John,

I'm glad to hear you're ok. What a fright. Were you flying a turbo, or was it NA? It's my impression (anything but scientific) that most of the oil loss-induced engine failures involve turbos. Was there any indication about the source or cause of the loss of pressure? Just curious.

Again, I'm glad you got down and stopped safely.

CAVU

hotrod150 wrote:I'm curious as to the militairy's results using the 337 ("Oscar-Deuce") for FAC duty in Vietnam. Other than getting shot at, how did they do?
There's a pretty good movie entitled "Bat 21", adapted from (amazingly enough) a book of the same name- which was also pretty good. I recommend them both. The movie had some good flying scenes of not only the O-2, but also some helo's.

Eric

The O-2 served with distinction and as I understand it, was well liked by it's pilots (I'm not a former FAC but have several hundred hours in type as a contract pilot in the late 70's). The skymaster doesn't get a lot of respect, but it's a great airplane. Noise level is no greater than a similar single, and it's surprisingly responsive for what some think is an ungainly looking thing. I personally think it's a rather attractive machine. STOL equipped, they'll get in and out in around 600 ft. The biggest problem with back country operation is the rear prop takes a beating. The retractable gear sot of precludes big tires, too, although the 336 had fixed gear and I know of a couple 337 that have been modified to fixed gear for missionary work.

I heard the best thing about twins is that if one goes out you still have one to fly you to the crash site. PS: Don't tell that to someone who owns one, they get Pissed.

Vietnam.

My buddy who got shot out of one as a FAC didn't like them. Much preferred the OV-10 that they transitioned to.

Light twins - flown right - are always better than singles. Flown wrong, they kill you fast.

TK Nashville wrote:Vietnam.

My buddy who got shot out of one as a FAC didn't like them. Much preferred the OV-10 that they transitioned to.

Light twins - flown right - are always better than singles. Flown wrong, they kill you fast.

OV-10 is a different animal all together - a purpose-built twin turboprop with power to spare. O-2 was a civilian design adapted to military use. Now, I know someone who's working on an STC to put 300 hp on either end of an O-2/Skymaster. That should be fun. I can understand you buddy's POV though. That'll ruin anybody's day. Glad he's around to not like 'em.

The O-2 was alot faster than the O-1 (aka L-19). If he didn't like the mixmaster due to the lack of speed, he really woulda hated the birddog.

Nice job. You accomplished the main objective. Walk away. Screw the plane.

I fly over the Cascades a lot, and not always so high. I always try to have a spot in mind to put it that would be survivable. There are lots of small lakes in the Cascades here in WA and often I am torn between small tree's or a small lake. If I didn't see a pretty good open meadow or gravel bar, I think I would go for the lake. Any thoughts on that??

The temps would be a factor for me.

My plan A was to "plan" an up river landing near the shore and hope to "ski" into shore when I was crossing mountains between Ohio and North Carolina regulary.

Plan B was to keep enough speed up to glide up the slope and stall in the tree tops.

Of course I never needed either.

whynotfly wrote:....If I didn't see a pretty good open meadow or gravel bar, I think I would go for the lake. Any thoughts on that??

Ditching into a lake sounds like a good idea, but..... ditching (esp in a fixed gear airplane) has it's own problems. They usually go upside down, then egress is, shall we say, challenging. Of course, if the landing/impact knocks you senseless, you just might drown in the airplane & not have to worry about egress. And remember, you can drown in a few inches of water.
I think the main thing would be to try to plunk it down somewhere close to a road or other civilization, unless/even if you have a good survival kit. I think there's been plenty of cases where people survived the crash, only to die of exposure.

Eric

I have wondered about this every time I fly over the Cascades.I have always heard fly towards lowering terrain.
I disagree, keep in mind my back country flying rating is a student.
Big canyons often have a road at the bottom, but most drainages do not. Roads are most often built at close to ridge tops in the cascades. It is easer to build the road and easier for logging operations (contrary to popular belief, that is why the road was built in the first place).
I look for clear-cuts and roads at ridge tops instead of gliding as far as I can into a timbered drainage where I am invisible to a search party.

whynotfly wrote: If I didn't see a pretty good open meadow or gravel bar, I think I would go for the lake. Any thoughts on that??

I don't fly floats or over water much, but a few years ago I went to a ditching training exercise. It was conducted by the Coast Guard, and held in a high school pool in Anchorage. I'd say between 50 and 100 other pilots turned out.

You put on a kayaking helmet with pretend headset cords. Then you climbed in a PVC cage resting in the water, with a mock seat, doors and plexiglas windows.

Next you fastened a 4 or 5 point harness, and gave a thumbs up to two burly Coast Guard guys, who flipped the cage over and gave it a really good shaking.

The two things that stayed with me are:

1) Grab hold of the seat between your front legs and keep hold of it- this is to give you a frame of reference when everything is suddenly wet, upside down, and moving violently.

2) Wait for all the violent movement to stop before you try to unbuckle, kick out windows, egress, etc...


-DP

I really do dislike admitting this, but 26 years ago, while a low time pilot, I lost an engine in a 172 and put it down in a soft, field that had been plowed with a disc. I really learned the truth about force increasing by velocity squared, i.e. twice the speed is 4 times the force... what I touched, I touched going way too fast... got to spend 17 days in a hospital after that moment... since then, my attitude is (a) the hell with the airplane and (b) be going as slow as possible when making contact with fixed objects... like the ground.

With regard to good maintenance and singles being as safe as twins, I apologize for blurting out that light twins flown right are safer than singles... However, I had a failure, my best pal and A&P had a lycoming 300hp on a Lance fail on approach of all things (17" of MP) and another buddy with a 200 hour Mattituck reman fail on a pristine 182... another acquaintance (a CFII) had a failure of climb-out that turned into a fireball on the ground with much tragic loss of life.

Nonetheless, I sold out of a twin and am flying a Maule. If I have to hit something, I plan on having a 40 mph wreck and hope its like a go-cart wreck from my youth...