Video of 337H engine out test
 

I just put a video on U-Tube of my test flight shutting down first rear engine and then the front engine under differant conditions. We had 3 men on board total weight 620 pounds.
With tanks near full, 138 gallons total 828 pounds. We had no trouble maintaining level flight and could even climb after feathering prop. This is with I/O 360 engines normally asperated and near gross weight. We were at 6,000 feet over our airport with temp. 55 degree F. We did this for a test, to prove for a mechanic, that was getting suided by someone. They said
a 337 would not fly on one engine. They had a supper charger fail that the mechanic worked on, therefore they had to shut down the rear engine. After passing 2 airports they tried to fly back to were they came from and crashed some miles short of that airport. Look at my video on U-Tube http://youtu.be/tAB486BKI10

Dale
Was this for the trial in Pennsylvania? Do you mean the Turbo failed?

377 Engine Out Test
 

Yes Herb,
It was a turbo that failed from what I heard and they could not keep the 337 flying.

Excellent video.

Can you report what the cylinder head temps were during the test just out of curiosity and did you ever get the front engine started.

Very informative video.

Thanks,

Ed

337 crash video
 

Hello Dale,

Just want to make sure that the lawyers that wanted you to do the test were involved in the defense of an FBO and maintenance center in OHIO and Penn. The count case I refer to was in Federal Court in Phil., Pa. If that is indeed the case, The crashed airplane was a Riley 1975 T337G fitted out the same as my plane and the crash site was in Atl Ga. The pilot that was flying the plane was a commerical airline pilot and she has more than 4,000 hours of flight experience and slightly over, if I recall correctly, 140 hours in the Skymaster.

The plaintiff's attorney also did a flight test flying the exact final 20 minutes that she flew right to the crash site. All was filmed and viewed in court. In that test, the T337G also was able to climb on just the front engine at blue line speed operating at 2600 RPM and 33 MP. That was the entire plaintiff's view point and strategy.

That is, if the plane can fly and climb on one engine, then the mechanic charged with the maintenance of her plane, In this case the FBO, must have done such a poor job mantaining the plane because the front engine did not produce the power required to keep the plane in the air back to the airport she took off from, that was only 10 miles away. Long story short, she won over 12 million dollars. She just had better lawyers. BTW, the options she had were very little as there was no suitable place to put the plane down safely. She picked the only clear spot that was available, a water treatment plant. On impact the plane burst into flames both she and her friend had lots of broken bones and burns...but luckly for them,they both were able to get out of the plane.

Jerry

I'm going to take the side of the FAA investigator...you must push up the power on the good engine to stay in the air.

NTSB Identification: NYC07LA187
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, August 08, 2007 in Chamblee, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/24/2008
Aircraft: CESSNA T337G, registration: N969CB
Injuries: 2 Serious.
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.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot’s failure to utilize all of the power available following an engine failure. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the rear engine for undetermined reasons.

Crash
 

Hi Dale,

Yes, I read all those reports but like I said, she had better lawyers. They made the case revolve totally around engine performance and not the pilot's decision making process. Example, she was 10 miles from the airport she wanted to go back to. She was losing about 250 feet per minute. She was flying at blue line (about 102 mph) and she was at 3000 feet. You do the math. If she were to request direct back to airport, it will take about 3 minutes. That will be a total loss of 750 feet. Lots of alt left to land safely. You know as well as I do, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong, trial by jury is a contest between attorneys and has nothing to do about truth.

I knew the skymaster will stay flying...in my flying experience I had to shut one engine off on five different trips. Each time telling the control tower I want direct to airport any runway.....why, when a skymaster is flying on only one engine, you are in a single engine aircraft with a bad glide ratio. What I don't understand is why are so many pilots so reluctant to declare an emergency.

This reminds me of the case several years ago when a commercial airliner hit a bridge due to icing because the pilots didn't use full power when needed. They had been trained to never use full power because it shortened engine life. Since then I believe all ATP's have been retrained to use "all power when necessary" without regard to engine life.

Apparently she didn't get the memo.

Engine out Test
 

On the head temperatures. The day was 55 degree F when I did my test flight and the temp stayed close to normal. Look at video again and you can see on the right side of my panel. The temp on head and exhaust on instrument is normal. I have 12 probes on each engine.
My flight instructor was a witness for defence and used my video for demo. From what he said, when engine failed they did not use full power on good engine. They also circled before heading back to departure airport which was many miles away. They did not head to the nearest airport that was 10 miles away. The proof was in the radar that was tracking them. He showed me the radar printout. They also changed their store on the feathering of prop and weather the cowl flaps were left open on rear engine that had failed. When I did my testing at near gross at 6000 ft, I did not have the advantage of tubo charger. I was lucky if I could get more than 23 inches of manifold pressure. I could still keep airspeed at or above 100 knots and also climb. The 337 is still one of the safest aircraft today. You just need to fly it right and use your head. I was taught, if 1 engine fails, do not pause. Just push both throttles to fire wall. Then do not rush, take your time and determine which engine is failing by looking at fuel flow and temperature gauges. Then if you see tach is about the same, and it will be because the dead engine will windmill almost as fast as good engine. Slowly pull the throttle on the engine you think is dead to make sure you choose the right throttle. Then if you are right try the boost pumps on that engine and make sure you are on the right tank and you have fuel. If you can not get it back to life then again make sure you have the correct prop control and proceed to feather prop slowly. Next declare an emergancy with ATC and get help to the nearest airport. Do all that right and you will walk away to fly your 337 again. That crash was not the fault of the mechanic. Most pilots will agree, it was poor judgement of the pilot in command.