Video of 337H engine out test

[hharney]

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

[Dale Campbell]

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

[wfreestone]

Excellent video.

[edasmus]

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

[Jerry De Santis]

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

[Skymaster337B]

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.

[Jerry De Santis]

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.