Discussion in 'Mazda Rotary' started by TXFlyGuy, Nov 13, 2016.
An insider at Titan Aircraft gave me the info. No details, other than both crashed.
This crash occurred last month (18 Oct) at Matamata airfield in New Zealand. Investigation continues. Press reports (and we know how they are frequently wrong) indicated the pilot was not wearing a shoulder harness. On the other hand, other reports indicate the seat was torn from its mounts. We'll know more when the CAA produces a report.
Don't know why the plane is not equipped with a BRS. But for this case, don't know if it is going to help.
Yes you do. At 75ft, it would have been useless.
That's a good way to loose some money.
But does he use Conforfoam seat cushions?
Does the restraint system in the T-51 attach to the seat rather than to the airframe?
Correct me if I'm wrong but on the T15, the shoulder belts I've seen are tied to the seat back sub frame, which is a weldment that does have ties to the airframe but it's also not integral to the main frame.
With regards to the integrity of the seat structure and restraint system in the T-51, there have been several very high G load crashes in the past. Two of these involved pilots directly related to Titan. One took place in Australia.
In one of the above accidents, the right wing broke, after being bent 45 degrees during the impact. In another case, the plane stalled at about 50 feet AGL, and went straight in. Both of these accidents were due to propeller failure. And in both cases, the seats / restraint system did not fail, and the pilots walked away from it.
In the third case, John Williams crash landed his Mustang at KOSH after coolant problems and partial engine failure. He hit hard, really hard. Bouncing up off the ground at least once before coming to rest. While he walked away from the crash, he did receive some burns on his left arm due to the coolant lines being breached. This happened after a quick repair to the coolant lines (radiator) just prior to the flight.
Given the configuretion of the T-51 would it be accurate to say that a loss of power at less than 100 mph would always generate a nose down attitude ? Possibly a non-recoverable one ? In any case I would think a ballistic recovery chute would be a good choice for this type of airplane.
Stall speed is anywhere from the low 40's to around 50.
In the Youtube videos describing this rotary installation, he mentions that the engine had worked flawlessly, but the prop had given trouble. They are a few years old now, I don't know what, if anything, had changed.
Low 40's... you mean right in the range of a Fowler Flap equipped Cessna 150?
With THIS airfoil ????:
Yes. Titan's website shows:
Stall Speed: 42 - 52 mph, 67 - 84 kph
That photo is the standard wing.
Wow, if those speeds are genuinely accurate then I'm pretty impressed.
Anyone know how they managed to do this... get a really nice looking P-51 replica, with a moderate-speed-looking airfoil, to get down there into the Cessna 150 and LSA stall range?
The Titan website offers these.... spectacular... performance numbers. I believe the aircraft also cures the common cold and prevents aging :
Empty Weight: 850 - 1,180 lbs 385.6 - 535.2 kg
Gross Weight: 1,320 - 1,850 lbs 598.7 - 839.1 kg
Wing Span: 24 ft 7.32 m
Wing Area: 118 sq ft 10.96 sq m
Engine: Rotax 912/914, Suzuki V6, Honda V6, & GM V8
Power: 80 - 300 hp 59 - 224 kw
VNE: 215 mph 346 kph
Cruise Speed: 1 50 - 190 mph 241 - 306 kph
Stall Speed: 42 - 52 mph 67 - 84 kph
Range: 720 mi 1,159 km
Climb Rate: 1,200 - 2,500 fpm 6.1 - 12.7 m/s
Take Off Run: 250 - 400 ft 76.2 - 121.92 m
Landing Roll: 300 - 400 ft 91.44 - 121.92 m
Ceiling: 16,000 - 18,000 ft 4,876.8 - 5486.4 m
Let me add a few numbers...
Vne for our high speed wing is 250. Originally 270, but Titan backed it down a bit.
Wingspan - 28'
Max Cruise - 235-245 mph
GW - 2200lbs
The new wing will fly slower than the standard wing. This was a surprise to the folks at Titan. While Vne is listed at 215 for the standard wing, it has been tested up to (and beyond) 239 mph with zero issues. With the V8, you can blow right through that 215 number.
For those who are curious, the T-51 flies exactly like a P-51, with one difference. The P-51 is heavier on the controls, being a much heavier aircraft.
What is the airfoil?
Flaps type and % of span?
Wing area with flaps in landing position?
Is the quoted stall speed with zero thrust?
It is a new airfoil, being nearly symmetrical. It is much thinner than the standard wing. The new flap design is nearly identical to a P-51. I can't answer the other questions, but you might contact John Williams at Titan. He can (and will) answer your questions. Meanwhile, here are a few photos:
I think this is mistitled.
Shouldn't it be a T-51 Fatality?
I hear the "Blame the Rotary" rhetoric quite often and the it comes back to a fouled fuel filter, fuel starvation, etc.
Failure modes on a Rotary are much lower than on a piston engine. You'll never "Blow a jug" on a rotary, much less burn a valve.
I suppose that if the gear had collapsed, we could have said "Gear Failure on Rotary".
This is the first fatality of a T-51. OK...new title for the thread:
Mazda powered T-51 suffers fatal crash. With the subtitle: Mazda engine neither supported, nor recommended by Titan Aircraft. The only fatality experienced by a Titan Mustang was by a Mazda powered T-51.
No, I'm not a fan of rotary engines in airplanes. To be fair, there have been two other engine failure crashes of T-51's. One a Suzuki, one a Honda.
Enough with the wild speculation. First engines fail, PERIOD. If you want to find and engine flying that has never had a failure you are going to be looking for a Long time. I raced motorcycles that were highly modified, I never had an engine failure. This was because of good initial design, (by Yamaha), reasonable modification as opposed to known extremes, (By me), and constant maintenance. If you are going to run a alternate engine experimental you should at minimum be knowledgeable mechanically. The pilot of the NZ crash was getting all the engine work done by other people. This information came from his friend on the Lamar site. He also flys a T-51. His has a v-6 in it. He has had failures on the ground but not in flight. His comment was the work being done by the guys that supplied his rotary was not very good. (His words). We will need to see the report to know what actually failed. SOMETHING DID or he would be walking around now. The rotary engine as built by Mazda matured into a very solid package. It is less failure prone than piston engines of the same era and especially the same power rating. That is if nothing is done WRONG in their setup and cooling. The Mazda typically "soft fails" that is it will keep running even in extremely bad situations until shut off. If the planes engine stopped running it was likely failure of the subsystems, fuel, spark, air intake, or exhaust. But that is true for any engine. My friends Lyc. powered RV-6 is down right now because of a failed rocker arm, a part that a rotary doesn't even have to fail. We would have to have made a close inspection of the plane to have any reasonable chance of saying what caused the failure. The death is tragic, but even that was likely the result of a failure to the harness or the pilots failure to wear it. One last comment. I Love the P-51's appearance, but it is by nature a bad plane to belly land since one of it's main features is the big scoop right in the middle of the belly. The scoop tends to "dig in" on a soft surface especially. Tending toward a nose over and nasty stop.
Separate names with a comma.