It's a Cessna retract, bound to happen sooner or later in all of them.
Especially when someone plays with the switch on the ground...
Why would anyone fky a retract when pressure recover wheel pants are available.
RV's, Cirrus, no need for retract silly ness.
Geez.... Look at the bright side...... The prop was horizontal.... No prop strike.
Unless you like the whoosh it makes when the gear comes up and goes down. I know I do.
Yeah but it is a cool rush =)Dave, I know you are smarter than that. Jesse has been checking you. Ask your insurance agent how much that swoosh is costing you. That is the sound of your money flying out of your wallet.
Saw this today, caption away...
Dave, I know you are smarter than that. Jesse has been checking you. Ask your insurance agent how much that swoosh is costing you. That is the sound of your money flying out of your wallet.
We made an offer on a Mooney on Friday, the swooshing sound is totally worth the extra insurance $$$$.
Uh huh.
Wait until you get the bill for maintenance repairs. ( Not covered by insurance)
Fixed gear will sound a lot more exciting.
It's a Cessna retract, bound to happen sooner or later in all of them.
We made an offer on a Mooney on Friday, the swooshing sound is totally worth the extra insurance $$$$.
I want swooshy noise
Open the window.
Saw this today, caption away...
Our Father who art in heaven.......
So, that's what they mean by Nose-Dragger...
Now how did that happen!
Must not be a landing accident.
A preflight? Not checking gear lever position before applying electrical power?
Exactly what I thought right away. Who has a 10ft. tail tie-down?They should have tied the tail down tighter.
It's actually a 182. ( http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N6495A) IIRC, essentially the same nose-wheel locking component you mentioned on both the 182 and 172RG.It's a 172RG. Can't remember the details offhand, but there is a weak component in the nose gear that can fail. If it fails on the ground, the nose will fold up while the aircraft is just sitting there, and we end up with a picture like this.
Exactly what I thought right away. Who has a 10ft. tail tie-down?
It's actually a 182. ( http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N6495A) IIRC, essentially the same nose-wheel locking component you mentioned on both the 182 and 172RG.
'56 was the first year of 182 production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182They didn't make 182RGs in 1956, I'm pretty sure the tail # is 6495R
'56 was the first year of 182 production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182
Ahh, my apologies. Those were introduced in '78. I guess I kinda failed t multitasking today.But they did not make a retractable model then.
It's a Cessna retract, bound to happen sooner or later in all of them.
Yikes.
FWIW, I still have no regrets going for a Cessna retract. Nothing with a retract gear will be as simple as a straight leg, it doesn't matter what you compare it too.. more moving parts and more room for problems. They also have their advantages.