has a conventional elevator and horizontal stabilizer on the T tail.

The Piaggio has a horizontal stab, but it's not conventional. All three wings are lifting surfaces.

The P.180 exhibits an interesting response to any disturbance of airflow over the forward wing; even flight in and our of fair weather cumulus clouds will necessitate moving the control column fore and aft about two inches to compensate for the changes in lift. Bugs, rain, paint disturbances, etc, are noticeable in performance and handling.

 

[tonycondon]

The FAA started certifying fiberglass composite airframes in 1967.

some of the design "features" of the canard led to requiring a much beefier structure than a normal airplane. Like the inner portion of the wing operating at a negative angle of attack during manuevering flight.

 

[rottydaddy]

Never should have gone to Oshkosh and seen all those lovely canards and been entranced by the Velocity V-Twin prototype...

Doing some research, it would seem that the Velocity V-Twin is not the first composite canard light twin. The first was the Rutan Defiant and it was an inline twin much like the old Cessna 337.

Now I am going to end up in a twin eventually. Save the arguments, it is decided. Probably about 5 years from now after the house is paid off. I like the inline simplicity of the Cessna 337, I like the look of canards and my background lends itself well to composites.

But HOLY SMOKES, the Rutan Defiant is a rare bird! I have found one partially worked on project and zero completed birds for sale. Anybody know of flying examples, for sale or not?

I've seen one at 47N many times... it might be based there, actually. Don't know much about it, but the pilot does fine with it on that runway, and it's not the longest around (about 3000 ft. between the displaced thresholds). Never seen a "for sale" sign on it, but as they say: "everything's for sale if the price is right."

 

[david.h]

The Piaggao does have moving surfaces on the canard, they deflect down with the main wing flaps. The horiz tail surface can provide lift as a three lifting surface planform, but my understanding is that in normal flight the tail surface is only very lightly loaded if not neutral. $0.02~

 

[rainsux]

> A better question would be whether or not your buddy's defiant is as hard to work on.

He's a proud builder. Of course he thinks it is easy to work on.

Reality? Lots of stuff inside a small fuselage. He recently had to cut a hole in the
aft belly in order to perform maint on some device in the fuel system.

 

[DouglasBader]

The Piaggao does have moving surfaces on the canard, they deflect down with the main wing flaps. The horiz tail surface can provide lift as a three lifting surface planform, but my understanding is that in normal flight the tail surface is only very lightly loaded if not neutral.

Piaggio is quite adamant that the forward wing is just that, and not a canard. It has flaps on the forward wing, but no pitch control. Yes, the flaps move with the main wing flaps, and are simple in operation insofar as cockpit control is concerned.

Normally the horizontal stab, on which is located the elevator, is trimmed to neutral, though it varies with aircraft loading and configuration.

 

[LJS1993]

Guys I'm not a pilot and by no means do I want to make this a 337 thread. However the concept of the 337 just makes sense in my mind. You have a twin without the issues of control to deal with if an engine goes out. The design just makes sense.

 

[dell30rb]

Guys I'm not a pilot and by no means do I want to make this a 337 thread. However the concept of the 337 just makes sense in my mind. You have a twin without the issues of control to deal with if an engine goes out. The design just makes sense.

Oh, that's what you think. You can make something foolproof, but the world will just make a better idiot.

A pilot successfully sued and won against a maintenance shop regarding a 337 crash. One engine failed, and she did not firewall the remaining engine. The pilot (commerical rating and 4500hrs) slowly descended until she crashed into the trees. Survived with injuries.

The pilot sued the maintenance shop because the remaining engine was past TBO and apparently they had not 'warned' her (enough). She claimed that it did not produce enough power and that is why she crashed. This resulted in a 11m victory IIRC.

I may have the numbers wrong but the NTSB specified cause for the crash (not admissible in court) and the reason the pilot did not firewall the remaining engine is that the manual specifies a max of 27" manifold pressure for normal operations. EXCEPT in an emergency, the max can be 32". The village idiot left the engine at 27" until crash and burn...


Edit: NTSB report reads

Shortly after takeoff on a hot day, after the airplane was about 10 miles from the departure airport, the rear engine failed for
undetermined reasons. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the airport, feathered the rear engine, and maintained front engine power
at the top of the green arc of the manifold pressure gage, at 33 inches of manifold pressure. The airplane did not maintain altitude at
that power setting, and to avoid houses and vehicles on the ground, the pilot performed a forced landing at a water treatment plant.
During the landing, the airplane struck the top of a concrete structure, hit the ground, and became engulfed in flames. According to the
owner’s manual, after an engine failure, the remaining engine power to be used isto be "increased as required." The published maximum
power setting was 37 inches of manifold pressure at "red line," without any time limitations. A performance calculation indicated that at
the existing ambient temperatures, and at that power setting, the airplane should have climbed at least 290 feet per minute. Additional
references to the use of a 37-inch power setting, including performance calculations, were noted in the owner’s manual.

And the court ruling... http://www.airlaw.com/Press-Releases/Archive/Jury-awards-more-than-$11-Million-in-airplane-crash-lawsuit_37.asp

 

[LJS1993]

Oh, that's what you think. You can make something foolproof, but the world will just make a better idiot.

A pilot successfully sued and won against a maintenance shop regarding a 337 crash. One engine failed, and she did not firewall the remaining engine. The pilot (commerical rating and 4500hrs) slowly descended until she crashed into the trees. Survived with injuries.

The pilot sued the maintenance shop because the remaining engine was past TBO and apparently they had not 'warned' her (enough). She claimed that it did not produce enough power and that is why she crashed. This resulted in a 11m victory IIRC.

I may have the numbers wrong but the NTSB specified cause for the crash (not admissible in court) and the reason the pilot did not firewall the remaining engine is that the manual specifies a max of 27" manifold pressure for normal operations. EXCEPT in an emergency, the max can be 32". The village idiot left the engine at 27" until crash and burn...


Edit: NTSB report reads




And the court ruling... http://www.airlaw.com/Press-Releases/Archive/Jury-awards-more-than-$11-Million-in-airplane-crash-lawsuit_37.asp

Wow I'm not even a pilot and I can almost figure out what she did wrong. First off are you NOT supposed to lead with the rear engine with the 337 in order to positively make sure it's working properly? Doesn't the 337 have cowl flaps which are supposed to be open upon takeoff? Lastly, shoot, if one engine is out your damn right I'm going full throttle on the remaining engine.

 

[Tom-D]

Guys I'm not a pilot and by no means do I want to make this a 337 thread. However the concept of the 337 just makes sense in my mind. You have a twin without the issues of control to deal with if an engine goes out. The design just makes sense.

And they are really great aircraft when up graded to the 0-470 235 horse.

 

[DouglasBader]

First off are you NOT supposed to lead with the rear engine with the 337 in order to positively make sure it's working properly? Doesn't the 337 have cowl flaps which are supposed to be open upon takeoff? Lastly, shoot, if one engine is out your damn right I'm going full throttle on the remaining engine.

Lead with the rear when applying power during the takeoff roll. That's not relevant here, as the narrative indicates her power failed shortly after takeoff.

Cowl flaps aren't necessarily relevant here, either.

If an engine is out, firewalling the other isn't necessarily what you want to do, either.

That remaining engine may not give you a positive rate of climb, but it will give you a longer glide and increase your options during the drift down. Firewall it and blow it up or damage it, and you may put yourself in a world of hurt.

In my experience, the RC337, with the rear engine failed and feathered at gross, does just fine, without any need for any exceptional power settings.

 

[dell30rb]

If an engine is out, firewalling the other isn't necessarily what you want to do, either.

Firewall it and blow it up or damage it, and you may put yourself in a world of hurt.

That remaining engine may not give you a positive rate of climb, but it will give you a longer glide and increase your options during the drift down. In my experience, the RC337, with the rear engine failed and feathered at gross, does just fine, without any need for any exceptional power settings.

The manual lists 37" as a published maximum with no time limit. I understand your reasoning behind not wanting to blow up your only remaining engine, but are you arguing against going over the green arc and up to 37" in this scenario?

My original post might have been misleading when I said she should have firewalled it... I meant instead that she should have pushed it to the published red line and not stayed within the green arc. The alternative being a crash landing in an undesirable location. The NTSB report says that the POH mentions specifically that the motor can be safely operated at the red line with no time restrictions.

If your saying she could have done just fine with the engine in the green arc, well I agree with you. From what I have read, the pilot did not divert to the nearest airport but instead 'maneuvered' while trying to trouble shoot - all the while losing altitude and once she had gotten herself in a pickle with her only option a crash landing, did not advance the throttle to the red line which according to NTSB would have resulted in a climb.

 

[DouglasBader]

I understand your reasoning behind not wanting to blow up your only remaining engine, but are you arguing against going over the green arc and up to 37" in this scenario?

No, because I made no such argument. That said, having had an engine failure in the 337 on the rear engine, I certainly never needed that much power to not only remain airborne, but to return to an airport, fly the pattern and land. That's possible so long as the rear engine is feathered. If it doesn't feather, one won't be going far.

There's a big difference between fire walling and using maximum rated power.

Years ago during my initial training at a particular operator, I refrained from pushing the power levers all the way to the stops during a windshear exercise. I was admonished, and the instructor wanted to know why I didn't firewall it. I explained that I didn't want to destroy the engines or damage the airframe.

"Would you rather hit the ground?" The instructor demanded. He went on to explain that in such a case, we ignored the limits, pushed up the power, and flew the airplane out of the situation. He stated that in that airplane, the manufacturer allowed five minutes at the higher power setting.

Fast forward a few years when in an emergency, the crew did as the company trained them, and pushed the power up. An engine destroyed itself, another had parts of the core melt. The aircraft descended with only one engine partially remaining, our of four, to break up and explode in a farmers field in dark in a third world mountainous country. Subsequently the company revised it's procedures, and the engine manufacturer clarified that yes, five minutes were allowed...but cumulative over the life of the engine...almost certainly exceeded over the previous tens of thousands of hours of operation.

Treat the engine like your life depends on it. It may.

If your saying she could have done just fine with the engine in the green arc, well I agree with you.

That's good, because I did do just fine with the engine in the green arc, and it worked fine. Our operations were in areas considerably more hostile than that of the subject case. Setting down off field was never considered a wise option, not just because of possible terrain issues, but because of what those who might find us would likely do, if we survived the initial landing.

 

[LJS1993]

No, because I made no such argument. That said, having had an engine failure in the 337 on the rear engine, I certainly never needed that much power to not only remain airborne, but to return to an airport, fly the pattern and land. That's possible so long as the rear engine is feathered. If it doesn't feather, one won't be going far.

There's a big difference between fire walling and using maximum rated power.

Years ago during my initial training at a particular operator, I refrained from pushing the power levers all the way to the stops during a windshear exercise. I was admonished, and the instructor wanted to know why I didn't firewall it. I explained that I didn't want to destroy the engines or damage the airframe.

"Would you rather hit the ground?" The instructor demanded. He went on to explain that in such a case, we ignored the limits, pushed up the power, and flew the airplane out of the situation. He stated that in that airplane, the manufacturer allowed five minutes at the higher power setting.

Fast forward a few years when in an emergency, the crew did as the company trained them, and pushed the power up. An engine destroyed itself, another had parts of the core melt. The aircraft descended with only one engine partially remaining, our of four, to break up and explode in a farmers field in dark in a third world mountainous country. Subsequently the company revised it's procedures, and the engine manufacturer clarified that yes, five minutes were allowed...but cumulative over the life of the engine...almost certainly exceeded over the previous tens of thousands of hours of operation.

Treat the engine like your life depends on it. It may.



That's good, because I did do just fine with the engine in the green arc, and it worked fine. Our operations were in areas considerably more hostile than that of the subject case. Setting down off field was never considered a wise option, not just because of possible terrain issues, but because of what those who might find us would likely do, if we survived the initial landing.

Ahhh I see. Didn't you fly the 337 while in the service?

 

[Morne]

Doug, the 337 variant used by AirScan had an upgraded engine. You had more available oomph than the crashed bird in question, regardless of pilot error in that case. On the civilian side, the Riley Rocket conversion of the 337 might be comparable.

The valid point to come out of this is that having more oomph available as an option is very helpful when a fan quits. Thus, I would prefer to hang a pair of 180hp engines rather than 160hp on the Defiant (or the V-Twin, at that).

 

[DouglasBader]

Doug, the 337 variant used by AirScan had an upgraded engine. You had more available oomph than the crashed bird in question, regardless of pilot error in that case.

You might be mistaken on several counts.

You might also be thinking of the IO-550 conversion, which the organization to which you refer developed, but does not fly.

 

[Morne]

I sit corrected.

 

[Skylane81E]

I sit corrected.

You are doing it wrong!

Never admit error on the internet, just sit there and argue!


Really, kudos.

 

[Morne]

And they are really great aircraft when up graded to the 0-470 235 horse.

Is there actually an STC on the 337 for such an engine upgrade?

 

[iflyforfun]

The problem is if you loose the mill over hostile terrain, you're going to be crashing with 4 times the energy of most spam cans. The Defiant does get around this to some degree with the extra mill.

Simply not true. Repeat, simply, totally and completely untrue. I think most people would agree that a 172N would fit the above "most spam cans" description. As someone who has owned and flown both a 172 and a Velocity and have landed the Velocity off field, fan out, I think I can speak to this.

Cessna 172N stall speed, 47 kts
Velocity SE stall speed, 60 kts
60^2/47^2 = 1.63

First, if you assume you land both at stall, I will grant you that the Velocity has 63% more energy ... not trivial, but sure the heck not 400%.

Second, the lack of stall/spin risk in the Velocity adds quite a bit to safety ... yeah, if you're paying attention, you'd never stall, that's for all those other people, would never happen to me, yadda, yadda, yadda. Stall/spin kills a measurable number of our flock every year ... to pretend that a plane that won't stall spin and that maintains complete roll/pitch/yaw control in almost all configurations doesn't provide a safety margin that a traditional design won't is illogical.

In my case, I put my Velocity down in a much <100 acre field with trees on one end and a culvert on the other. I could hold 65 knots and parallel the trees, pull a fairly hard 90 degree turn (30-40 degree bank) and plop her down parallel with the furrows without worrying about a stall spin at 50 ft.

I will admit that the increased landing speed is not something one should ignore. I'll admit that the long runway requirements and limitation of a pusher on grass limit the fields one can use. But to completely make up facts like "4 times the energy" simply makes no sense and adds nothing of value to a discussion while continuing to feed the old wives tales with which aviation is so replete.

 

[dell30rb]

Stall speed of a 172N is 44kts with flaps down. http://www.alameda-aero.com/other/Cessna172NPOH.pdf

The energy is not 4x from 44 to 60 kts but the lethality might be. A 10 kt crash has 4x the energy of a 5kt crash but neither will kill you.

 

[Morne]

As someone who has owned and flown both a 172 and a Velocity and have landed the Velocity off field, fan out, I think I can speak to this.

An intriguing perspective!

Would you mind relating the engine stoppage cause? As a potential twin buyer I often wonder just how many scenarios the second engine truly solves.

Glad you landed that canard safe! Velocity birds are genuinely beautiful to behold.

 

[Geico266]

Would you mind relating the engine stoppage cause? As a potential twin buyer I often wonder just how many scenarios the second engine truly solves.

They don't add safety to flying all, that is a myth. You stated in your first post you don't want to hear any info on twins, that you have already made up your mind. So why ask now?

 

[Morne]

Thor on a cracker...two month pause in a thread and you'll forgive me if I forgot which stupid arguments I was trying to dodge.

Go drink some fuming coffee.

 

[Velocity173]

Simply not true. Repeat, simply, totally and completely untrue. I think most people would agree that a 172N would fit the above "most spam cans" description. As someone who has owned and flown both a 172 and a Velocity and have landed the Velocity off field, fan out, I think I can speak to this.

Cessna 172N stall speed, 47 kts
Velocity SE stall speed, 60 kts
60^2/47^2 = 1.63

First, if you assume you land both at stall, I will grant you that the Velocity has 63% more energy ... not trivial, but sure the heck not 400%.

Second, the lack of stall/spin risk in the Velocity adds quite a bit to safety ... yeah, if you're paying attention, you'd never stall, that's for all those other people, would never happen to me, yadda, yadda, yadda. Stall/spin kills a measurable number of our flock every year ... to pretend that a plane that won't stall spin and that maintains complete roll/pitch/yaw control in almost all configurations doesn't provide a safety margin that a traditional design won't is illogical.

In my case, I put my Velocity down in a much <100 acre field with trees on one end and a culvert on the other. I could hold 65 knots and parallel the trees, pull a fairly hard 90 degree turn (30-40 degree bank) and plop her down parallel with the furrows without worrying about a stall spin at 50 ft.

I will admit that the increased landing speed is not something one should ignore. I'll admit that the long runway requirements and limitation of a pusher on grass limit the fields one can use. But to completely make up facts like "4 times the energy" simply makes no sense and adds nothing of value to a discussion while continuing to feed the old wives tales with which aviation is so replete.

Good point. Also, like I said we might be landing faster but a canard's glide ratio is about twice that of a typical (C-172) production. I've got a good chance of making a runway where a C-172 might not.

 

[Geico266]

Good point. Also, like I said we might be landing faster but a canard's glide ratio is about twice that of a typical (C-172) production. I've got a good chance of making a runway where a C-172 might not.

It certainly is a trade off. Better glide, but more energy when landing.

 

[iflyforfun]

An intriguing perspective!

Would you mind relating the engine stoppage cause? As a potential twin buyer I often wonder just how many scenarios the second engine truly solves.

Glad you landed that canard safe! Velocity birds are genuinely beautiful to behold.

Found part of an intake manifold gasket had been ingested ... very small piece. Didn't do any damage to the engine, but it did result in one cylinder being excessively lean.

Unfortunately for me, I was practicing power off stalls (or canard bobbles as the case may be). It was a beautiful day and I was just out playing. I was only at 3,000 or so feet ... don't remember exactly. Had the nose up and had developed a pretty aggressive decent rate in the stall with the engine and low idle. Again, I was playing and just holding the stick in my lap. All of a sudden, it got VERY quite. At that point, I was descending rapidly and not as high as I should have been and the rest is wheat field history that my family still loves to harass me about.

I won't go into too many details - maybe should log on as "unregistered" and take my beating. The number of errors I made was astounding (I was just counting and the number is big). That said, my beautiful Velocity did not let me down and the only damage suffered during the landing was some scuffing of the paint on the nose and wing leading edge from the wheat.

 

[centextech254]

It's been a while I know. Anyone looking for a Defiant "Kit".
All major components already built. 95 of the hardware and custom control hardware included. It is more like one of the Velocity kits. I also have another set of Wings, Canard, and Bulk heads.

 

[Tom-D]

It's been a while I know. Anyone looking for a Defiant "Kit".
All major components already built. 95 of the hardware and custom control hardware included. It is more like one of the Velocity kits. I also have another set of Wings, Canard, and Bulk heads.

WoW!!!! yes tell me about it.. Pictures please.

nc19143@comcast.net

 

[Art VanDelay]

No, because I made no such argument. That said, having had an engine failure in the 337 on the rear engine, I certainly never needed that much power to not only remain airborne, but to return to an airport, fly the pattern and land. That's possible so long as the rear engine is feathered. If it doesn't feather, one won't be going far.

There's a big difference between fire walling and using maximum rated power.

Years ago during my initial training at a particular operator, I refrained from pushing the power levers all the way to the stops during a windshear exercise. I was admonished, and the instructor wanted to know why I didn't firewall it. I explained that I didn't want to destroy the engines or damage the airframe.

"Would you rather hit the ground?" The instructor demanded. He went on to explain that in such a case, we ignored the limits, pushed up the power, and flew the airplane out of the situation. He stated that in that airplane, the manufacturer allowed five minutes at the higher power setting.

Fast forward a few years when in an emergency, the crew did as the company trained them, and pushed the power up. An engine destroyed itself, another had parts of the core melt. The aircraft descended with only one engine partially remaining, our of four, to break up and explode in a farmers field in dark in a third world mountainous country. Subsequently the company revised it's procedures, and the engine manufacturer clarified that yes, five minutes were allowed...but cumulative over the life of the engine...almost certainly exceeded over the previous tens of thousands of hours of operation.

Treat the engine like your life depends on it. It may.



That's good, because I did do just fine with the engine in the green arc, and it worked fine. Our operations were in areas considerably more hostile than that of the subject case. Setting down off field was never considered a wise option, not just because of possible terrain issues, but because of what those who might find us would likely do, if we survived the initial landing.

Who operates turbo-jet equipment with engines that will actually let the pilot do harm ? We teach wind shear avoidance exactly as you describe - push the thrust levers to the mechanical stops ! You don't have time to dick around and look at a gauge and fine tune EPR settings in that situation.

 

[Velocity173]

Who operates turbo-jet equipment with engines that will actually let the pilot do harm ? We teach wind shear avoidance exactly as you describe - push the thrust levers to the mechanical stops ! You don't have time to dick around and look at a gauge and fine tune EPR settings in that situation.

I think DB punched out of POA long ago. Hasn't posted for awhile.