The only way turf could contribute to a prop strike in a tri-gear (which I assume applies here) is if the nosewheel hit some sort of huge gopher hole, rut, etc. significant enough to collapse the nose gear. But even this is extremely unlikely to happen with most nosegear designs.
...
A simple prop strike on landing typically means PIO...pilot error. Turf doesn't contribute to that.
I know of at least THREE 182's locally (yes, including 71G) that have had prop strikes in the last 8 years or so, both due to PIO - And both on paved runways. Ghery, your club is a bit misguided here, IMHO. I'd be willing to bet that the guy who had the prop strike hadn't flown much recently...
Many nosewheel aircraft have little clearance between the prop and the ground, far less than most tail draggers.
But not THAT little. The planes that have the lowest prop clearance are generally twins.
A poorly maintained turf strip is also far harder on gear with or without fairings than an asphalt one, the club or FBO is the one picking up the maintenance tab.
You're assuming that all turf strips are poorly maintained, and that all paved strips are well-maintained. Not so.
("Oh you should land on a rough strip while you're training, that way you'll know what to do if you have to land on one for real").
Sounds like you don't think a student pilot should ever land on grass during training?
I specifically looked for an FBO that would let me land on grass when I got my Private. I'd rather experience it with a CFI aboard the first time than during an emergency...
The other thing to consider is that someone who does experience an engine failure who has never landed on grass before is likely to try to land on the nearest road. Roads are AWFUL places to land! They are narrower than most runways (even an Interstate, if it has the two lanes in each direction that they do for most of their length, is less than 40 feet wide), and they are riddled with obstacles - Trees, power lines, signs, mailboxes, ditches, and vehicles!
I think part of the value of showing grass landings to students is to open their eyes as to the possibilities in an emergency. Generally, it is going to be safer to land in a field than on a road, and those who have never landed off pavement are going to head for the road.
Funny how all the folks pining for turf strips all fly taildraggers. Coincidence?
I suppose you could say I fly taildraggers - I do have the endorsement - But only a small percentage of my time (5%?) is in taildraggers. I love the freedom of having BOTH paved and turf runways (and some others, too!) to choose from - Plenty of nice airports are paved, but a lot of the most spectacular places I've been have been unpaved.
Yeah, that's why all those flight schools and clubs prohibit turf landings. Got it. Nice to know you're so much wiser than all those guys.
Well if you are the wise one... Why do they prohibit turf landings?
I believe it's fear of the unknown among those who haven't done it themselves, mainly... I hear the "insurance" excuse all the time, but I don't buy it - A lot of things get blamed on insurance so that people don't have to answer the question when they have nothing to back it up.
And the entire CFI pool in the country are a clone army based on you as the template. No CFI would ever do anything different, and no CFI has ever screwed up with someone else's airplane.
That's a bit over the top - There are certainly plenty of CFI's out there who have no grass experience themselves, but IMHO an FBO that hires such a CFI who is otherwise good should take the time to get them some grass experience so they can give their students the same, lest we end up with an entire generation of pilots and instructors who have never landed on anything other than paved surfaces.
Yeah, I've had my airplanes on turf strips too, though I don't make a habit of it with the Free Bird. If tail wheels were really that much better, most aircraft would still have them. If turf strips were that much better, we'd all be landing them.
As with all things aviation, "it depends." For the bush pilots, you've gotta have a tailwheel. For the rest of us, it's optional. I've enjoyed the challenges I've experienced in my 40 or so hours of tailwheel flying, but other times... When landing in Wyoming with a direct crosswind gusting over 30 knots, I'm really glad I'm not in a tailwheel airplane. For my purposes, and probably many others, for that reason an airplane that's used for transportation should probably be a tri-geared bird.
Now, does that mean tailwheels have no purpose? Obviously not. For those who don't land on pavement much, don't fly when the winds are high, etc. a tailwheel is a fun challenge. For some, it's a necessity. That most of us are flying tri-gear airplanes doesn't mean tailwheels aren't better at a lot of things.
Likewise, turf can be better in lots of situations, but the reason we have so many paved runways is that larger airplanes may sink in the mud, and the larger-heavier-faster contingent is going to take more damage to the gear that they won't save on tires. In addition, many turbine airplanes are at risk of sucking debris off of a non-paved runway. Any land airplane can land on a paved runway, not every airplane can land on turf or other unimproved surfaces. Because of that, we tend to build paved airports - That doesn't mean they're better for EVERY airplane now, does it?
). It also does not mean that every last pilot on the face of the planet should have to land on them just because you like to.
