mvigod

Interesting. If true this sounds like the plausible reason for the engine failure. Seems to make sense and probably solves this "baffling" mystery. One would think that it is baffle related since all other factors were constant from the first 3 successful flights except for the addition of this baffle.

ezflyr

My Feedback: (32)

Lear Driver,

First of all, again I am sorry for the loss of your airplane. I really mean that sincerely! And, I apologize for the NTSB style conclusions at the end of my post, as that was inappropriate in this forum! The fact remains, however, in my opinion this is still not an "act of god" type accident, as you infer. I still believe that you did not lower the nose enough to maintain flying speed given the current conditions that your airplane was operating in, and you stalled the airplane. Sure, you might not have had much altitude, but again a controlled crash is far more desirable than a stall/crash.

Well, sure I wasn't there, but surely you must realize that the vast majority of airplane accidents are investigated by people who weren't there! Further, I'm afraid it is you who have their basic aerodynamic principles wrong, as I will detail below.

Impressive credentials, but it doen't mean that you really understand the underlying principals of flight. Don't feel bad, though, most pilots know a lot less than you!

I never said that airspeed and groundspeed were equivalent, or that groundspeed was in any way related to the stall speed of the airplane. Where exactly did you get that??? What I said was that the turn to downwind would not (substantially) effect the airspeed of the airplane as you infer, but would instead cause an increase in groundspeed. Also, the term "True Airspeed" means airspeed corrected for barometric pressure and temperature, so I think it is more appropriate to just use the term "airspeed" in your discussion.

You seem to imply that a tailwind of a given magnitude will "rob" an equivalent amount of airspeed from a airplane in flight. Hopefully you know that this assertion is not true? Airplanes fly within moving "air masses", and as such move along with the air mass. Airspeed therefore is the speed of the airplane through the air molecules that make up the moving air mass. The only time the direction of the wind effects the airspeed of an airplane is when the the airplanes direction of flight is changing relative to the direction of the air mass, or the velocity of the air mass changes instantaneously. Even if this were the situation in your case, you still didn't lower the nose of the airplane enough to overcome the airspeed loss due to the loss of the engine and the downwind turn.

I'm not sure what your gratuitous slap at doctors is all about, but it doesn't really do anything to further your argument. I'll take it that you're just jealous because you fly a Learjet and I fly an A36 Bonanza Btw, I am a doctor, but a Phd (Electrical and Mechanical engineering), and not an MD. I do understand the concept of windshear, but I'm not sure why you bring it up here. Wind Shear is the instantaneous change in the wind speed and direction, and it can effect airspeed, no question. That is why anytime wind shear is possible it's always a good idea to carry some extra airspeed on final to compensate. The reason I say that Wind Shear is irrelevant here is that the airspeed of your airplane was not changing instantaneously either as a result of the downwind turn, or the loss of your engine. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth! If your airplane was flying above the stall prior to the engine quitting, all you would have to do is push the nose over sufficiently to prevent the stall. BTW, is "kts" a new metric for expressing/measuring lift??

Thanks for the refresher, it's always nice to be lectured by such an learned (and certificated) aerodynamist!! Oh, you may think you know, but in reality you have no idea if those pilots could have saved your airplane. Nice pat on the back though to put your yourself in their category! The bottom line is that no pilot (or pilot's family - see the Carnihan crash) think they did anything to cause a crash. Your assertion that the airplane just "fell out of the sky" is pure and simple hogwash. When aviation professionals start talking like that, it's no wonder the public has the same perception. Hey, it's just a pet peeve of mine, that's all!

I never said that the wind had nothing to do with your crash, those are your words. The downwind turn probably (it's almost impossible to quantify after the fact) did "rob" some of your airspeed. I don't dispute that at all! What I am saying is that given the engine stoppage, and the downwind turn, you simply didn't lower the nose enough to maintain flying speed. Perhaps the outcome would have been the same as a result of your low altitude, but who knows?? If your plane truly "fell out of the sky", it is because you allowed it to fall out of the sky. It's as simple as that! Shame on you for perpetuating such myths!!

John

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

John,
Your rebuttal was very through and I agree with every word of it. I have just a couple thoughts to add. Leardriver stated he climbed out at a 30 deg angle of attack. This is improbable as it would be highly unstable and I assume he climbed out at a 30 degree flight path angle. From that attitude if the airspeed was critically low before the engine failure, it may not be possible to pitch down fast enough to avoid a dangerous loss of airspeed.

My main objection is to his statement that the downwind turn contributed to the problem. This certainly wasn't so and brings back the myth that airplanes lose airspeed when they turn downwind. Hopefully we all understand this isn't so. Any loss of airspeed in a turn is due to the higher drag induced by the bank angle, it has nothing to do with the wind.

Tom

Furyflyer2

My Feedback: (117)

ezflyr- Boy you barked up the WRONG tree. Leardriver knows what his is talking about, he spent many years of training and is a professional pilot. making commets like really is in bad taste. IMO when you can be a captain of a learjet like leardriver than you can talk all you want.

coony2787

My Feedback: (33)

OK ,

I have read this post threw several times and my conclusion is that he doesnt care that the plane ( well he does but irrelavant to his post ) crashed. What happened or took place after the falmeout is not his concern at this time.

What he is really concerned about is this flame out problem never happens again !

I'am sorry for your loss as i said before. Here is a few sugestions to prevent this in the future .

Put a tach on the engine @ high speed shut the engine down and adjust the high speed needle 1/8 turn richer then check the engine again to see if the RPM lowers if it does then you will know if your rich enough on your setting.

If your right on the ragged edge of being lean it would take very little of a variation to make the engine go lean and die. There is so many variables here. And said to say but now that we can not reproduce the exact scenario. All is hearsay from here on out.

If your are capable of rebuilding a carb i would take it apart and check for water in the carb , all it takes is a drop ( don't ask how i know ) if not send the motor to DA and let them give it a good going threw on the carb side of it.

All of the views on the cowl ducts are good also i know that a vent run off the regulator side of the carb to the outside of the cowl will prevent most problems with barometric problems inside of the cowl. Might be a good idea before the next time.

In conclusion you asked me if i think you would try and fly your pride and joy even if you had a doubt in your mind about the engine, Yes i do , i know i would because it would be the only way to be sure if the engine was fixed or not. Am i rubbing your crash in your face HELL NO.
I know what these planes mean to us i have 3 gas planes and all of them are my pride and joys. I lost my 33% extra last year to a flame out. It flamed out right over the run way at about 100' in a stall turn. As i made the last turn to the runway i stalled the plane and it fell out of sky. It fell out of the sky because i pulled on the elevator and it snapped into the ground. The reason i pulled is because i didnt want to see my favorite airplane hit the ground and i was trying to make the runway. After all was said and done the plane was destroyed. The crank was bent on the enigine 3 servo's stripped and the airframe completely destoyed. It was a 2000.00 crash. So yes i do know how you feel.
However after all was inspected and me being in denial for about a week i realized that the engine flamed out because the clunk line fell off. Then the plane stalled because I pulled instead of pushed on the stick trying to give my plane a easy set down, when a rush to the ground and a pull then would of saved the plane with the littlest damage. But hell hind site is 20/20 !!!!!!!

I did not mean to rub anything in your face i was trying to help and give a complete conclusion to what i think happend. After reading this post several times and realize that all of this occured in one day. You had a forced landing once already that day because the engine was runnning poorly. You further went on and said that you checked the plane out the feild , hardly a place to pull a fuel tank and check for clunk lines off , kinda of lotta dirt there. So if you did all this at the feild you had to be rushed trying to check it cause you was wanting fly your plane. understandable !
What it all boils down too is that you got in hurry and did not bench the plane and find the problem. I have been there and done and that also. But your post is tittled the Unthinkable happened today , not true engine's flame out all the time. Next time you have a engine in question try not to take off in such a steep climb a slow stready climb would be better cause you will gian airspeed quicker.

And by the way this the internet and you posted on a open forum that anyone can post to and is entitlled to there opinion and welcome to post it here if they so desire. If you dont want there help or opinions expressed here simply dont post here. Just take it with a grain of salt and only take to heart what is in here that you agree with. The rest just disregaurd.

Sorry it just hits a nerve with me when people ask for help and or opinions and then start flaming the guys offering there opinons and or help.

Chad

mvigod

Let's all remain constructive hear with the arguments. So far (generally) so good but remember to address the arguments and not the person saying them at all times. We don't want personal attacks in any direction to dilute what seems to be an enlightening and brisk discussion. [8D]

Leardriver

My Feedback: (12)

Oh boy...where to begin?

"Quite simply you did not maintain sufficient flying airspeed by lowering the nose following the engine stoppage. The fact that the wind was "at the tail" (in spite of the downwind turn) simply meant that the plane was moving faster over the ground."

That is what you wrote is it not? "The fact that the wind was at the tail simply meant that the plane was moving faster over the ground". Man I don't know how not to interpret "moving faster over the ground" as not talking about ground speed. True airspeed as I am using it simply means the speed the aircraft was moving in relation to the air. You can get as detailed as you want and talk about how true airspeed is indeed indicated airspeed (not applicable to our r/c planes of course) corrected for temp and pressure, but all that boils down to is how fast the airplane is moving in relation to the air. I can pull out all kinds of definitions also, but I was trying to keep it simple. It is not necessary or helpful to do otherwise. But since we taking translations as literal as we can than I would certainly think you are talking about ground speed in your post...again. :The fact that the wind was 'at the tail' (in spite of the downwind turn) simply meant that the plane was moving faster over the ground"" So you are trying to tell me that available lift is not decreased with a tailwind? Ok, let's try it this way.....when turning from a head wind to a tail wind are you trying to say that air moving over the wings are same? I am curious where the necessary instantaneous acceleration took place to maintain the same airflow over the wing....especially considering the dead stick situation? In order for no other change in avail lift to occur the plane would have had to accelerate the equivalent amount as the tailwind component. Otherwise less air is "flowing" across the wing and less lift is produced. This is the situation I was faced with. Not an "act of God" as you feel I inferred, but BASICALLY (as I said when I used the term "fell out of the sky".......my God am I gonna watch how I phrase things from now on) an impossibly to recover condition considering the aircraft attitude, rapidly decaying airspeed, and altitude. I am curious...what are you flying anyway.....r/c that is?

The nose of the aircraft was pushed down immediately, but with the 20kt "shear" the airplane was extremely unresponsive. There was some rudder control but very little aileron or elevator. An attempt was made to level the plane near the ground but the elevator was largely ineffective due to the shear. If you want to say the plane was stalled...go ahead because it "basically" was....it simply mushed. It never "broke" or spun but was simply unrecoverable. Oh yea....I never compared my flying ability or put myself in a class of a Chip Hyde, Jason S, or Quique....they were brought up to make a point. I NEVER implied any more than that...you did. And I might add you are the only one who brought it up or made that assumption.....another one of your literal translations.

As for the Doctor comment.......if you ever instructed one you would know what i am talking about (even though it was sarcastic all CFI's know how well they "take instruction").

And finally....yes I am a professional and take pride in what I do. This is the first time I ever felt the need to list credentials and it will be the last. I simply do not have to justify anything that happened regarding my plane to you....or anyone for that matter. I was flying when the plane crashed..that is fact. So if you want to rationalize that I f^#$%^ up..go ahead if it makes you fell better. If I felt I did I certainly would have said so as I have on past occasions. The point here was that I never asked for any expert analysis on "why it crashed"...you took that on yourself. I was looking for some answers regarding the flame out. If you actually go back and read the initial post that is what you will see. But I spose it's more fun and satisfying to try to second guess the guy that was there. I never whined about loosing the plane...I accepted it and have moved on. All I wanted to do was get some engine questions answered in an effort to avoid a future incident.....whether it was my fault or not!


Oh yea, most NTSB investigations usually go on little more than a few sentences from the INTERNET.

Ok, I am tired of this. I cannot believe I have had to defend myself to the degree that I have in this thread. I now understand why many guys refuse to post on the internet, it's because people will grab something and run with it. It will get twisted into something that you never intended it to be and instead of being constructive you end up baffled, aggravated, and generally sorry you ever posted at all.

For those of you who had some constuctive input...once again thank you. You truly have my appreciation and you help offset the "troll factor" big time. To those of you who choose to do otherwise........ (use your imagination)

Leardriver

blkbird68

My Feedback: (19)

If an aircraft's horizontal airspeed is low and the aircraft is flying at a high angle of attack, then it is very likely that upon loss of engine power, the aircraft will enter a deep stall condition. This would leave the aircraft with little if any pitch control. It was stated in one fashion or another that if leardriver had just pointed the nose down to pick up airspeed the results of the crash would not have been devastating. Well, first of all the aircraft would have pitched nose down anyway due to the stall. Second, at such a low altitude, with little initial horizontal airspeed and a significant tail wind, the plane would not be able to pick up enough relative airspeed for the control surfaces to be effective. The aircraft apparently had pitch control prior to the flameout more due to prop wash than horizontal airspeed. Therefore , the plane would fall out of the sky like a freaking rock if the engine quit. What happens to a model doing a harrier pass if the engine fails??? It drops like a rock until one of two things happen. Either it impacts the ground or, if favorable conditions exist, it might be able to gain enough relative airspeed to regain control for an "emergency" landing.

Now, to address the issue to which leardriver actually appears to have wanted a response. I believe that the baffles that were installed most likely caused the problem. Cooling the engine is great but proper airflow is just as important to the carb. If the engine can't breath, it won't matter one bit how cool it is. The engine should require little if any baffling in order to keep the cylinders at proper temp. IMO leardriver probably took it a bit to far with the baffling he installed.

Now for some useless info:

I have BSEE degree. I have been flying R/C since 1987. I hold no FAA certs. And I am tickled to death that I decided against pursuing a Masters or a Ph.D. My sister and my brother-in-law both work designing aircraft and spacecraft that are many times faster and much more complex than a Bonanza or a Lear. What does all this mean???? Not a darn thing!! It just appeared to be a requirement in this thread to post a bunch of useless info. That has nothing to do with the original question.

mu2driver

My Feedback: (15)

HAHAAHAAAA man thats funny...

I once stayed at a Holiday Inn...

mglavin

My Feedback: (31)

FWIW:

A lean mixture occurs when the fuel is burned in too much air.

A rich mixture is the opposite of the lean mixture. In this case there is too much fuel burning in not enough air. The burn is incomplete.

A normal mixture is a compromise between the lean and the rich mixture, but slightly on the rich side. This state will decrease the engine performance somewhat (usually about 80-100 RPMs below the peak).

If the cowl was baffled, a pressure drop is likely albeit ever so slight IMO… A chance of the cowl being baffled to the extent this is a plausible concern is unlikely, again IMO… It’s also unlikely you created a vacuum within the low pressure side (lower or bottom side) of the cowl.

Realizing any notable effects of ram-air or positive pressure upon the carb which would increase the engines aspiration are unrealistic in this scenario, IMO…

When your engine is loaded, flying verses static or on the ground loading, fuel requirements change. As the engine starts to work (flying), the demand for fuel increases dramatically. Static tuning offers a baseline, as many additional variables come to play while the engine is working.

The LEAN run scenario is likely providing the HI needle was bordering on the lean side and all else was sound. As a general rule the factory setting will be rich. Where are the needles at NOW?

Common problems associated with LEAN runs:

Needle setting
A restriction in the fuel line and or supply. (Filter, pinched line or screen within carb)
Fuel tank problem, (clunk, air leak, fuel line)

Another viable concern is the fuel metering system which is influenced by pressure differentials
within the cowl that allows the carb to realize different air pressures simultaneously. Our models present a conundrum. Constant, equal or common air pressure is not always present due to air turbulence, this causes the pressures at the intake and static diaphragm port of the carb to be different and changing which results in unwanted mixture variations. Changes in the aircrafts speed, engine rpm and aircraft pitch position contribute to these pressure differentials. A change of pressure at the diaphragm static vent not realized at the carb intake results in a mixture change.

There are two diaphragms on opposite ends of the carb. The (fuel pump) diaphragm on the side opposite of the cover with a hole is driven by crankcase pressure pulses; the diaphragm pumps fuel in conjunction with a small flapper check valve. The pressurized fuel is in turn retained by a plunger check valve that is controlled by the static diaphragm of the ventilated cover side. The hole in the cover exposes the diaphragm to common air pressure within the cowl. Reduced venturi pressure on a piston up-stroke is coupled to the inner side of the diaphragm which in turn opens the plunger check valve allowing the pressurized fuel to enter and mix with the venturi air flow. A change or modulation of the 'atmospheric" pressure will therefore modify the amount of fuel passing through the check valve.

An increased pressure at the static diaphragm not realized by the carbs air intake will cause the mixture to go rich. Lower the pressure at the static diaphragm relative to the carb intake causes the mixture to go lean.

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

That's exactly what I'm trying to tell everybody because it's absolutely true. As a full scale pilot you should know this. Have you ever seen you airspeed decrease (or increase) when you turn. Of course not. It is very easy for a plane to fly around in circles at a constant airspeed with constant power.

Tom

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

Imagine you are in a hot air balloon floating in the 100mph jet stream. Of course you would feel dead calm. So you decide to get out your RC plane (which cruises at 50mph) and fly circles around the balloon. Could this be done? Would it loose lift and fall when it turns downwind? Remember you would not feel any wind at all.

Tom

Mike Bogh

My Feedback: (14)

Here's my .02..
As a rule, I don't believe in coincidences.
I also believe that there is an exception to every rule.

IMO I don't think that the baffles contributed to the deadstick, in this situation.
As one who thinks that 98% of our engine problems are user driven, it pains me to say this.

The series of events in this thread that caused the crash are IMO, just bad luck. Each problem by itself was dealt with the only way one could, in this situation. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to come up with the shoulda, coulda, oughta woulda, didn't do it right analogy (say that 3 times fast).

Sometimes you are forced to just react to what the plane does and rely your experience to get you out of trouble.
I can practice and prepare for almost every contingency I can think of, but a simple case of bad luck overrides all experience and knowledge and leaves you with that sickening feeling that comes when the earth comes up to smite thee. Sadly, I can't even learn from this crash, as I don't think I could have/would have done anything differently.


I personally really don't believe in luck, either good or bad.

But experience has shown me regardless of what I believe, luck happens.


Good luck to you all.

v-snap

My Feedback: (18)

Sounds like somebody has been reading the book stick and rudder.
I only have one question. Why is my indicated airspeed different when I fly To my destination, then on the return trip when flying on the same flight path with the same winds? Just adding to the discussion...

What type of clunk? Could it have stretched the fuel line slightly and butted against the back of the fuel tank during the acceleration? I have had this happen on smaller planes but I use different clunks on the gassers.

I have lost 1.5 aircraft to the same situation in the past. You just can't build up the airspeed to offset the available thrust when the engine quits. The second time I got the nose down and pulled at the last minute but the slide down the runway ate the fuse up big time..

V-Snap

siclick33

Where did you hear this? If you are talking about passenger aircraft then their entertainment systems generally show groundspeed. Passengers are generally only interested in how long it will take them to get home.

I'm afraid I agree with greenboot that you don't lose airspeed turning downwind. However, the illusion of groundspeed should not be taken for granted. It is EXTREMELY difficult to overcome this and not slow down (airspeed) as your senses tell you that the model is way too fast turning downwind. (I am not suggesting that leardriver suffered from this).

From the previous posts it sound like the engine was providing a significant upward vector to keep the model airborne. As was also mentioned earlier, we do things with these model that no full size pilot would dream of. It is my opinion (and it's not worth much) that as soon as the upward vector was removed as the engine failed then the situation was irretrievable.

The debate on whether the situation could have been recovered, whether it was pilot error or whether it was the engine that was to blame could go on forever. What is not under debate is the fact that leardriver lost an awesome model and it almost certainly would not have happened had the engine continued to run.

I would like to send my condolences and hope that you find out what happened to the engine. There is nothing worse than being in the dark.

More importantly I hope you get your replacement up and running as soon as possible.

Leardriver

My Feedback: (12)

Man I can't believe I am getting sucked back into this again.....but, Tom very simply look up the definition of wind shear. I don't mean "micro-bursts". I mean when wind either increases or decreases abruptly. That is basically what I experienced.....a rapid shift in wind direction that led to the immediate and instantaneous loss of lift. You keep forgetting that without power there is no way to accelerate instantly to counteract rapid change in wind. It really is that simple.

Keep in mind that under power it is typically a non-event flying downwind and it is true "ground speed" will increase. But in my case your analogy is slightly flawed because you are not understand how "wind shearing" from a quarting headwind to a tailwind will immediately effect lift. Especially on a 27-28lb airplane. I might have gotten away with this with a 10lb model, but not my 2.6. Just not enough altitude and as I once again restablished on Fri.....gravity does indeed work.

PaulP

Leardriver

My Feedback: (12)

And hey....if it makes you guys happy to say the engine possibly being misadjusted is Pilot error......well than what can I say. Guilty as charged. Call it inexperience with my "new" DA100.....fine. I can certainly live with that. Although three of us stood over it convinced it was gonna run as expected based on how it ran up. But whatever, I can't change my decision to "go". Second guessing is always the easy part.

Again the purpose of this thread was information exchange regarding the engine. Thanks again to all the fine folks here who have contributed in a positive way to this thread. The engine is going back to DA today ad I am sure we will get to the bottom of this soon.

Oh yea, thanks Siclick for the kind words..i am working on getting a replacement as we speak.

Thanks,
PaulP

Mike Bogh

My Feedback: (14)

Gravity doesn't just work, it sucks!
I too would like to extend my condolences for your loss, having crashed myself from time to time when all I knew couldn't save the plane just seems to add insult to injury.
And FWIW, I have learned allot from this thread, thank you to all who took the time to share your knowledge, I for one am grateful.

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

Certainly a change in wind speed will cause a change in lift and has in fact been a factor in air carrier accidents. I disagree it is worse on a 27lb model than either an 11 oz model or 700,000lb jet. A 20mph shear will cause a 20mph airspeed change in all of them. Actually the slower moving plane would feel the greatest change.

Tom

Leardriver

My Feedback: (12)

Tom,

I am done trying to explain it to you. You don't get it so I am gonna leave it alone as there is obviously no changing you mind. There is the way it is and than there is the way you choose to see it despite all attempts to break it down for you. Enough said..I was there, you were not. This conversation is over from my end.

PaulP

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

This turned out worse than those airspeed/altitude, elevator/throttle arguments. The only thing I'm sure of is it's going to take a credit card to get your plane back in the air.

Tom

famousdave

My Feedback: (61)

This has been very interesting.. the last time I heard this much mumbo jumbo in one discussion was at a meeting with a bunch of engineering PhD's !!

Definition of PhD = Pile it Higher and Deeper....

I think even a PhD could have learned a few things here!!

Now lets get back to flying!
DP

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

I'm going to add at least two more posts to this thread to get my count over 1000.

First, I'm talking about an airplane flying in a steady wind. The airplane feels absolutely no effect of this wind; no matter if it turns, climbs, or dives. The moving air itself is the inertial system which matters. The fact that there is a big ball of rock (the earth) rotating down below doesn't matter.

For those who believe the earths center MUST be used as a reference system, consider the wind blows at 518mph from east to west due to the rotation of the earth. Luckily the earths surface is moving at that same speed so we don't feel it.

Wind shear is an entirely different matter, it involves transient changes in the winds velocity. It DOES effect the way a plane flies, most commonly causing a bumpy flight but sometimes causing huge altitude losses. Wind shear is NOT caused by the plane turning.

To

v-snap

My Feedback: (18)

Slick 33
I didn't hear about this. On quite a few occasions at work somewhere between 4500' and FL350 I see this. It was just a question. I was having fun.
I understand the air mass theory and agree to it. Wind sheer, micro bursts, and gusts are transient and don't apply.
If you go back to basics the turn to downwind situation is known as the "Illusion" of increased airspeed due to an increase of ground speed. Therefore, the pilot reduces power to compensate then increases pitch to hold altitude, and the rest is history.
I therefore agree the plane stopped flying due to a High AOA without available airspeed to sustain flight (steep stall), only being corrected by a nose down pitch, when sufficient airspeed is gained the elevator will help, until then you will flop.
Try this go to 7500 feet with a 172, load it tail heavy and stall it. You will loose 100(+)feet in just the transition to a nose down attitude. The reason is the airspeed is lower when the stall occurs. Tail heavy equals lower stall speed, less rudder authority, less chance of recovering from spin hence the 7500'.
Anyhow, with the AOA of 30 degrees plus on a aerobatic plane and the loss of available thrust (as we tend to fly our models way over powered) will create a sudden change in relative wind from the thrust angle with the engine running. Now the AOA is well above the stall point and the transition to a nose down attitude with lack of elevator authority will be quite slow. This will cause the plane to literally fall from the sky as we see it from the ground. (Falling leaf Maneuver)
Lastly don't think people always hear things and never see them.

As for the DR/Engineering thing I have found Engineers to be just as hard as Dr.s to train but for different reasons. Hence different techniques.

I am done now, wasn't that fun...

Leardriver sorry for your loss, I know it sucks.

V-Snap

MHawker

My Feedback: (16)

Hey Lear,

Sorry for the loss. Must be an aggravating thing. Did you happen to lift the nose of the plane vertically (by hand) while your were running it on the ground? Not sure if it applies to gassers, but I know this is something to check on glow engines before a flight.

The fact that your engine was stalling then catching on an earlier flight could indicate an ignition problem (loose wire or bad component).

There is talk about the DA-50's stalling on another thread. Could be a related issue.