What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Engine Failure Question

ColoradoSolar

Well Known Member
I was wondering the other day while I was bored at work, just how reliable are the Lycoming engines we fly with. So I was wondering who has actually had an engine failure in-flight or any other major engine issue while in the air.

I have about 125 hours TT and have never had any in-flight engine issues.
 
Flying any SE plane is all about risks, calculated risks. When I was young and dumb I flew as if I where untouchable but one day many years ago I had one donk go quiet on me (in a Sneca) and that sure woke me from my 'safe' world.
Now I only drive SE planes privately and I now add extra'insurance' by way of avoiding tiger country (dry or wet) whenever possible.
We are fortunate that Lycoming engines if well maintained/operated are very reliable.
Each to their own as to how much risk one attaches to their flying.
 
I read somewhere that with piston twins at least, the purpose of the 2nd engine is to get the airplane to the scene of the crash.
 
statistically speaking...

I was wondering the other day while I was bored at work, just how reliable are the Lycoming engines we fly with. So I was wondering who has actually had an engine failure in-flight or any other major engine issue while in the air.

I have about 125 hours TT and have never had any in-flight engine issues.

well, I'm sure someone can come up with an angle on 'how reliable'....but even if there is one stoppage per 1000 hrs...you have no way of knowing if that is hour 2, or hour 999!
another stat; I've read that something like 80% of engine stoppage is fuel related..usually RUNNING OUT! either dry tank, contamination/mis-fuel, or failing to switch.
So it would seem that we should be MORE concerned with...".. just how reliable are the PILOTS who fly Lycoming engines!?"
....I know that is by FAR the weakest link in MY aircraft! ;-b)
 
I'm sure there's data somewhere on GA engine failures but if you consider how many aircraft, how many engines and how many hours per years GA engines fly I would bet it's a very small number. Then take into consideration the type of failure, the time on a failed engine and how it was maintained. I've never seen an actual total stopped engine. I've seen cylinders blown off, crank shafts broken in half, empty oil sumps, flat cams, hanging carbs and even a high time O-360 self destruct inflight but they were all still running. These GA engines were designed to take a lot of abuse.... But not endless abuse. Good maintenance is the key to safe flight. Don't ignore signs of problems.
 
I was one of the unfortunates who got one of a bad batch of prop governors. When it disemboweled itself, a broken counterweight became a defecto internal lathe bit until it breeched it's own case and spewed high pressure oil. Got down before the engine seized but only by a couple of minutes.
None of the unfortunate event was the engine's fault.
 
I was one of the unfortunates who got one of a bad batch of prop governors. When it disemboweled itself, a broken counterweight became a defecto internal lathe bit until it breeched it's own case and spewed high pressure oil. Got down before the engine seized but only by a couple of minutes.
None of the unfortunate event was the engine's fault.

This account highlights a very important point. It is very very rarely the actual engine that is the problem. Once in a while, but very rare.

Much more often it is an accessory or an important support component. Knob spins on fuel selector valve when valve is in the middle of a tank switch. Fuel or oil line loosens or fails (including fittings). Scrap of Teflon tape plugs a fuel flow meter. Scrap of orange silicone plugs a carburetor jet. Electrically dependent engine loses all electric power (through a variety of different event sequences). Broken muffler baffles plugged exhaust.

I am aware of a few actual engine failures. Crankshaft propeller flange separated during aerobatics. Rocker-arm boss casting failed - that engine kept running and got the pilot home. Wrist pin plug failure filled engine with aluminum shavings, which fouled the prop governor, causing a run-away. That engine still got the pilot to a safe landing at an airport.

You can tip the odds in your favor quite a bit by doing a good inspection at each oil change. Make sure all the AN fittings that attach to the engine are steel. Check for appropriate tightness of bolts holding accessories to the engine, and B-nuts on all hoses and lines. If you have an electrically-dependent engine, step up your level of understanding of the system, its possible failure modes, pilot monitoring, pilot response to anomalous indications, or failures.
 
This account highlights a very important point. It is very very rarely the actual engine that is the problem. Once in a while, but very rare.

Much more often it is an accessory or an important support component. Knob spins on fuel selector valve when valve is in the middle of a tank switch. Fuel or oil line loosens or fails (including fittings). Scrap of Teflon tape plugs a fuel flow meter. Scrap of orange silicone plugs a carburetor jet. Electrically dependent engine loses all electric power (through a variety of different event sequences). Broken muffler baffles plugged exhaust.

I am aware of a few actual engine failures. Crankshaft propeller flange separated during aerobatics. Rocker-arm boss casting failed - that engine kept running and got the pilot home. Wrist pin plug failure filled engine with aluminum shavings, which fouled the prop governor, causing a run-away. That engine still got the pilot to a safe landing at an airport.

You can tip the odds in your favor quite a bit by doing a good inspection at each oil change. Make sure all the AN fittings that attach to the engine are steel. Check for appropriate tightness of bolts holding accessories to the engine, and B-nuts on all hoses and lines. If you have an electrically-dependent engine, step up your level of understanding of the system, its possible failure modes, pilot monitoring, pilot response to anomalous indications, or failures.

Whilst all that's somewhat true to some extent an engine is actually the sum of ALL parts needed to operate. An engine won't run without a serviceable crankshaft just like it won't run without a serviceable fuel pump. It's all the same end result, engine failure caused by a lot of different things!
 
I read somewhere that with piston twins at least, the purpose of the 2nd engine is to get the airplane to the scene of the crash.

Witten by someone with no experience. A single engine failure in a twin does not get recorded unless the pilot messes up.
 
I have a friend who had a legit engine failure during dual lesson (he was the CFI) in a Piper Arrow. Made a forced landing in a field. Walked away safe but shaken up. This would have been an IO-360 motor as I recall.

NTSB put the engine on the test stand, and it failed on them, too, but they could not figure out why. Sent the individual components off to be tested. All tested good.

They never did figure out why.
 
I was wondering the other day while I was bored at work, just how reliable are the Lycoming engines we fly with. So I was wondering who has actually had an engine failure in-flight or any other major engine issue while in the air.

I have about 125 hours TT and have never had any in-flight engine issues.

They are very reliable Eric. Mine has several thousand hours since factory new. Brought me home on three cylinders once. I routinely practice dead stick landings. Every three months or so in favorable conditions in the pattern I pull the mixture out stop the prop and land. Good motor.
 
FWIW, early in the game I was privileged to base with Ed Long (RIP), who you will find listed in Guinness as the world's highest time pilot. I asked Ed about engine failures. In more than 65,000 hours between WWII and the late 90's, he had one.
 
Two engine failures, same plane, same engine.

This happened in the mid nineties with my RV4. There was no internet to speak of and certainly no type forums. All information came from the plans and other RV builders in southern Ontario, Canada. It would have been impossible to build without their help, Gord Baxter, Rick West, Charlie Douma, as great examples of help.
Anyways at the time there were not a lot of RVs and engines being so expensive there was a guy who worked at a licensed shop that built up engines at his home in his spare time. Engines were reported to have all new or rebuilt parts to spec.

My first failure was with the fuel servo. On run up the engine was a bit rough at idle but I "knew" it would clear up with full power. Well it did clear up at full power but the problem was that it would not run rpms less than 2000rpms. There is no way you are going to land a RV4 with a fixed pitch prop at 2000rpms.

I did a few circuits at altitudes and decided to cut power at base a little higher then normal. I expected, and planned on being at the far end of a 5000' runway when stopped. The interesting thing is that a fixed pitch prop, when running, pulls a lot more then one would think and so without it I landed save, but much shorter than I would have thought.
The Bendix servo was removed and sent back to engine builder. He had bought it with the understanding that it had been rebuilt. This was not the case. I had to send it to a real licensed shop, at my expense to get it rebuilt. It was in terrible shape, a real case of fraud.
Anyways I bit the bullet and it ran beautifully after that. It is nice to have an airport close when the fan stops.

The next failure happened with the same plane and engine. This time I was five miles from the airport going very fast, 2900 rpm, wound out. I had been told many times that higher rpms were fine. I guess was a slow learner!
One big bang and things got quiet, 3000' and I could see the airport. I passed over a nice big paved road, that was not busy, as I thought I would get to the airport. I did not. As it turns out I live 1.5NM north of the airport and I have four hundred acres. No runway at the time but I was very familiar with the fields. I set it down in a recently planted soybean field the same direction as the rows of plants.
Heck the RV4 wheel base fits down a 15" row!
Anyways after the initial shock wore off I towed the plane back to my barn and started looking for reasons.
I dropped an intake valve. When this happens it rattles around in the affected cylinder and as it is the intake valve it starts to pump air into the other cylinders completely destroying any chance of running on three cylinders.
The engine builder rebuilt the engine, with all new parts. I paid for parts, he supplied labour.

At the time was building my first HR2 and it was at the fuselage stage and to me it looked a bit like a coffin. I gave some serious consideration into looking for another hobby.
However a decision was made from that time forward, to only deal with actual legitimate engine shops. 2000 hours and 25 years later I have not had any engine stoppages with the next ten airplanes that I have built and flown.
I do, however, go out of my way to not fly over large bodies of water, to try to always have a road in sight and to fly as high as I can. Altitude is your friend.
 
Last edited:
In my short flying career of only 1400 hours, I've had one real engine failure - as a solo student flying touch and goes, one cylinder parted ways with the block in a tired old 172 as I was midfield downwind, non-event.

Since then I've had a fuel filter get plugged up in flight, resulting in a precautionary landing to get it sorted out but that's all. I had a blocked injector post-paint that caused an aborted takeoff once.
 
Ive been flying for a bit over 55 years and accumulated just over 10,000 hours. I’ve had two engine failures during that time and both resulted in forced landings. One with no damage and the other with minor damage. The first failure was in a Luscombe and it was water in the fuel.No internet back in the day and the sump was not the lowest point in the tanks unless the tail was picked up and set on a block. The second failure was doing aerobatics in my Stearman and during a slow roll the float stuck open and I wasn’t able to shake it back down. Turned out to be a tiny bur on the shaft where it hung up. The fellow that overhauled the carb had not done his job. I’ve flown as an instructor as well as Commercial Pilot in the north country and have known lots of pilots and out and out engine failures due to internal structural failures is very rare, happens of course but rarely. Carb ice, running out of fuel, contamination of fuel are reasonably common but it’s pilot error that is always number one by a significant margin. These days with these wonderful engine analyzers, if you know how to use them can give you information about your engine health that was until more recently never available. The fatality rates on single engine aircraft is usually very similar to twins so it’s not something to lose sleep over. I developed a habit of always picking a place I thought I could force land if I had a failure enroute, didn’t dwell on it as it just became second nature. That also goes for your home airport on take off. Good habits to develop. Cheers:)
 
2100+ hrs, most of it in RVs the rest in various Cessnas, Citabria, Aeronca, T-craft, some others. Never had an engine failure, don't plan to :rolleyes:

Not very scientific, how about a poll? Wouldn't be scientific either, but still.
 
Thanks for all the replies and keep them coming.

I don't fly around worrying about an engine failure but with how sturdy my 6A is built the engine is (to me) the most likely point of failure, if a failure was going to happen. And since I live in a high mountain valley I have to fly over mountains to get anywhere I would prefer the fan to keep blowing :D

So far loving my 6A and my O-360.
 
About 1500hrs in piston aircraft, 1000 of that is in the PA-31. Lets say I've operated a piston engine for 2500hrs, since flying a twin is operating two engines at the same time. The PA-31 is also turbocharged, and runs quite hot, so has more to fail and cause problems. I've had 2 engine malfunctions that resulted in a loss of power, but continued to run.

Another 3500hrs in turbine twins, so 7000hrs operating a turbine engine using the same logic. In that time I've had two hiccups that resulted in a minor loss of power.

Somewhere I saw that the typical 4 or 6 cylinder Lycoming or Continental engine has an average failure rate of 1 failure every 8,000-10,000 hours. The reason for the range is that some failures won't be reported or make it into the database. It is also quite difficult to know how many hours private pilots fly. Don't ask me to provide a source, I've long since forgotten where I read that.

Also remember that every hour you fly has a 1:10,000 chance of the engine quitting. This assumes you've get it well "watered and fed" with fuel and oil. IIRC, the this statistic are for mechanical failures, not fuel starvation.
 
I had a partial power loss in a PA12. You know all that slow flight stuff they teach you? Turns out it comes in pretty handy! Nursed it to an airport.

As pilots we talk a lot about the engine quitting, but the odds of getting a partial power loss are probably just as good. In some sense it can be harder to deal with as you can get task saturated in a quick hurry trying to deal with it. If it quits completely you pretty much know what you are going to do.
 
my take on aero engines is that they aren't so reliable. so many engines that get to tbo have a history of replaced rings, valves, pistons, and other essential components. all these failures ar rare in auto engines.
it is the way aviation is conducted that makes flying without an engine failure so likely. sb's, ad's, frequent inspections etc. is what makes flying as safe as it is.
i understand it is entirely different to run an engine at 2100 rpm compared to running one at 75% power . gimping home with an engine that has essential parts ready to disintegrate doesn't speak for its reliability.
 
I have a few thousand hours in Lycomings. The only problem I ever had was a blown crankshaft seal which was my fault, not the engine's. I was close to a runway and got it down before all the oil leaked out. Lucky. Other than this, the only other time I had a problem in a single engine plane was when my F-16's engine ate itself (Pratt & Whitney, not Lycoming :)) over the Yellow Sea. I dead sticked it into Kunsan, South Korea. Lucky.

I think as long as you take care of your engine and watch your engine monitor for early warning signs, statistics are on your side. But don't tempt fate. Fly routes where you can glide to a flat and survivable forced landing, just in case.

Finally, learn lots of engine management techniques that may not be written in manufacturer documents. I recently found a really good engine book. PilotWorkshops.com just came out with "Airplane Engines: A Pilot-Friendly Manual". I highly recommend it! It's one of the best engine operator books I've seen. I also like "Fly the Engine" which can be found on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
my take on aero engines is that they aren't so reliable. so many engines that get to tbo have a history of replaced rings, valves, pistons, and other essential components. all these failures ar rare in auto engines.
it is the way aviation is conducted that makes flying without an engine failure so likely. sb's, ad's, frequent inspections etc. is what makes flying as safe as it is.
i understand it is entirely different to run an engine at 2100 rpm compared to running one at 75% power . gimping home with an engine that has essential parts ready to disintegrate doesn't speak for its reliability.

Car engines are water cooled and can be built to tighter tolerances and operate at consistent temperatures.Most aircraft engines are air cooled and have to deal with the changes in temperatures, therefore the tolerances are greater. Car engines are typically run at less than 50% power and never run at 100% power in normal driving....an aircraft engine runs at 100% power everytime on take off at sea level and runs at 75% power while cruising. Many pilots are not skilled in how to properly operate an aircraft engine to get the best service from it.

When auto engines are used in aviation it’s not uncommon to have less reliability than in your standard Continental or Lycoming engine.

All in all aircraft engines, properly built or rebuilt and serviced and operated properly will have excellent results.
 
Car engine actually are normally putting out far less than 50%. It takes 10 to 20 HP depending on vehicle size to maintain 60 MPH.
 
4000 hrs ---- 67 years ---- flown 67 different models, all piston

I had a stuck valve on my 65hp Champ with my wife and 6mo old son (now 57) in back seat --- rpm maxed out at 1600 but made it back to airport. Stuck float on my Cessna 150, rpm maxed out at about 1700 but made it back to AP.

I have had a couple of twin Comanches --- seemed like the second engine just meant three times the complexity, but, economics aside, still provided some degree of "over water, over mountains" security.

Ron
 
Car engines are typically run at less than 50% power and never run at 100% power in normal driving....an aircraft engine runs at 100% power everytime on take off at sea level and runs at 75% power while cruising.

Yet modern auto engines are validated to higher standards at WOT/ full rated power than certified aircraft engines are required to be. Hyundai runs a 300 hours maximum power test on their engines and then 30 more hours at full power over redline rpm. Their turbo engines output over 100hp/L (600hp in Lycoming 360 terms).

Don't equate "typical" automotive use for how robust and reliable many modern auto engines are at very high power outputs. This isn't the 1970s any more.

My friend Russell Sherwood has over 850 hours on his Subaru powered Glasair with multiple SARL wins. It's never been beaten in its class by any certified engine powered aircraft.
 
Last edited:
As stated in here several times, Lycomings very rarely fail, so the risk is very low. That said, can you imagine what the performance and life of an aviation engine would be if it had the development resources of Ford, GM, Daimler, or Toyota? Along with the associated manufacturing volume? It would be incredible. Probably 1.5 times the power for the weight we currently see with TBO's at least twice as long as we see now, with likely very little risk of corrosion problems!... one can only dream.

Tim
 
When the current crop of basic air cooled aero engines where designed back when Noah just stepped off the Ark the main concept was easy to produce, to have basic compact design (VW had the perfect answer) individual cylinder assemblies (very clever engineering) needing as little as possible to support the engine to operate and apart from reliability easy to maintain especially out in the field. Today's moden auto engines are very complex, you need to be a magician to to fix them with a whole plethora of diagnostic gizmos!
Like all things mechanical they do fail from time to time so keep your options open to live another day:)
 
My take on aircraft engines is that they are built extremely light for weight savings and just strong enough to survive if pampered. Ignition timing must be conservative and fuel heavily leaded – both necessary to prevent detonation which is ultimate no-no. Air-cooling with hot spots and rapid quench when throttle mis-managed. Oil consumption of one-half quart per hour is acceptable – you might as well be spraying for mosquitos. Lots of things can go badly at a moment’s notice. Probably best scenario is owner-operated aircraft where engine is treated tenderly by a single pilot with good working knowledge.
 
Yet modern auto engines are validated to higher standards at WOT/ full rated power than certified aircraft engines are required to be. Hyundai runs a 300 hours maximum power test on their engines and then 30 more hours at full power over redline rpm. Their turbo engines output over 100hp/L (600hp in Lycoming 360 terms).

Don't equate "typical" automotive use for how robust and reliable many modern auto engines are at very high power outputs. This isn't the 1970s any more

As stated in here several times, Lycomings very rarely fail, so the risk is very low. That said, can you imagine what the performance and life of an aviation engine would be if it had the development resources of Ford, GM, Daimler, or Toyota? Along with the associated manufacturing volume? It would be incredible. Probably 1.5 times the power for the weight we currently see with TBO's at least twice as long as we see now, with likely very little risk of corrosion problems!... one can only dream.

Tim

The Loss of power of auto engines in aircraft use is not the engine. Need some one with resources of Ford, GM, Toyota to develop a reliable gearbox.
 
The Loss of power of auto engines in aircraft use is not the engine. Need some one with resources of Ford, GM, Toyota to develop a reliable gearbox.

There are a few gearboxes out there with good reliability such as the Marcotte M-300 which Russell and I both use. I have a number of customers flying behind SPG-4/5 boxes and we've seen good results with the Ballistic drives for the higher powered stuff.

Aeromomentum developed their own lightweight drives which are working really well also, some single examples with over 3000 hours on them.

None of these had a GM or Toyota behind them.

While fuel delivery issues or ignition system failure can cause any engine to stop, I don't consider these engine failures. However the result is the same- a forced landing is in your near future.

Engine failure in my book, is when a jug separates, a crank or rod breaks etc.
 
While fuel delivery issues or ignition system failure can cause any engine to stop, I don't consider these engine failures. However the result is the same- a forced landing is in your near future.

Engine failure in my book, is when a jug separates, a crank or rod breaks etc.

Agree and point I was trying to make but should have expanded beyond just gearbox. You got to have the full package working and optimized for aircraft use.
In my world of advanced aircraft development we have Technology Ready Level (TRL) that describes a technology’s readiness to use. Has scale of 1-9, 1 being Concept on the back of a napkin and 9 being fully Fielded with in use data. You can’t get above 6 until tested in relevant environment. That is were $$ needs to be spent for auto engines and related accessories required to convert to aircraft use. Plenty of great stuff at TRL 6 or below.
 
Last edited:
Agree and point I was trying to make but should have expanded beyond just gearbox. You got to have the full package working and optimized for aircraft use.
In my world of advanced aircraft development we have Technology Ready Level (TRL) that describes a technology’s readiness to use. Has scale of 1-9, 1 being Concept on the back of a napkin and 9 being fully Fielded with in use data. You can’t get above 6 until tested in relevant environment. That is were $$ needs to be spent for auto engines and related accessories required to convert to aircraft use. Plenty of great stuff at TRL 6 or below.

Merely responding to the outdated notion brought up here that auto engines are not able to sustain high hp levels for long periods of time in aircraft use.

Reliable flight time is the only gauge that really shows if any particular engine package cuts the mustard in my experience. Projections and theory mean very little. We have lots of customers that have shown that their packages are very durable and reliable in aircraft- and equally, some that are not.
 
Mine was a couple of months ago. Fortunately there was a paddock nearby, into which we landed with no further damage.

The failure was mechanical: the LH idler gear inside the accessory case separated from its hub, which deprived the camshaft of drive once it fell out of mesh. There's damage at the base of the bearing on which the gear runs, indicating a side load, but no firm evidence of what caused it. However it occurred, the imposed runout on the gear appears to have led to its breakage. If anyone has heard of this sort of event, I'd be glad to hear your theories.

The engine is an IO-360 clone. I won't name the engine builder, as I don't want it to reflect negatively on them. But in our exchanges they have been very supportive with their diagnosis, their suggestion being that there's very little clearance between the front face of the gear and the studs which hold the bearing to the case. If a stud backs out even a little, the two can come into contact. However there's only a light witness mark on the gear, and that more likely occurred after it separated.

The engine is about 700 hours old, flown only by the owners and meticulously datalogged, but there's no way of predicting a component failure of this nature. It was my first total engine loss, after a lot of years, so I'm glad to have gotten that out of the way!
 
Three: Kelly D with a Lycoming O-235 lost power on takeoff while an instructor was checking me out. We had just purchased the airplane and the instructor had flown it from California to Mississippi. Just like Bob Hoover said, the instructor flew the airplane all the way into the crash. We had nowhere to go except into the woods ahead of us. We hit a tree then hit the ground. I was fine, just a little sore from where the seatbelt and shoulder harness caught me. The instructor had a broken ankle and had cut it pretty badly. One of my partners in the airplane witnessed the engine stoppage and immediately called the sheriff so we were rescued pretty quickly. We never learned exactly why the engine quit but believe it may have been something in the fuel tank blocking the fuel line or possibly carb ice. The busted wooden prop hangs on my hangar wall.

Cessna 182 when the flame cones in the muffler fell out but got caught and reduced the power that I had. I was at 7500 feet and with the help of approach control made it to an airport and had an uneventful landing. The muffler and exhaust pipes also hang on my hangar wall.

My RV-6A when, after a long slow descent to a touch and go at a private strip, the engine would not make full power. I was able to adjust the mixture to get more power and made it the four or five miles back to the grass strip where the aircraft was based. I don’t know why I didn’t just land at strip I was at, but I flew from clearing to clearing in the pine woods until I got back to the open fields near the home airport. Turns out the carb was running too rich.

I hope there will be no more.
 
In 2800 hours flying Ive had a partial engine failure as a student flying dual, we did a glide approach to land just in case the partial failure let to total failure. The engine was very rough by the time we landed. Ive had an electrical failure requiring a flapless landing. Ive had an idle jet turn sideways in a carb, this wasn't noticeable at cruise power but gave horrible running at idle. I have mishandled my fuel running one tank dry while I had plenty in the other, very embarrassing, but the engine was restarted In flight without incident. I suspect the engines are more reliable than the pilots or engineers who operate and maintain them.

The most common cause of engine failure is pilot error. The most common time for mechanical failure is in the first 500 hours of an engines life or soon after maintenance.
 
40+ years driving planes from simple OTTO cycle donks to Airliners, wth one Conty IO360 that decided to die in a twin I figure I've been blessed, I might stop reading this post in case I get jinxed!:D
 
Trying to Define the What If's

-8A with 1300 hrs. on the Aerosport IO-360. Early on in analyzing the risks of building I admitted that I was not, and never could be, an engine guy. Don't know enough, don't have enough time left to learn. Decided the best mitigation would be:
1) Meticulously follow all engine and associated systems operations and maintenance instructions - including the fuel system.
2) KISS - Keep it simple and IAW Vans recommendations
3) Ask folks who are engine guys
4) Accept the fact that engine systems are mechanical - and mechanical stuff - for logical and illogical reasons - sometimes goes tango uniform. If such an event occurs when airborne, I'm going to have to put it down somewhere. So with much of my flying is cross country and over the Sierra Nevada, I constantly look for the best available place to land - even though a lot of times best is nowhere near optimum.
 
An IO-360 Failure

Can anybody else say they suffered an engine failure that ended amusingly?

Army flight school, 1968. After a whole flight period practicing pinnacle landings solo in a TH-55 (IO-360 engine), the engine quit at 400 ft on final approach to the heliport. By sheer skill (hah!), I put it right on the landing pad. The tower then starts yelling: "Move that thing" "You can't park there" "There's traffic behind you". I finally managed a word in edgewise that the engine quit. The reply: "Oh" and go-arounds to the line of traffic behind.

The cause was a ruptured aluminum fuel line.


Gary R. Kohler
RV-7A Flying
 
Back
Top