Another nice gear-up twin landing

I hope that at 92 I am still healthy enough to legally fly a twinkie.
 
Looked like he even kept the engines running! Could have done a "belly landing and go"!
 
yachtjim said:
Looked like he even kept the engines running! Could have done a "belly landing and go"!
Click to expand...

someone has suggested that if you can cut the power and leave the props horizontal and feathered then you might be able to save your engines. I think that just getting it on the runway safely is enough to think about in that situation.
 
Warrior said:
someone has suggested that if you can cut the power and leave the props horizontal and feathered then you might be able to save your engines. I think that just getting it on the runway safely is enough to think about in that situation.
Click to expand...

That theory has caused a number of people to turn what would have been an easy crash that everyone would have walked away from into a fatality.

No thanks, that's why I have insurance. And my insurance broker agrees.
 
I don't get it, that was on a news site and they didn't classify it as a crash landing, nor did they mention whether the pilot failed to file a flight plan...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That theory has caused a number of people to turn what would have been an easy crash that everyone would have walked away from into a fatality.

No thanks, that's why I have insurance. And my insurance broker agrees.
Click to expand...

I agree also. About the safest way to reduce damages IMHO would be landing with engine running, gear up, on a smooth grass field.
 
Well, if I had a 10,000' runway and was almost to the numbers and had 500' of altitude, I *may* try to cage em both, and bump em horizontal. Maybe even as short as 7,500', but at most place, I'll just keep em turning till I'm over the pavement, and then kill em both, and whatever position they are in, that's where they will be.
 
bnt83 said:
I agree also. About the safest way to reduce damages IMHO would be landing with engine running, gear up, on a smooth grass field.
Click to expand...

Too many variables landing on grass. If not perfectly smooth (and who here has landed on a PERFECTLY smooth grass runway) it will do more damage from bouncing around. Also more chance of a wingtip or prop catching and slewing you sideways. Landing on smooth asphalt does minimal damage. Most don't even need the belly re skinned. My friend's Bonanza rode on the two prop tips (three blade) and the inboard of the flaps. Didn't put a scratch on the belly. Don
 
I'll stick to paved runway with good facilities - just in case. Plus then I can do a no-flap landing and minimize airframe damage without a safety concern. Most grass runways are short and don't have fire trucks. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'll stick to paved runway with good facilities - just in case. Plus then I can do a no-flap landing and minimize airframe damage without a safety concern. Most grass runways are short and don't have fire trucks. :)
Click to expand...

Why would you leave the flaps up?
 
alfadog said:
Why would you leave the flaps up?
Click to expand...

Because on a runway with sufficient length, a no flap landing is no problem. Flaps down on a low wing means one more item that gets scraped up and may need repairs. In this situation, it improves the odds of leaving the plane repairable vs scrapped without adding risk.

As with anything, "it depends."
 
I remember the old Baron I flew had the fuel quick drains that protruded about 2" below the bottom of the wing. Always concerned me that in a gear up they would be quick to shear off and provide plenty of fuel on the tarmac. Then one day landing at HAO we had a right main flat and went sliding off the runway. Luckily we missed everything and the gear held up. That sump drain was ever present on my mind though. I had the PAX door open and ready to bail if needed.
 
Ted, I would want to land at minimum speed, full flaps please. Williams will repar a set of totaly trashed flaps for a very reasonable price.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agreed. I've heard with Beech types, there is less damage/easier to repair with the flaps down than up.
Click to expand...

Right, on the 310 that wouldn't be the case.

Like I said, it depends. A wide, long runway, really doesn't matter. Stall speed with and without flaps on the 310 are a few mph apart anyway.
 
Skylane81E said:
I would want to land at minimum speed, full flaps please.
Click to expand...

+1

The flaps are very likely to get damaged anyway. Adding touchdown speed could just add to the damage on everything else and prolong the time spend skidding down the runway.
 
Land as normally as possible, with flaps shut the engines down as you make contact with the runway..................call insurance agent, get plane fixed or replaced, continue with life as we know it.:D
Trying to get cute or save the engines isn't worth the risk of dying in a fireball 15 feet short of the runway, but look he had the props horizontal!:mad2::mad2:
 
N747JB said:
Land as normally as possible, with flaps shut the engines down as you make contact with the runway..................call insurance agent, get plane fixed or replaced, continue with life as we know it.:D
Trying to get cute or save the engines isn't worth the risk of dying in a fireball 15 feet short of the runway, but look he had the props horizontal!:mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

The part I've never figured out is that you'd need to be Bob Hoover to execute that maneuver properly anyway. Try to do a gliding approach that you've never done before in a configuration you've never tried before while at the same time tapping the starters to get the props horizontal (which won't be possible for those of us with 3-bladed props anyway).

I'm not Bob Hoover, might as well not pretend I am.
 
Of course it depends on what your airplane is, I'd be tempted to leave the flaps down in the Navion, the flaps themselves are easier to come by than the hinges that would be the low point with them retracted.
 
flyingron said:
Of course it depends on what your airplane is, I'd be tempted to leave the flaps down in the Navion, the flaps themselves are easier to come by than the hinges that would be the low point with them retracted.
Click to expand...


Do like the local Navion did, hear the flaps and prop hit the runway, realize the gear are up, apply throttle, go around and try again with the gear down.

Ended up with one blade bent forward, one back and the flaps nearly gone.

But the belly was OK
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That theory has caused a number of people to turn what would have been an easy crash that everyone would have walked away from into a fatality.

No thanks, that's why I have insurance. And my insurance broker agrees.
Click to expand...

My primary instructor told me (for single engine) "If the engine quits, the insurance company just bought the airplane". His way of saying worry about yourself and the passengers and not the airplane.
 
Mine said it belongs to the insuracne company as soon as it moves, and my only goal should be stopping it without damage to the meatbags inside.

If it is good enough to be given back to me afterwards it's just a bonus.
 
Down and welded anyone? *ducks like dubya in an Iraqi shoe store*
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The part I've never figured out is that you'd need to be Bob Hoover to execute that maneuver properly anyway. Try to do a gliding approach that you've never done before in a configuration you've never tried before while at the same time tapping the starters to get the props horizontal (which won't be possible for those of us with 3-bladed props anyway).

I'm not Bob Hoover, might as well not pretend I am.
Click to expand...

I agree that you should land it the way you always land it unless you regularly practice engine out landings in your twin and and can accurately spot-land with no power. Then you can still easily screw it up and have no go-around power. The armchair guys (and I include myself therein) often say things about saving the engines but, really, why bother? It is not their life on the line. So, in line with that, if you normally land with flaps. land with flaps.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The part I've never figured out is that you'd need to be Bob Hoover to execute that maneuver properly anyway. Try to do a gliding approach that you've never done before in a configuration you've never tried before while at the same time tapping the starters to get the props horizontal (which won't be possible for those of us with 3-bladed props anyway).
Click to expand...
I switched to 3 blade props just so I wouldn't be tempted to "save the props and engines" if I was landing gear up.:D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The part I've never figured out is that you'd need to be Bob Hoover to execute that maneuver properly anyway. Try to do a gliding approach that you've never done before in a configuration you've never tried before while at the same time tapping the starters to get the props horizontal (which won't be possible for those of us with 3-bladed props anyway).

I'm not Bob Hoover, might as well not pretend I am.
Click to expand...
Something tells me even Hoover wouldn't try that on purpose without first trying it at altitude.
He's good (and still alive at his age)because he's smart... :D

Speaking of old-timers, I think this 92-yr-old pilot did a terrific job. Stayed cool, and did what he figured would work best. Smart.
 
Warrior said:
someone has suggested that if you can cut the power and leave the props horizontal and feathered then you might be able to save your engines. I think that just getting it on the runway safely is enough to think about in that situation.
Click to expand...

Why save engines with 1000 hours on them, when you can get 2 new rebuilt engines thanks to insurance?
 
gismo said:
I switched to 3 blade props just so I wouldn't be tempted to "save the props and engines" if I was landing gear up.:D
Click to expand...

They also look cooler and supported that horsepower upgrade! ;)

Actually I'd thought about 4-bladed props for the Aztec. One of my friends had 3-bladed ones on his and they just didn't look right, but we thought 4-bladers would look good. So we had thought about trying to get approval for a 4-bladed setup, but I also wasn't interested in spending money just for the sake of doing so when the old ones worked fine, even if they were a little dinged up from gravel runways. :)
 
Inverted said:
Why save engines with 1000 hours on them, when you can get 2 new rebuilt engines thanks to insurance?
Click to expand...

Most of my friends who've had this happen say the insurance has just paid for the prop strike inspection, not a complete overhaul. So you could probably give the shop the money for the difference, but that doesn't end up meaning free overhauled engines.

You will get new props, which makes for a great opportunity to do an STC upgrade if you were thinking about it. I recall Tony saying they did that on the 421 after a double prop strike caused by a fire extinguisher.
 
Warrior said:
lots to ponder as you are coming in for that landing!!:hairraise:
Click to expand...

Best thing to ponder is how to walk away. If you can minimize aircraft damage without compromising safety then great, but that is not first priority.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Best thing to ponder is how to walk away. If you can minimize aircraft damage without compromising safety then great, but that is not first priority.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Now my question is in this situation with a high vs. a low wing retract. Specifically I am wondering if in a high wing such as a 177 RG or 210 would one have a greater chance of catching a wing tip. I'd think a low wing such as a would have lower center of gravity and thus be less likely to tip to one side once the belly is on the asphalt?
 
AdamZ said:
Exactly!

Now my question is in this situation with a high vs. a low wing retract. Specifically I am wondering if in a high wing such as a 177 RG or 210 would one have a greater chance of catching a wing tip. I'd think a low wing such as a would have lower center of gravity and thus be less likely to tip to one side once the belly is on the asphalt?
Click to expand...

A few years ago there was a video of some guy in a Cessna retract coming in to land with the gear horn blaring, and then him saying "Well **** me" when he heard the belly skid across the ground.

Skidded straight ahead, no problems. Walked out of the plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A few years ago there was a video of some guy in a Cessna retract coming in to land with the gear horn blaring, and then him saying "Well **** me" when he heard the belly skid across the ground.

Skidded straight ahead, no problems. Walked out of the plane.
Click to expand...

yup this one. Man I can only imagine the ##$#%&^%$% coming out of his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hMn7ZweF6s
 
Ted DuPuis said:
....You will get new props, which makes for a great opportunity to do an STC upgrade if you were thinking about it. I recall Tony saying they did that on the 421 after a double prop strike caused by a fire extinguisher.
Click to expand...

One Fire Extinguisher got BOTH props?:dunno:.:eek:.

That's like one in a million odds... ;)
 
Interesting insurance renewal on the KA this year. In the past, I've offered a higher deductible for a gear up landing and insurer declined. This year, they offered a 10,000 deduct for a lower premium which I took. If I do something stupid, like don't lower the gear, it should cost me something.
Did that on something else. Did something dumb and just fixed it. Reported to insurer with no claim. They didn't know how to deal with it (g).

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top