Can a PA28 with a detatched engine glide?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a PA28 with a detatched engine glide?
If the engine detaches from the airframe of a PA28 (say following a prop failure), is there enough elevator authority to maintain the aircraft in a glide following the rapidly aft movement of the CofG?
Does anyone know?
Does anyone know?
Last edited by 18greens; 10th May 2004 at 17:07.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess there could be at cruise speed (because elevator authority goes up as the square of the ias) but you would have to maintain the speed all the way to touchdown... might mean a forced landing at 100kt+
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
I don't know about the whole engine detaching, but I've seen a photo of a PA28 that lost the entire prop, spinner and a goodly chunk of crank / driveshaft and made a successful forced landing.
Hat's off to the pilot.
From my experiences with model aircraft, powered and unpowered, I would be surprised if the aircraft were flyable without the mass of the engine. On the other hand, it would take massive force to dislodge the engine, so I suspect that it being flyable would be somewhat academic!
I recall a fatal accident in a glider (Libelle, I think) which was being flown solo by a petite woman in the rear seat. The investigation indicated that the ballast in the front cockpit wasn't restrained properly and slipped to the rear cockpit, with the resulting alteration of the CofG being sufficient for a stall spin accident.
SD
Hat's off to the pilot.
From my experiences with model aircraft, powered and unpowered, I would be surprised if the aircraft were flyable without the mass of the engine. On the other hand, it would take massive force to dislodge the engine, so I suspect that it being flyable would be somewhat academic!
I recall a fatal accident in a glider (Libelle, I think) which was being flown solo by a petite woman in the rear seat. The investigation indicated that the ballast in the front cockpit wasn't restrained properly and slipped to the rear cockpit, with the resulting alteration of the CofG being sufficient for a stall spin accident.
SD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While this is clearly a hypothetical scenario, the problem with checking the W&B envelope is that the published envelope is based on the elevator authority at the published stall speed. The elevator authority will be a lot higher at a higher speed.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the weight of the engine and the place of it I am sure that you can not fly most singles once the engine has departed.
Stick it in your W&B equation and you will see what I mean.
FD
Stick it in your W&B equation and you will see what I mean.
FD
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Miles Messenger flown by one of the Miles test pilots with his family on board lost its engine completely whist flying over France back in the fifties .He moved his family as far forward as possible and made a satisfactory forced landing.I,ve seen a picture of the engine-less airframe so it is possible!!.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a hypothetical scenario?
If part of the propellor detatches the eccentric weight could dislodge the engine. It happened to a twin in the UK about 10 years ago. As I recall the aircraft entered a spin which the pilot recovered from and landed.
I also agree with IO540 that the despite the fact the CofG is probably out of limits it does not necessarily make it unflyable. After all people must fly aircraft out of offical CofG in the same way they fly them over MAUW. They still take off (but not legally). The structural limit will be higher than the published limit.
I guess it comes down to where the CofG ends up and how much force the tailplane can produce to counter the pitching moment (and at what speed).
Thinking about it the cofg would be aft of the cofp making stability interesting as well.
If part of the propellor detatches the eccentric weight could dislodge the engine. It happened to a twin in the UK about 10 years ago. As I recall the aircraft entered a spin which the pilot recovered from and landed.
I also agree with IO540 that the despite the fact the CofG is probably out of limits it does not necessarily make it unflyable. After all people must fly aircraft out of offical CofG in the same way they fly them over MAUW. They still take off (but not legally). The structural limit will be higher than the published limit.
I guess it comes down to where the CofG ends up and how much force the tailplane can produce to counter the pitching moment (and at what speed).
Thinking about it the cofg would be aft of the cofp making stability interesting as well.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is one very good reason to not skimp on prop maintenance.
I was told that if a prop blade came off, the engine would depart before you could shut it down. As a result the aircraft minus engine would be unfliable due to limited elevator authority.
I dont think a survivable landing (in a single) would be an option.
GG
I was told that if a prop blade came off, the engine would depart before you could shut it down. As a result the aircraft minus engine would be unfliable due to limited elevator authority.
I dont think a survivable landing (in a single) would be an option.
GG
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Engine is Missing!
In the vicinity of New Plymouth, New Zealand, in March 1958 a Cessna C-180, ZK-BQJ engaged in aerial topdressing suffered a propeller failure which threw one blade.
The resultant imbalance then threw the engine completely out of the airframe almost instantly.
As it departed the engine forced the top cowling over the windscreen, and also impacted the starboard main-wheel, cutting the tyre.
The moment the engine came off the Cessna was thrown into a vertical snap roll, so rapidly that the pilot’s crash helmet was cracked when hitting the windscreen pillar!
Then followed a flat spin, from which normal spin recovery was successful.
To counter the pitch-up resulting from the rearward c of g change, the pilot applied full forward elevator, and lowered the flaps.
The ensuing flight path was controllable sufficiently to affect a successful force landing, with no further damage to the aircraft.
The free flying engine impacted in the farmer’s wood pile with no other damage to any person or property, but gave the farmer’s wife a severe fright as she hung out washing.
After a calming cup of tea, the pilot checked in with his operating company and reported that he needed a replacement aircraft, and when asked why, responded that the engine was missing.
“Have you checked the plugs?”
“No point, I can’t even find the engine!”
They took him at his word and duly arrived in a replacement aircraft, complete with engineer ready to replace plugs etc!
The pilot became a legend in New Zealand agricultural aviation circles and managed to successfully complete in excess of 25,000 hours topdressing time.
Sadly he passed away a few years ago in retirement.
Vale, Don “Goose” Ercerg.
In the vicinity of New Plymouth, New Zealand, in March 1958 a Cessna C-180, ZK-BQJ engaged in aerial topdressing suffered a propeller failure which threw one blade.
The resultant imbalance then threw the engine completely out of the airframe almost instantly.
As it departed the engine forced the top cowling over the windscreen, and also impacted the starboard main-wheel, cutting the tyre.
The moment the engine came off the Cessna was thrown into a vertical snap roll, so rapidly that the pilot’s crash helmet was cracked when hitting the windscreen pillar!
Then followed a flat spin, from which normal spin recovery was successful.
To counter the pitch-up resulting from the rearward c of g change, the pilot applied full forward elevator, and lowered the flaps.
The ensuing flight path was controllable sufficiently to affect a successful force landing, with no further damage to the aircraft.
The free flying engine impacted in the farmer’s wood pile with no other damage to any person or property, but gave the farmer’s wife a severe fright as she hung out washing.
After a calming cup of tea, the pilot checked in with his operating company and reported that he needed a replacement aircraft, and when asked why, responded that the engine was missing.
“Have you checked the plugs?”
“No point, I can’t even find the engine!”
They took him at his word and duly arrived in a replacement aircraft, complete with engineer ready to replace plugs etc!
The pilot became a legend in New Zealand agricultural aviation circles and managed to successfully complete in excess of 25,000 hours topdressing time.
Sadly he passed away a few years ago in retirement.
Vale, Don “Goose” Ercerg.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this is getting REALLY interesting !
Could one of the aerodynamics experts out there comment on my rather amateurish guess at why the NZ hero was able to recover the situation . . .
1. Full down elevator to reduce the downforce from the tailplane, and maybe generate some upforce. Helpful to add full nose down trim I guess.
2. Full flap, which on a high wing Cessna produces a significant nose-down attitude, presumably by moving the centre of lift aft (I guess you wouldn't get a similarly comforting result in say a PA28, or a Robin DR400), and move all occupants/lbaggage as far forward as possible.
3. As previously stated, increase airspeed if poss., to improve elevator authority.
4. Turn fuel taps off . . .
Now don't point your shotguns at me, I'm no professional. Just an interested guy. Tell us some stuff which one of us may be grateful for one day, like how could we get away with this situation in a PA28 or 38 ?
SD
Could one of the aerodynamics experts out there comment on my rather amateurish guess at why the NZ hero was able to recover the situation . . .
1. Full down elevator to reduce the downforce from the tailplane, and maybe generate some upforce. Helpful to add full nose down trim I guess.
2. Full flap, which on a high wing Cessna produces a significant nose-down attitude, presumably by moving the centre of lift aft (I guess you wouldn't get a similarly comforting result in say a PA28, or a Robin DR400), and move all occupants/lbaggage as far forward as possible.
3. As previously stated, increase airspeed if poss., to improve elevator authority.
4. Turn fuel taps off . . .
Now don't point your shotguns at me, I'm no professional. Just an interested guy. Tell us some stuff which one of us may be grateful for one day, like how could we get away with this situation in a PA28 or 38 ?
SD
Guest
Posts: n/a
I imagine that with the resulting rearward movement of the CofG, possibly beyond the Centre of Pressure (CP) that the a/c would become extremely unstable, requiring the lightest of touches to alter its attitude, surely it would be virtually uncontrollable by human hand. The usual downward force exerted by the tailplane in S&L would now require an upward force to prevent a nose up. As SD says, with the flaps deployed, the CP will move forwards a bit, but now with no thrust and a shed load of drag. The only good thing is that the stall speed should be lower and glide longer as the tail plane is required to provide some lift too lessing the load on the wing.
Was reading a ILAFFT book on the tube the other day, had a story of a twin whose starboard engine fell off, the specific problemin thise case was that the engine stayed attached via the control and instrument cables but now about six feet aft of the wing!!!! The drag was such that the only way was down at 500fpm. Nothing but forest for miles around, made a successful forces landing in a shallow river!!!! Amazing.
Was reading a ILAFFT book on the tube the other day, had a story of a twin whose starboard engine fell off, the specific problemin thise case was that the engine stayed attached via the control and instrument cables but now about six feet aft of the wing!!!! The drag was such that the only way was down at 500fpm. Nothing but forest for miles around, made a successful forces landing in a shallow river!!!! Amazing.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Matruh, Egypt and Belize.
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I remember the incident of the C 180 well. However my take at the time was the CG was so far aft of the datum, therefore uncontrollable, it was the "grace of God" alone that got Goose down in one piece. I get the impression the thing just fluttered backwards and forwards and it happened to hit the ground at a time when the vs was at a minimum.
This is not to say that Erceg was not a great pilot and a lengend, because he was.
Very sad to hear of Goose's parting. He had used up most of his 9 lives when I knew him, in the early 70's.
This is not to say that Erceg was not a great pilot and a lengend, because he was.
Very sad to hear of Goose's parting. He had used up most of his 9 lives when I knew him, in the early 70's.
Last edited by montys ex teaboy; 11th May 2004 at 22:26.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that there has been extensive (or any real) testing, but if the engine departs the aircraft, I think that we may safely assume that 99% of the time, the CofG will shift so far to the rear that the airplane will be essentially uncontrollable. 
Perhaps you are remembering this Blanik accident? I don't know of any twin-seat Libelles.
I recall a fatal accident in a glider (Libelle, I think) which was being flown solo by a petite woman in the rear seat. The investigation indicated that the ballast in the front cockpit wasn't restrained properly and slipped to the rear cockpit, with the resulting alteration of the CofG being sufficient for a stall spin accident.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sunday driver, as a former aero eng student I concur with your theorising. However, I would agree with 99% of people here that the aircraft would be uncontrollable. Rudimentary analysis of the moment a heavy lycoming contributes to the a/c would lead me to believe that you'd be getting the prayer matt out.
As stated in the earlier story, I'd wager a departure so rapid you wouldn't know what had happened followed by an unrecoverable descent either spinning or tumbling.
As stated in the earlier story, I'd wager a departure so rapid you wouldn't know what had happened followed by an unrecoverable descent either spinning or tumbling.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a conversation I had with "Goose" very shortly after his incident he proffered the suggestion that he reckoned he had sufficient control to have attempted a turn, " if he had been cheeky enough"!