Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

aft W & B
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dhkey(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: aft W & B

Richard,

I posted my answer to the group so that the incorrect parts can be checked.



As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an "aft WB" as there is no 

"forward WB", there is only one WB and that's of the plane which yeilds the 

CG for the plane. That CG may or may not fall into the cg range of the 

plane. There are two main terms used to reference this range called aft cg 

limit and forward cg limit which the CG for the plane must fall into to fly 

safe.



So you could say I don't know how to do an "aft W&B"  Yet, I do know how to 

do a W&B and I do know what my aft cg limit is. If you want to know how I 

did my weight and balance let me know, my aft cg limit is a calculation of a 

percentange(35%) of the cord length of my wing(66 in) in my case that was 

23.1 inches. The W&B would take a while to type but simple. In short (dont 

do it this way!) set the wings at 9 degrees and weight all wheels and 

multiply by the distance from the datum(leading edge of the wing) divide 

that by the empty weight. Then make sure it's between the cg limits.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>

To: dhkey(at)msn.com

Subject: W & B

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:00:35 -0500



How did you do the aft W & B?



Rick



--

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: aft W & B

David, Well the Kolb MkIII is an interesting case as the fuel is almost at midway between the forward and aft limits. I checked my forward c.g. with two FAA people and 2.5 gallons of fuel (30 minutes with my 582). Aft c.g. was done with one FAA person and full fuel. If I had oil injection, instead of mixing, I'd have done the forward  c.g. with minimum oil in the tank and aft c.g. with the oil tank full . And now that I'm looking at the calculation block rather than just the drawing of the airplane showing the arms, I see that it's exactly the way the factory said to do it in C) and D). Didn't mean to screw anybody up with the terminology. 



Rick

On 9/6/06, David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com (dhkey(at)msn.com)> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com (dhkey(at)msn.com)>



Richard,

I posted my answer to the group so that the incorrect parts can be checked.



As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an "aft WB" as there is no 

"forward WB", there is only one WB and that's of the plane which yeilds the

CG for the plane. That CG may or may not fall into the cg range of the

plane. There are two main terms used to reference this range called aft cg 

limit and forward cg limit which the CG for the plane must fall into to fly

safe.



So you could say I don't know how to do an "aft W&B"  Yet, I do know how to

do a W&B and I do know what my aft cg limit is. If you want to know how I 

did my weight and balance let me know, my aft cg limit is a calculation of a

percentange(35%) of the cord length of my wing(66 in) in my case that was

23.1 inches. The W&B would take a while to type but simple. In short (dont 

do it this way!) set the wings at 9 degrees and weight all wheels and

multiply by the distance from the datum(leading edge of the wing) divide

that by the empty weight. Then make sure it's between the cg limits. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com (jindoguy(at)gmail.com)>

To: dhkey(at)msn.com (dhkey(at)msn.com)

Subject: W & B

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:00:35 -0500 



How did you do the aft W & B?



Rick



--

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.


	


 

-- 

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

dhkey(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: aft W & B

I see what you mean now. To answer your question I did not do a aft w&b or a 

forward w&b, I guess you might say I did an empty w&b, which is to say 

nothing was in the plane except oil and coolant. I guess that leads me to a 

couple more qeustions. 1) Can you tell me your CG with a 104 lb passenger 

and 3 lbs of bags and 7.5 gallons of fuel and a 10 lb seat cusion or would 

you have to redo the W&B again? Mine would be 18.45 with the doors on and 

18.8 if I did it with the doors off. 2) What if you bought bigger or smaller 

wheels, does that mean put the wheels on, find the two FAA guys again, and 

redo the for CG and aft CG's?

I don't know maybe the FAA guys are just plain fat or it could be like bad 

carbs and good carbs the weight is diffrent. also I'm surprised you got 

anything done with two FAA guys around. Next time try booting the fattest 

FAA guy out and putting in two nice looking petite girls they're harder to 

find but I bet the CG comes out a lot better.

3) What did your pilot arm came out to be?

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: aft W & B

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:49:07 -0500

David, Well the Kolb MkIII is an interesting case as the fuel is almost at

midway between the forward and aft limits. I checked my forward c.g. with

two FAA people and 2.5 gallons of fuel (30 minutes with my 582). Aft c.g.

was done with one FAA person and full fuel. If I had oil injection, instead

of mixing, I'd have done the forward c.g. with minimum oil in the tank and

aft c.g. with the oil tank full . And now that I'm looking at the

calculation block rather than just the drawing of the airplane showing the

arms, I see that it's exactly the way the factory said to do it in C) and

D). Didn't mean to screw anybody up with the terminology.

Rick

On 9/6/06, David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>Richard,

>I posted my answer to the group so that the incorrect parts can be

>checked.

>

>As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an "aft WB" as there is

>no

>"forward WB", there is only one WB and that's of the plane which yeilds

>the

>CG for the plane. That CG may or may not fall into the cg range of the

>plane. There are two main terms used to reference this range called aft cg

>limit and forward cg limit which the CG for the plane must fall into to

>fly

>safe.

>

>So you could say I don't know how to do an "aft W&B"  Yet, I do know how

>to

>do a W&B and I do know what my aft cg limit is. If you want to know how I

>did my weight and balance let me know, my aft cg limit is a calculation of

>a

>percentange(35%) of the cord length of my wing(66 in) in my case that was

>23.1 inches. The W&B would take a while to type but simple. In short (dont

>do it this way!) set the wings at 9 degrees and weight all wheels and

>multiply by the distance from the datum(leading edge of the wing) divide

>that by the empty weight. Then make sure it's between the cg limits.

> >From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>

> >To: dhkey(at)msn.com

> >Subject: W & B

> >Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:00:35 -0500

> >

> >How did you do the aft W & B?

> >

> >Rick

> >

> >--

> >Rick Girard

> >"Ya'll drop on in"

> >takes on a whole new meaning

> >when you live at the airport.

>

--

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.

APilot(at)webtv.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: aft W & B

Regarding the CG of a Kolb Mk III and probably most aircraft.  I first

flew mine with a 33 percent of chord CG.  I did not like the way it

felt.  I moved the battery to the nose cone and recalculated the CG.  It

is now 28 percent and I like the way it flies.  I would be worried if it

was less that 22 percent because the elevator might not be effective

enough to make a decent landing unless I burned it in.  I do not know

what the CG limits are.  If someone knows, please pass it on.  Thanks

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: aft W & B

Dave/All



I don't remember what those W& B numbers are and I don't care, you shouldn't 

either. What IS important is to know the aircraft loading that might put you 

beyond these limits. I set up a spread sheet on the computer and played with 

different passenger/fuel/baggage loadings till I found out where the limits 

are. For example the aft CG limits are with empty fuel tanks with a solo 160 

LB pilot. The forward limits are with empty fuel tanks and something like 

500 LB of pilot & passenger. In other words I will always weigh more than 

the point were I will have a aft CG condition and the forward limit is with 

a passenger weight that is a good 50 lbs more than my max gross weight. I 

have the spread sheet results taped in my aircraft log book for future 

reference but in my case I know I will never be out side the CG limits. Do 

you know what loading conditions might put you outside you CG limits?



I had to move my battery to the nose cone to get these figures with my 

airplane and the redrive VW. If you have a more standard configuration you 

may be ok but do you know that? Also my first flight instructor told me to 

always check the W&B with full and empty tanks. Even with the tanks near the 

CG the figures will change slightly.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIc



---

dhkey(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: aft W & B

"I don't remember what those W& B numbers are and I don't care, you 

shouldn't either."



Lets see I have less than 10 hours in my plane and someone is telling me I 

shouldn't care about weight and balance... I guess you know where that 

advice is going... the recycle bin.



"in my case I know I will never be out side the CG limits." It must be great 

to already know your W&B limits. Now I'm going to learn mine.



"Also my first flight instructor told me to always check the W&B with full 

and empty tanks." Yea it sounded like a great idea, I wish I'd done that. 

Yet, I had never heard the terms "AFT W&B" and "FORWARD W&B" glad Mr. Girard 

cleared that up for me.



So what would you call a W&B with only oil and coolant? An "empty W&B"?

[quote]From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

To: <kolb-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: aft W & B

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:21:59 -0400




<NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>



Dave/All



I don't remember what those W& B numbers are and I don't care, you 

shouldn't either. What IS important is to know the aircraft loading that 

might put you beyond these limits. I set up a spread sheet on the computer 

and played with different passenger/fuel/baggage loadings till I found out 

where the limits are. For example the aft CG limits are with empty fuel 

tanks with a solo 160 LB pilot. The forward limits are with empty fuel 

tanks and something like 500 LB of pilot & passenger. In other words I will 

always weigh more than the point were I will have a aft CG condition and 

the forward limit is with a passenger weight that is a good 50 lbs more 

than my max gross weight. I have the spread sheet results taped in my 

aircraft log book for future reference but in my case I know I will never 

be out side the CG limits. Do you know what loading conditions might put 

you outside you CG limits?



I had to move my battery to the nose cone to get these figures with my 

airplane and the redrive VW. If you have a more standard configuration you 

may be ok but do you know that? Also my first flight instructor told me to 

always check the W&B with full and empty tanks. Even with the tanks near 

the CG the figures will change slightly.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIc



---

by0ung(at)brigham.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: aft W & B

Once again if anyone is interested I have a spread sheet for doing the W&B

it is in quarto pro but if you have other software I may be able to save it

in a form you can use.   Contact me off list.  



Boyd young     by0ung(at)brigham.net

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: aft W & B

David, Sure, you can do any weight and balance you want and an empty wieght and balance is perfectly logical. When I was learning to fly GA, the flying club I belonged to was very strict about students doing a W & B before every flight. It required us to go to the aircraft's maintenance book get the current empty W & B and then calculate the  c.g. for that days loading condition. From that we then had to answer a series of questions about the performance we could expect at that loading and the days weather.

Now for yesterdays questions, I had to go back and do them again as I can't find diddely since we moved. Someday I will unpack, please God. So, I got my buddy Dave and we went through the process again. I was looking for a reason to try out my new scales, anyway. I did it at the aircraft's current condition and removed or added fuel by calculation. The tanks held a total of 6 gallons. I used 2 gallons for my forward W & B calculation. 



P = 7

FAA people all weigh 170 lb. which makes me about 1 1/5 of an FAA person, correspondingly all my passengers weigh 4/5 of an FAA person. FAA people should not be confused with FFA people, which are as a rule, larger. 

Forward W & B

Rt MG = 265.5 lb. (at) 6.8" = 1805.5 in/ lb.

Lt MG = 257.5 lb. (at) 6.8" = 1751.0 in./lb.

TW     = 83.0 lb. (at) 204.5" = 16,973.5 in./lb.

ME   = 205 .lb  (at) -7" = -1435 in./lb. 

Pass = 145 .lb (at) -7" = -1015 in./lb

Fuel = -24lb. (at) 20.5" = -492 in./lb.



total wt. = 932 lb. total moment 17588.0 in./lb Forward C.G. = 18.87 in. = 28.6% of Chord



Aft W & B

Rt MG = 265.5   lb. (at) 6.8" = 1805.5 in/ lb.

 Lt MG = 257.5 lb. (at) 6.8" = 1751.0 in./lb.

TW     = 83.0 lb. (at) 204.5" = 16,973.5 in./lb.

 ME   = 205 .lb  (at) -7" = -1435 in./lb.

 Fuel = 24lb. (at) 20.5" = 492 in./lb.



Total wt. = 835 lb. Total moment 19587.0 in.lb. Aft C.G. = 23.45 in. = 35.54%  of Chord



So if I fly alone with full tanks, I am outside the aft limit by a smidgeon. In my defense, I usually fly full tanks only if I'm going out for the day and then I put in the aux. tank in the passenger seat which adds 50lb. (at) -5 in. =  -250 in/lb. which puts me at  21.85" or 33.1%. I run down the main tanks to 1/4 then use the pump on the aux. tank to transfer fuel.



Now, I've been waiting to tell this story and looking for a context. I can make this relevent, even if it's by a somewhat circuitous route. 

During the last week of class we had a guy fly in to Corning in his brand spanking 30 hour old S-LSA. He was complaining about noise in the headphones. He thought it was coming from the spark plugs and he wondered if he could put some clearance bumps, taken from an Ercoupe no less, on his cowl so that he could run standard aircraft wires and plugs. As a group, being properly trained in those parts of 14 CFR that apply, we intoned, in harmony, "not without a letter of authorization from the manufacturer that mentions this specific aircraft by N number." 

One of the other students and I began poking about his maintenance manual for the recommended spark plugs. Said spec'd plugs were a Nippon Denso part of which he had one and seven NGK's, unmentioned in said manual put in by the factory. Hmm, what about these Accel wires plugged into the mags of the O-200 with RTV (and done sloppily, at that). 

It was at this point that someone noticed a crack running from about 1 1/2" outboard of the prop flange to about the same distance on the other side. And oil puking out the breather tube all over the nose gear wheel fairing. 

"Yeah, it's been doing that for the last 20 hours or so". Well, lets just do a leak down test. 75/80, 73/80, 72/80, 65/80. Not good. 

What kind of break in did you do? 

"The factory told me that Continental does all the breakin required." 

What about retorquing the prop, per Sensenich service bulletin, after the first two hours of operation, and then again at 10 hours? 

"Huh?" 

And what's this starter, that's not a stock Continental unit? 

"I had two stock starters and they both puked oil, so I put in a Skytech and it stopped the leak." 

It was then that, Brian, our instructor stepped in. 

Well at the least, the changes made by you and the factory have made your Airworthiness certificate null and void. 

"Huh?" 

"I can do maintenance can't I,  just like I did on my 172?"

You didn't do maintenance, you did modification and alteration, which you aren't allowed to do. Do you have insurance on this?

"Yeah"

Well the function of the FAA and NTSB in a crash is to find ways for your insurance to not pay the claim. Why don't you cancel your insurance, use that money to fix the airplane, then reinsure. 

"Hmmmmm"

Owner went off to call factory, during which he was heard to say, "Well they're running some kind of class here and they're just nitpicking everything." 

In the end, he was advised of the danger the crack in the prop represented and that he should park the aircraft at least until he got a replacement prop.

And the reply, wait for it......"no, I reckon it got me here, it'll get me home." The prop was still untorqued as he lifted off about five minutes later.

So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount with it? 



Rick

On 9/6/06, David Key < dhkey(at)msn.com (dhkey(at)msn.com)> wrote:[quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" < dhkey(at)msn.com (dhkey(at)msn.com)>



"I don't remember what those W& B numbers are and I don't care, you

shouldn't either." 



Lets see I have less than 10 hours in my plane and someone is telling me I 

shouldn't care about weight and balance... I guess you know where that

advice is going... the recycle bin.



"in my case I know I will never be out side the CG limits." It must be great

to already know your W&B limits. Now I'm going to learn mine. 



"Also my first flight instructor told me to always check the W&B with full

and empty tanks." Yea it sounded like a great idea, I wish I'd done that.

Yet, I had never heard the terms "AFT W&B" and "FORWARD W&B" glad Mr. Girard 

cleared that up for me.



So what would you call a W&B with only oil and coolant? An "empty W&B"?

[quote]From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <  NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net (NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net)>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)

To: < kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)>

Subject: Re: aft W & B 

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:21:59 -0400



--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen"

< NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net (NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net)>

 

Dave/All



I don't remember what those W& B numbers are and I don't care, you

shouldn't either. What IS important is to know the aircraft loading that

might put you beyond these limits. I set up a spread sheet on the computer 

and played with different passenger/fuel/baggage loadings till I found out

where the limits are. For example the aft CG limits are with empty fuel

tanks with a solo 160 LB pilot. The forward limits are with empty fuel 

tanks and something like 500 LB of pilot & passenger. In other words I will

always weigh more than the point were I will have a aft CG condition and

the forward limit is with a passenger weight that is a good 50 lbs more 

than my max gross weight. I have the spread sheet results taped in my

aircraft log book for future reference but in my case I know I will never

be out side the CG limits. Do you know what loading conditions might put 

you outside you CG limits?



I had to move my battery to the nose cone to get these figures with my

airplane and the redrive VW. If you have a more standard configuration you

may be ok but do you know that? Also my first flight instructor told me to 

always check the W&B with full and empty tanks. Even with the tanks near

the CG the figures will change slightly.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIc



---

David Lucas

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 79
Location: Europe. based Amsterdam NL

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: Re: aft W & B

 	  Quote: 	
		  So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount with it? 

	




Had a friend years back who was flying a BN-2 Islander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten-Norman_Islander#Specifications_.28BN-2A_Islander.29 which had the 260HP Lycoming O-540. It threw a prop blade during cruise flight, fortunately away from the airframe and not into it. The resulting vibration was so violent that in the few seconds that it took to realize what had happened and shut the engine down, the engine had ripped itself out of its mounts and only the cowling was holding it !  So fortunately for him, the weight and balance part of the equation remained the same. One can only hypothesise what the effect would have been if gravity had won over the remaining strength of the cowling. The remaining engine got them to the closest suitable field where he landed safely. 



A mid mounted engine departing the airframe in flight might just be controlable.... maybe, if it was close to the C of G in the first place and you reacted quickly enough, and no other collateral damage resulted, etc (a lot of 'if's). I think that an airframe with a nose mounted engine loss would be catastrophic. Totally uncontrolable.

Russ Kinne

Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 182

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: aft W & B

Does anyone remember the "Mooney Mite" ? tiny single seater, with I'm told a wooden firewall. Long ago, at altitude one day over Cape Cod the engine, prop & mount departed the aircraft -- wow, talk about 'losing an engine'! The pilot found that if he leaned waaaay foward, and kept the speed above 110, it was controllable - just. He managed to land it safely.I've never been able to verify this but I do believe it happened more or less as reported. Praps some of you computer-whizzes can research this & get some details? It's beyond my meager skills.

Losing the engine like that on a Kolb would give you a forward CG problem, not an aft one ; but might be workable.(I'd hate to try it) You'd need tons of speed & full up-elevators and LOL too --



Russ Kinne

On Sep 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, David Lucas wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com (d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com)>





  	  Quote: 	
		  So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount with it? 

 	




Had a friend years back who was flying a BN-2 Islander  which had the 260HP Lycoming O-540. It threw a prop blade during cruise flight, fortunately away from the airframe and not into it. The resulting vibration was so violent that in the few seconds that it took to realize what had happened and shut the engine down, the engine had ripped itself out of its mounts and only the cowling was holding it !  So fortunately for him, the weight and balance part of the equation remained the same. One can only hypothesise what the effect would have been if gravity had won over the remaining strength of the cowling. The remaining engine got them to the closest suitable field where he landed safely. 

A mid mounted engine departing the airframe in flight might just be controlable.... maybe, if it was close to the C of G in the first place and you reacted quickly enough, and no other collateral damage resulted, etc (a lot of 'if's). I think that an airframe with a nose mounted engine loss would be catastrophic. Totally uncontrolable.

Read this topic online here:



          - The Kolb-List Email Forum -

  --> 

              - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

  -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

  -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

  Thank you for your generous support!

                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

--> 

 	


 [quote][b]

David.Lehman

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 265
Location: "Lovely" Fresno CA

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:09 am Post subject: aft W & B

I had a Mite, serial #29, 65 Lycoming...

  

 They had metal firewalls (CAA requirement)...  The Mite had a tubular cage (metal skinned) with a wooden monocoque fuselage, wood wings and tail...

  

 DVD



 

 On 9/9/06, russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net (kinnepix(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		    Does anyone remember the "Mooney Mite" ? tiny single seater, with I'm told a wooden firewall. Long ago, at altitude one day over Cape Cod the engine, prop & mount departed the aircraft -- wow, talk about 'losing an engine'! The pilot found that if he leaned waaaay foward, and kept the speed above 110, it was controllable - just. He managed to land it safely.   I've never been able to verify this but I do believe it happened more or less as reported. Praps some of you computer-whizzes can research this & get some details? It's beyond my meager skills.

  Losing the engine like that on a Kolb would give you a forward CG problem, not an aft one ; but might be workable.(I'd hate to try it) You'd need tons of speed & full up-elevators and LOL too --

 

 

 Russ Kinne

 

 

 

  On Sep 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, David Lucas wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com  (d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com)>

 

 

 

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount with it?  

 

 

	
 

 

 

 

 Had a friend years back who was flying a BN-2 Islander  which had the 260HP Lycoming O-540. It threw a prop blade during cruise flight, fortunately away from the airframe and not into it. The resulting vibration was so violent that in the few seconds that it took to realize what had happened and shut the engine down, the engine had ripped itself out of its mounts and only the cowling was holding it !   So fortunately for him, the weight and balance part of the equation remained the same. One can only hypothesise what the effect would have been if gravity had won over the remaining strength of the cowling. The remaining engine got them to the closest suitable field where he landed safely.  

 

 

 A mid mounted engine departing the airframe in flight might just be controlable.... maybe, if it was close to the C of G in the first place and you reacted quickly enough, and no other collateral damage resulted, etc (a lot of 'if's). I think that an airframe with a nose mounted engine loss would be catastrophic. Totally uncontrolable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

	


- The Kolb-List Email Forum -

     --> 

               - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

   -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

   -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

   Thank you for your generous support!

                               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  



p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

nics.com

.com

.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


-- 

ô¿ô  "Attitude is everything ~ pick a good one"...   [quote][b]

_________________
Ã´Â¿Ã´

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

--- George Bernard Shaw

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: aft W & B

Don't remember the incident with the Mite, but I do remember one with a 

Swift, in 1976. There is a reference to it on this page, but no details.

http://www.napanet.net/~arbeau/swift/print.htm 

<http://www.napanet.net/%7Earbeau/swift/print.htm>



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)



do not archive



russ kinne wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Does anyone remember the "Mooney Mite" ? tiny single seater, with I'm 

 told a wooden firewall. Long ago, at altitude one day over Cape Cod 

 the engine, prop & mount departed the aircraft -- wow, talk about 

 'losing an engine'! The pilot found that if he leaned waaaay foward, 

 and kept the speed above 110, it was controllable - just. He managed 

 to land it safely.

 I've never been able to verify this but I do believe it happened more 

 or less as reported. Praps some of you computer-whizzes can research 

 this & get some details? It's beyond my meager skills.

 Losing the engine like that on a Kolb would give you a forward CG 

 problem, not an aft one ; but might be workable.(I'd hate to try it) 

 You'd need tons of speed & full up-elevators and LOL too --



 Russ Kinne

 On Sep 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, David Lucas wrote:



> 

> <mailto:d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com>>

>> So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the 

>> consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and 

>> sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance 

>> created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount 

>> with it? 

>>

> Had a friend years back who was flying a BN-2 Islander  which had the 

> 260HP Lycoming O-540. It threw a prop blade during cruise flight, 

> fortunately away from the airframe and not into it. The resulting 

> vibration was so violent that in the few seconds that it took to 

> realize what had happened and shut the engine down, the engine had 

> ripped itself out of its mounts and only the cowling was holding it 

> !  So fortunately for him, the weight and balance part of the 

> equation remained the same. One can only hypothesise what the effect 

> would have been if gravity had won over the remaining strength of the 

> cowling. The remaining engine got them to the closest suitable field 

> where he landed safely. 

>

> A mid mounted engine departing the airframe in flight might just be 

> controlable.... maybe, if it was close to the C of G in the first 

> place and you reacted quickly enough, and no other collateral damage 

> resulted, etc (a lot of 'if's). I think that an airframe with a nose 

> mounted engine loss would be catastrophic. Totally uncontrolable.

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>           - The Kolb-List Email Forum -

>   -->

>               - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

>   -->

>               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

>   -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

>   Thank you for your generous support!

>                               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

>



 *

 *

_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: aft W & B

| Don't remember the incident with the Mite, 

| 

| Richard Pike

No record in NTSB narratives.



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

a58r(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: aft W & B

Early 60's(?) a Thorp builder nicked his prop tips when masking/painting. Threw a pc of blade, engine came loose/off and plane crashed, falality.



 regards,

Bob N.    FireFly 070 Old Kolb

http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/



 



 [quote][b]

Steven Green

Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 118

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: aft W & B

This was a local TV personality Mort Lloyd.  His son has a big part in

organizing airshows at the Chattanooga airport.

Steven



NTSB Identification: IAD75AI008

14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation

Event occurred Tuesday, August 20, 1974 in MANCHESTER, TN

Aircraft: GLOBE GC-1B, registration: N3716K



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------ FILE    DATE

LOCATION          AIRCRAFT DATA       INJURIES       FLIGHT

PILOT DATA                                                               F

S M/N

PURPOSE---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------3-3030  74/8/20

MANCHESTER,TENN     GLOBE GC-1B         CR-  1  0  0  NONCOMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL, AGE 44, 3077        TIME - 1145                    N3716K

PX-  0  0  0  PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP  TOTAL HOURS, UNK/NR IN

DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL  OT-  0  0  0                            TYPE, INSTRUMENT

RATED.        DEPARTURE POINT             INTENDED DESTINATION

CHATTANOOGA,TENN            SHELLBYVILLE,TENN        TYPE OF ACCIDENT

PHASE OF OPERATION           PROPELLER/ROTOR FAILURE: PROPELLER

IN FLIGHT: NORMAL CRUISE           COLLISION WITH GROUND/WATER: UNCONTROLLED

IN FLIGHT: UNCONTROLLED DESCENT        PROBABLE CAUSE(S)

POWERPLANT - PROPELLER AND ACCESSORIES: HUBS           MISCELLANEOUS

ACTS,CONDITIONS - FATIGUE FRACTURE        FACTOR(S)           MISCELLANEOUS

ACTS,CONDITIONS - SEPARATION IN FLIGHT        REMARKS- PROP HUB SERIAL NR

63874 MODEL 2D34C53 FAILED APRX 2IN FM CLAMP ASMBLY STRAP.PROP AND ENG

SPRTD.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 No record in NTSB narratives.



 john h

 mkIII

_________________
Steven Green

Mike Schnabel

Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Location: Manchester, TN

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: aft W & B

Thanks Steven, good info. Also, Morts, tragic crash happened on his way to celebrate a victorious election to congress in '74 after many years in the broadcasting bussiness. But the story does not end there, his wife took his place after that crash, and went on to a 20 career in politics. Always an interesting story behind every tragic event.

   

  Mike S

  Manchester TN

   

   

   

  do not archive



Steven Green <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

  [quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steven Green" 



This was a local TV personality Mort Lloyd. His son has a big part in

organizing airshows at the Chattanooga airport.

Steven



NTSB Identification: IAD75AI008

14 CFR  Part 91 General Aviation

Event occurred Tuesday, August 20, 1974 in MANCHESTER, TN

Aircraft: GLOBE GC-1B, registration: N3716K



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------ FILE DATE

LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT

PILOT DATA F

S M/N

PURPOSE---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------3-3030 74/8/20

MANCHESTER,TENN GLOBE GC-1B CR- 1 0 0 NONCOMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL, AGE 44, 3077 TIME - 1145 N3716K

PX- 0 0 0 PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP TOTAL HOURS, UNK/NR IN

DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL OT- 0 0 0 TYPE, INSTRUMENT

RATED. DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION

CHATTANOOGA,TENN SHELLBYVILLE,TENN TYPE OF ACCIDENT

PHASE OF OPERATION PROPELLER/ROTOR FAILURE: PROPELLER

IN FLIGHT: NORMAL CRUISE COLLISION WITH GROUND/WATER: UNCONTROLLED

IN FLIGHT: UNCONTROLLED DESCENT PROBABLE [quote][b]

Russ Kinne

Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 182

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: aft W & B

DavidThanx info. You're the first Mite owner I've 'met'. 

I spect I've been a victim of 'urban legend' in re the Mite's engine falling off; but was told the tale by the owner of an airport on Cape Cod, when he sold me a Cessna. I had no reason to doubt him. 

But John H checked NTSB and they have no record -- so I guess it never happened. 

BUT -- also barely possible in those days they never reported it? Seems incredible. Could happen.

Best,

Russ



Do Not Archive

On Sep 9, 2006, at 10:09 AM, David Lehman wrote:

[quote]I had a Mite, serial #29, 65 Lycoming...

  

 They had metal firewalls (CAA requirement)...  The Mite had a tubular cage (metal skinned) with a wooden monocoque fuselage, wood wings and tail...

  

 DVD



 

 On 9/9/06, russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net (kinnepix(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		    Does anyone remember the "Mooney Mite" ? tiny single seater, with I'm told a wooden firewall. Long ago, at altitude one day over Cape Cod the engine, prop & mount departed the aircraft -- wow, talk about 'losing an engine'! The pilot found that if he leaned waaaay foward, and kept the speed above 110, it was controllable - just. He managed to land it safely.  I've never been able to verify this but I do believe it happened more or less as reported. Praps some of you computer-whizzes can research this & get some details? It's beyond my meager skills.

 Losing the engine like that on a Kolb would give you a forward CG problem, not an aft one ; but might be workable.(I'd hate to try it) You'd need tons of speed & full up-elevators and LOL too --

 

 

 Russ Kinne

 

 

 

  On Sep 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, David Lucas wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com  (d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com)>

 

 

 

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   So in the context of W & B what do you suppose would be the consequence of a cracked prop finally giving up the good fight and sending part of itself off into space? And if it, by the imbalance created, took the O-200 and a portion or all of the engine mount with it?  

 

 

	
 

 

 

 

 Had a friend years back who was flying a BN-2 Islander  which had the 260HP Lycoming O-540. It threw a prop blade during cruise flight, fortunately away from the airframe and not into it. The resulting vibration was so violent that in the few seconds that it took to realize what had happened and shut the engine down, the engine had ripped itself out of its mounts and only the cowling was holding it !   So fortunately for him, the weight and balance part of the equation remained the same. One can only hypothesise what the effect would have been if gravity had won over the remaining strength of the cowling. The remaining engine got them to the closest suitable field where he landed safely.  

 

 

 A mid mounted engine departing the airframe in flight might just be controlable.... maybe, if it was close to the C of G in the first place and you reacted quickly enough, and no other collateral damage resulted, etc (a lot of 'if's). I think that an airframe with a nose mounted engine loss would be catastrophic. Totally uncontrolable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

	


- The Kolb-List Email Forum -

     --> 

               - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

   -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

   -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

   Thank you for your generous support!

                               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  p://

nics.com

.com

.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


-- 

ô¿ô  "Attitude is everything ~ pick a good one"...  	  Quote: 	
		  

ntribution



	
[b]

David.Lehman

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 265
Location: "Lovely" Fresno CA

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: aft W & B

The Mite's a great little airplane...  121mph indicated on 3.5 gph...  I

guess I should say, it's great as long as the termites keep holding hands..

_________________
Ã´Â¿Ã´

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

--- George Bernard Shaw

jsflan(at)valornet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: aft W & B

Well since this is a single place 780 or 830 lb. Max. G.W. aircraft, more  similar to an ultralight than a Cessna the story goes. maybe in those days the  CAA or the Feds by any oither name didn't consider em airplanes, so they  didn't bother.  

  

 Amigo now gone, had one, offered to let me use it; declined. Never had much  fun in low-wings aside from a Sia Marchetti when a stunt pilot at an air show I  was flakking said  "Do whatever you want." Since he was there and I knew  loved life as much as I did and would save our butts if necessary,  I  did. Didn't know how to do a Lamshlovak, much less spell it, so skipped that  one.

  

 Zowie...

  

 jsf

 [quote]   ---

jsflan(at)valornet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: aft W & B

Great stories, David. Maybe I should have played with that one, but had so  much flying junk, I couldn't keep up with what I had...Times of the $1800  airplanes. Find em fix em fly em and sell em for enough to find another, fix it  etc.

 jsf

  

 do not archive

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum