Engine out off field landing

[fly_tornado]

[Thruster88]

I think Trent came to the correct conclusion, one that Rotax would agree with

 

 

[fly_tornado]

at the end he's realizing that the only way he can keep flying is with another used engine

 

 

[alf jessup]

If it ain’t broke, don’t mess with it.

 

I agree with what Trent said

 

 

[Thruster88]

at the end he's realizing that the only way he can keep flying is with another used engine

Nothing wrong with a used engine with log books ?

 

 

[kasper]

Ok I’ll bite. Buy a used 912 stated to be past hours for overhaul.

 

What diffference do the log books make ?

 

A 2000h training aircraft engine vs years life expired private engine with 500h vs an engine without books.

 

To me I’m inspecting them all the same and paying the same for any of them given they can’t be used f of training or reward.

 

Reality is you can pick up a no logs engine for very low spend and so long as the serial no is not on the stolen list I’m $$$$ in.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A few videos prior he had a prop strike, which he believes is part of the reason the rod broke. The way he has set his plane up with those big draggy tyres and the STOL wing he needs a 914 at least.

 

 

[Downunder]

Conveniently, he just made a video about a Kitfox with 915iS.

 

I'm wondering if Rotax will come to the party with a "subsidised" 915iS....... For the publicity....

 

 

 

[planedriver]

, hope i'm wrong.

[fly_tornado]

I'm wondering if Rotax will come to the party with a "subsidised" 915iS....... For the publicity....

I don't think you can squeeze a 915iS into a Kitfox 4, he's stuck with an 912s

 

 

[poteroo]

A few videos prior he had a prop strike, which he believes is part of the reason the rod broke. The way he has set his plane up with those big draggy tyres and the STOL wing he needs a 914 at least.

Agreed. The angle-of-attack on the wing is increased considerably by fitting tundra tyres &/or resetting the gear legs. This requires more HP to accelerate on takeoff, but it also requires the pilot to adjust their flare to make the aircraft sit onto all 3 wheels for the classic '3-pointer'. It explains why there has been a large number of higher HP mods done to Cessna 170s and Cubs. It also explains why the 230HP + CSU in a C180 gives significantly better performance, and that was superceded by a 260HP, then 300HP version - designated the C185. As the HP increases, so too does the rolling tendency at low speeds with take-off flap - which makes for increased skills needed when doing short-field takeoffs.

 

I noted in the vids that these US pilots were lifting the tailplane, on t/o, much higher than I'd think necessary. Yes, it allows for increased acceleration if you were really loaded, but it's going to take more distance to get off. I've found the 'tail - low' liftoff gets the aircraft clear of ground much safer and earlier - but it then requires some levelling off to reach Vx. It is also usually lift-off below TOSS (as given in the old CASA/DCA AFMs) - so, less safe. If you strike a soft patch, or something solid during the t/o run - with the nose up, and tail low - the aircraft is less likely to suffer damage, or, pitch forward/down and go A over T. (CoG further behind the mainwheels).

 

I'd certainly caution against hard braking in t/w types. Until the tailplane is positively held onto the ground, I'd not use any braking. It was clear in the vids that their tailplanes were oscillating on some landings but they were braking as well! Very tricky balancing act IMHO, and to do this with a wheel landing requires both skill and nerve. Tailplane damage can result from severe oscillation, (in many ways a PIO), and it requires a fine touch to hold back on the elevators - without creating an inadvertent liftoff again. Best to ensure you cut power instantly on touchdown - although if there is a suspicion of soft surface, it might be best to leave some power on in event of deciding to go-round.

 

Just a couple observations from someone who cut his teeth on taildraggers and enjoys this current STOL mania.

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

Some of the take off rolls were tail high but a few were not above the final lift off angle. Lifting the tail early with full power risks a fair bit of gyroscopic reaction and side loads on the rudder and fin from prop wash. I find that plane has little rudder when the tail is low, so would be inclined to keep the tailwheel pinned on the ground for at least 20 foot of run and you were certain you had enough rudder effectiveness. especially if there's a crosswind from the wrong side.. Braking would be quite sensitive with good grip and the wheels so far below the mass and thrust line.. The desire to go just a bit further (extreme) would always be there. It's that kind of plane.. Alaska is the place for that kind of thing.. The "Fox' is pretty old now. There's plenty of "others" about. Nev