A26 accident in 1993 (no one hurt)

Like the B-25, the A-26 VMC, or minimum single engine control speed is well above flying speed. In other words, after rotation at around 120mph, if an engine fails below 145mph land straight ahead by closing both throttles.

This video is a graphic reminder of the power these aircraft possess. The puff of smoke at .25 followed immediately by the nose strut compressing is a very telling loss of thrust. The engine also starts making noises that translate directly to shaking. At this point ALOT is happening inside the cockpit to indicate a failure. Immediately after the nosewheel is rotated the left main comes off the ground and the aircraft begins to roll right. (it is at this point both throttles should have been absolutely closed and the aircraft leveled).

The above, and my previous post are merely my opinion. I do know those that were on board the A-26 that day and I cannot speak for them. Accidents happen, and fortunately the only casualty was the aircraft. We learn from others. We train constantly while flying these machines so similar incidents do not occur. Respectfully,

Jim Harley

Pilots of powerful twin/multi engine aircraft had to be very switched on to the risk of engine failure whilst using high power settings at low speed.
In EE Canberras the immediate action for the pilot with an EFATO at low speed would be to throttle back the good engine to avoid the yaw induced roll as seen on the above video.
One of the Canberra OCU QFI’s was awarded the AFC for avoiding an accident following an EFATO below safety speed (ie below the speed at which you had enough rudder authority to counter the yaw induced roll) by ‘contour’ flying down the hill on Marhams rwy to gain enough speed to be able to increase power on the ‘good’ engine.

edit – on the later canberras the difference between lift off speed and safety speed could be quite considerable at heavy weights and this was a killer on occasion !

rgds baz

Wasn’t the DC3 designed to survive a wheels up (protruding wheels when retracted) and also take off with one engine? Or are these urban aviation myths?

The Mossi was a killer for this but its amazing to think that the DC3 Dakota was designed to carry on flying if it had an engine cut on take off, depending on how heavy a loads carried of course.

Mind you, Rob, that may well be a consequence of when it was designed – not being at war, and not being a warplane, the designers had time to design in a safety factor whereas the A26’s job was just to get bombs to the target and GTFO afterwards so it could do it again the next time – safety factors I suspect were secondary (that’s a pretty inchoate version of my take on the designers’ mindset – if anyone can come up with clearer I won’t object!).

The Dak had quite a bit of spare capacity – after Operation Riff Raff, they towed Horsas off RAF Great Sampford, which had Sommerfeld tracking runways built for Spitfires, so a fairly short run available.

Adrian

Just goes to show the power in these big motors and the danger of engine failure on a twin at low speed.. You could see he had begun rotation near enough the same point the motor gave up the ghost proper and turned into a draggy lump.. At take off power The motor would still be giving power up until a point where it failed catastrophically. Unfortunately the high power setting would make the engine fail in a massive way but also very quickly at a point where every ounce of airspeed is crucial.

The Mossi was a killer for this but its amazing to think that the DC3 Dakota was designed to carry on flying if it had an engine cut on take off, depending on how heavy a loads carried of course.

Based on his association with Collings Mr. Harley may have information and insight beyond what is readily available to the public.

He would have committed to take off by the time the engine let go and didn’t have time to consider an abort I would have thought, glad it ended as well as it did.

The pilot in the left-hand seat would not be looking out of the window and behind him to the right at that point in the take off roll surely?.

Moggy

So, the pilot percived he lost power AT rotation according to the accident report……

First sign of a problem (puff of smoke) at around 0.25 and rotation at 0.30.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001211X12546&ntsbno=CHI93DEE02&akey=1

Right engine failed on takeoff…should have aborted long before rotation.

If they were aware of it early enough.

Right engine failed on takeoff…should have aborted long before rotation. This was/is Collings A-26 My Mary Lou, fortunately injuries were minor.

Jim