Jim Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/small-plane-crashes-near-haskell-airport/nmXb6/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 That will buff right out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 Good news: it appears the CT "cage" is doing its job. Bad news: yet another apparent power failure. Certainly not an issue solely affecting the CT. Still would be nice to know what caused this one. Admins: maybe combine these two threads on the same accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooneyman Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 I am interested it the cause of the accident. I believe this is the last year of the models which had a crankcase problem. I experienced power loss on takeoff in the same year model. Made a precautionary landing at the airport. AP found a crack in the case. 22k later all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin2 Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 http://aviation-safe....php?id=176686 http://www.kathrynsr...-incident.html http://www.fox23.com...airport/vDTStd/ http://www.newson6.c...askell-airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 I am interested it the cause of the accident. I believe this is the last year of the models which had a crankcase problem. I experienced power loss on takeoff in the same year model. Made a precautionary landing at the airport. AP found a crack in the case. 22k later all is well. I thought the crankcase problem ended with the early to mid 2006 engines. This was a mid 2007 airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 The crankcase swap was roughly May 2006. It would put a crack on the top of the case and it would leak oil because owners failed to keep their WOT prop pitch at or above 5500. The new case is better, but if you keep stressing it by an over pitched prop it could happen. This new case really helped, but isn't 100% bullet proof if you fail to heed the Rotax warnings about over pitching and crankcase stress. From what I know this stress crack didn't stop engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Roger, Do you have a photo of that kind of crankcase crack? My Sky Arrow is a 2007. Is there an easy way to tell which crankcase version I have? Of particular interest since I've had a tiny oil leak for a while. No more than a drop or two each flight, but it's been very difficult to track down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 It is called the smile of death, and it formes between the top crankcase bolts. I believe it is most common above cylinder 3.. If you have it, you will know, because oil gets pushed through the crack. As for tracing oil: wipe the engine down clean, run it, check for oil tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 I've done that, even using foot powder. In any case, sorry for the hijack - if I want to pursue this I'll start a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Roger, Do you have a photo of that kind of crankcase crack? My Sky Arrow is a 2007. Is there an easy way to tell which crankcase version I have? Of particular interest since I've had a tiny oil leak for a while. No more than a drop or two each flight, but it's been very difficult to track down. If your engine serial number was eligible for the 2,000 hour TBO upgrade then you have the new style crankcase, at least that is how I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 The crankcase swap was roughly May 2006. It would put a crack on the top of the case and it would leak oil because owners failed to keep their WOT prop pitch at or above 5500. We all fall below 5500 at some altitude. I assume if I'm at 14,000 and can't maintian 5,500 its okay because the RPM are low due to less power available and not increased load. Or is it a harmonics thing that comes into play at high altitude / low power / WOT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Passenger compartment intact, fuel tanks intact. A good outcome. That grass doesn't look *too* high, a shame the nose gear smooshed and flipped the plane over. Must have done so at pretty high speed/energy to snap the tail like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Hi Ed, You are correct. When the case did crack on some of the older engines it is where Corey mentioned on top. Hi Eddie, If you have a 2007 engine it has the newer style case. My engine is an Oct. 2006 and it has the new case. The change over was done right around May 2006. We shouldn't get too far off topic and I would like to know what was done to the engine to have it quit.?We won't know for quite some time until they pull that engine, examine it and try to run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 I'm guessing another case of stuff getting into the carb/jets... loosened on take-off due to vibration and angle. Anybody know the pilot? It's in our interest to get the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Passenger compartment intact, fuel tanks intact. A good outcome. That grass doesn't look *too* high, a shame the nose gear smooshed and flipped the plane over. Must have done so at pretty high speed/energy to snap the tail like that. Hi Andy. The CT's light weight tail and rear fuselage combined with the high wings with their added weight of fuel (hopefully there's fuel) provide the high CG to flip, if the nose digs in. Really shows how what looks like a friendly surface from a few hundred feet up can trip up the best plans for landing off-field. Here, the pilot didn't have the option to find a better spot and did a good job to just get it down on the ground. We do need to find out why the engine quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Hi Andy. The CT's high wings with their added weight of fuel (hopefully there's fuel) provide the high CG to flip, if the nose digs in. It's like a pole vaulter planting his pole to get over the bar. Makes perfect sense, seems to be the case with a lot of high wing planes, especially those that carry their fuel up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.