Soft-field landing in C172

[Magnus]

Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
runway surface.

I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
just eats up a lot of runway it seems.

I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
too out in the bush somewhere.

Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
touchdown would be my way of doing it.

[Newps]

Magnus wrote:
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.

In the real world all the time. I land on dirt runways that are
anywhere from 1000 feet long to 5000 feet long in my 182. Your landing
technique depends on what the actual conditions are when you land.



Ususally
> if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field too out
> in the bush somewhere.

No, not really.

[Bushy]

> In the real world all the time. I land on dirt runways that are
> anywhere from 1000 feet long to 5000 feet long in my 182. Your landing
> technique depends on what the actual conditions are when you land.
>

How soft can you go? I'm looking at purchasing (or homebuilding) something
to operate from my farm. I have 1000 feet avavialbe that I can clean up the
rest of the rocks and clear the trees at the end, but it was cultivated for
many years before I purchased it.

The soil is rich red clay based loam that turns to "swallow the car muck"
when it gets a good rain, but with a grass cover and light rain it is just a
little slippery.....

There is a guideline for home strips from Aussie Gov. that recommends a
light truck leaving about an inch of depression in the surface being a
cut-off for flying onto, but maybe I should just invest in a good set of
skis or floats for when it gets heavy? ;<)

Peter

[Newps]

Bushy wrote:
>>In the real world all the time. I land on dirt runways that are
>>anywhere from 1000 feet long to 5000 feet long in my 182. Your landing
>>technique depends on what the actual conditions are when you land.
>>
>
>
> How soft can you go?

I generally avoid muddy soft, too much work cleaning up the plane. Plus
you never know whats really under the mud. I don't hesitate to land on
grass, dirt, gravel, dry river beds, shorlines, etc.



I'm looking at purchasing (or homebuilding) something
> to operate from my farm. I have 1000 feet avavialbe that I can clean up the
> rest of the rocks and clear the trees at the end, but it was cultivated for
> many years before I purchased it.
>
> The soil is rich red clay based loam that turns to "swallow the car muck"
> when it gets a good rain, but with a grass cover and light rain it is just a
> little slippery.....

With 1000 feet total you're in Cub territory. In really wet conditions
you may be grounded for a day ot two.

>
> There is a guideline for home strips from Aussie Gov. that recommends a
> light truck leaving about an inch of depression in the surface being a
> cut-off for flying onto, but maybe I should just invest in a good set of
> skis or floats for when it gets heavy? ;<)

Get a roller and compact the earth with a nice crown in the middle for
drainage.

[C J Campbell]

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.

The increased power is not needed to soften the touchdown. It is needed to
keep the airplane rolling once it has touched down. You only use it on very
soft surfaces, such as mud or snow. You can land very softly in a Cessna 172
with no power and full flaps.

The approach should be at the same speed as a short field landing, but not
at the steep angle of a short field landing unless there is an obstacle.
Basically a soft field landing is a normal landing made at the approach
speed of a short field landing.

You cannot use normal braking on a soft field because it is usually
slippery. Dry grass (according to the C172 POH) will increase your landing
roll by 40%. Mud, snow or ice would increase it still further.

Nevertheless, the length of the landing area is not the critical factor in
deciding whether to land a Cessna 172 there. Takeoff distances are nearly
always much longer than landing distances. The increased rolling resistance
of a soft field exacerbates this problem. If the length of the field is such
that you are going to have difficulty landing there, odds are you will not
be able to leave.

[Maule Driver]

I live on a grass/dirt 3300 foot strip. Not short but after rain can be
very soft. I've learned that 'soft' covers a lot of territory. Slippery
grass, pull the wheels off mud and a bunch of variations in between.

I think the 'keeping a little power-on" during the flare has value in
certain (a lot of?) aircraft. When I was working out in a 60's Mooney, it
was clear that without power, a minimum speed landing would result in
immediate nose wheel contact unless a little power was held. That's a bad
thing in mud. Among other things it may be the last thing you see clearly
until the rags come out.

A little power seems to be a good thing in my tailwheel Maule. When doing
minimum speed stuff, it is well known that the Maule will run out of
elevator authority (and get into a high descent rate condition if high).
The fix is a little power. When I'm landing in the mud, I want go be able
to plant that tailwheel with full back elevator in order to avoid a mud
encounter followed by any nosing over, and a little power seems to help keep
some positive elevator authority. But that's just my sense of things.
Ironically, a little power and down elevator is the key to keeping the
tailwheel unstuck at taxi speeds but (see nose over).

Power and elevator control (and flaps) is the key to soft field *operations*
including taxi, TO and Landing. A C172 may be fine with a power-off touch
down but if you do a beautiful minimum speed full stall landing, you still
have options but flying may not be one of them. Clearly some other aircraft
require carrying a little power during such landings which makes the
technique a valuable one to learn and be proficient at.

I'm not a CFI.
"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.
>
> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.
>

[Magnus]

Ok, makes sense. I've landed on some extremely sluschy surfaces back in
sweden in the pawnee and at one point we were taking off (2100' runway)
and half way on the takeoff roll I hit a massive pool of water that
wasn't visible in the grass. Lost me 20 kts of airspeed easily.
Fortunately I braked and the glider disconnected and we were fine.
After that I did tell them that we'd had enough for the day though, and
my poor plane was covered in grass and mud.

Glider pilots can be very persistent when they've taken the time to
come out and assemble their planes :-)

On 2004-03-25 08:14:15 -0500, "Maule Driver"
> said:

> I live on a grass/dirt 3300 foot strip. Not short but after rain can be
> very soft. I've learned that 'soft' covers a lot of territory. Slippery
> grass, pull the wheels off mud and a bunch of variations in between.
>
> I think the 'keeping a little power-on" during the flare has value in
> certain (a lot of?) aircraft. When I was working out in a 60's Mooney, it
> was clear that without power, a minimum speed landing would result in
> immediate nose wheel contact unless a little power was held. That's a bad
> thing in mud. Among other things it may be the last thing you see clearly
> until the rags come out.
>
> A little power seems to be a good thing in my tailwheel Maule. When doing
> minimum speed stuff, it is well known that the Maule will run out of
> elevator authority (and get into a high descent rate condition if high).
> The fix is a little power. When I'm landing in the mud, I want go be able
> to plant that tailwheel with full back elevator in order to avoid a mud
> encounter followed by any nosing over, and a little power seems to help keep
> some positive elevator authority. But that's just my sense of things.
> Ironically, a little power and down elevator is the key to keeping the
> tailwheel unstuck at taxi speeds but (see nose over).
>
> Power and elevator control (and flaps) is the key to soft field *operations*
> including taxi, TO and Landing. A C172 may be fine with a power-off touch
> down but if you do a beautiful minimum speed full stall landing, you still
> have options but flying may not be one of them. Clearly some other aircraft
> require carrying a little power during such landings which makes the
> technique a valuable one to learn and be proficient at.
>
> I'm not a CFI.
> "Magnus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
>> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
>> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
>> runway surface.
>>
>> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
>> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
>> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
>> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>>
>> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
>> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
>> too out in the bush somewhere.
>>
>> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
>> touchdown would be my way of doing it.

[jsmith]

Use the biggest tires (tyres) available for your aircraft

Bushy wrote:
>
> > In the real world all the time. I land on dirt runways that are
> > anywhere from 1000 feet long to 5000 feet long in my 182. Your landing
> > technique depends on what the actual conditions are when you land.
> >
>
> How soft can you go? I'm looking at purchasing (or homebuilding) something
> to operate from my farm. I have 1000 feet avavialbe that I can clean up the
> rest of the rocks and clear the trees at the end, but it was cultivated for
> many years before I purchased it.
>
> The soil is rich red clay based loam that turns to "swallow the car muck"
> when it gets a good rain, but with a grass cover and light rain it is just a
> little slippery.....
>
> There is a guideline for home strips from Aussie Gov. that recommends a
> light truck leaving about an inch of depression in the surface being a
> cut-off for flying onto, but maybe I should just invest in a good set of
> skis or floats for when it gets heavy? ;<)
>
> Peter

[jsmith]

Remove wheel pants when operating from turf on a regular basis. Wet
grass can accumulate and become trapped in the wheel pant and grab the
wheel at a very inopportune moment.

Magnus wrote:
>
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.
>
> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.

[William W. Plummer]

Gliders typically land on turf strips. Talk with the operators and look at
their tire sizes, etc. There are FAA documents that spec out requirements
for an "official" landing strip. One caution: gopher holes. They are hard
to see while landing and can give the plane a nasty bump.


"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
> Use the biggest tires (tyres) available for your aircraft
>
> Bushy wrote:
> >
> > > In the real world all the time. I land on dirt runways that are
> > > anywhere from 1000 feet long to 5000 feet long in my 182. Your
landing
> > > technique depends on what the actual conditions are when you land.
> > >
> >
> > How soft can you go? I'm looking at purchasing (or homebuilding)
something
> > to operate from my farm. I have 1000 feet avavialbe that I can clean up
the
> > rest of the rocks and clear the trees at the end, but it was cultivated
for
> > many years before I purchased it.
> >
> > The soil is rich red clay based loam that turns to "swallow the car
muck"
> > when it gets a good rain, but with a grass cover and light rain it is
just a
> > little slippery.....
> >
> > There is a guideline for home strips from Aussie Gov. that recommends a
> > light truck leaving about an inch of depression in the surface being a
> > cut-off for flying onto, but maybe I should just invest in a good set of
> > skis or floats for when it gets heavy? ;<)
> >
> > Peter

[Maule Driver]

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, makes sense. I've landed on some extremely sluschy surfaces back in
> sweden in the pawnee and at one point we were taking off (2100' runway)
> and half way on the takeoff roll I hit a massive pool of water that
> wasn't visible in the grass. Lost me 20 kts of airspeed easily.
> Fortunately I braked and the glider disconnected and we were fine.
> After that I did tell them that we'd had enough for the day though, and
> my poor plane was covered in grass and mud.
>
> Glider pilots can be very persistent when they've taken the time to
> come out and assemble their planes :-)
>
As a former LS6b and PIK20b driver, you bet we are! Heck, you guys have
engines... we expect you to get it up no matter what if the weather is
soarable. :-))

Bill

[Maule Driver]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:hQB8c.6087$JO3.12218@attbi_s04...
> Gliders typically land on turf strips. Talk with the operators and look
at
> their tire sizes, etc. There are FAA documents that spec out requirements
> for an "official" landing strip. One caution: gopher holes. They are
hard
> to see while landing and can give the plane a nasty bump.
>
Actually I've found glider tires and undercarriages to be marginal in tough
turf situations. They are typically lighter but only sit on one main tire.
Concentrates the weight but it does allow you to more easily miss soft
spots. A high performance glider at full gross with water in the wings is
real marginal on soft turf - worse than your typical land plane. Any glider
with retracts has minimally sized tires (and typically lousy brakes). And
in the end, if you land but get stuck, you can disassemble.

Looking at gliders makes logical sense but I think you'll find them
optimized for things other than soft field ops.

[Bob Gardner]

It is the discharge air from the propeller providing airflow over the
horizontal stabilizer/elevator that keeps the nosewheel out of the muck.
Remove that airflow by going to idle and you are complicating your life.

Bob Gardner

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.
>
> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Magnus wrote:
>
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.

That's the way to do it.

> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.

Keeping the plane airborne as long as possible will almost certainly result
in a hard landing when the plane stalls. You want to get the main gear down
while you still have control authority. You will not be able to keep the nose
wheel up without airflow over the elevator, so you'll need to get a bit of
power in just before touchdown.

> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.

Book ground roll for a 160hp 172 is 890' for takeoff and 540' for landing.
You'll need at least twice that for a muddy takeoff. If you're trying to
get into a soft field and don't have enough room to carry some power during
the landing, you're going to have to cart the plane out with a truck.

> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.

That's one way to start the process of turning the plane into a Texas Taildragger,
I guess. I'd prefer to *cut* the nosegear off, myself.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[John Galban]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
> The increased power is not needed to soften the touchdown. It is needed to
> keep the airplane rolling once it has touched down. You only use it on very
> soft surfaces, such as mud or snow. You can land very softly in a Cessna 172
> with no power and full flaps.
>

I agree. If the field is truly soft, adding power at touchdown
(with the yoke all the way back in your lap) will increase airflow
over the elevator and allow you to keep the weight off of the
nosewheel. This keeps the nosewheel from digging into the soft
surface.

I've flown out of some fairly soft backcountry strips in 172s (and
my Cherokee) and the yoke goes all the way back at touchdown along
with some power and pretty much stays that way until I've parked.
It's not unusual to need 1500 rpm or more to keep the plane moving on
a soft surface.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:c0F8c.7740$JO3.14266@attbi_s04...
> It is the discharge air from the propeller providing airflow over the
> horizontal stabilizer/elevator that keeps the nosewheel out of the muck.
> Remove that airflow by going to idle and you are complicating your life.
>
> Bob Gardner

Better yet, get rid of the nose wheel.


>
> "Magnus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> > taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> > touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> > runway surface.
> >
> > I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> > power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> > possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> > just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
> >
> > I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> > Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> > too out in the bush somewhere.
> >
> > Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> > touchdown would be my way of doing it.
> >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Better yet, get rid of the nose wheel.

Easily done if you don't keep it out of the mud.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Dave Stadt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > Better yet, get rid of the nose wheel.
>
> Easily done if you don't keep it out of the mud.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

That also solves the problem of running off the end of the runway.

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > Better yet, get rid of the nose wheel.
>
> Easily done if you don't keep it out of the mud.

:-)

I think the nosewheel legs are stronger than some people
who manage to break them would illustrate. One of the
students at the flight school where I learnt to fly managed
to leave the runway onto the grass at full power. Still at
full power he braked hard, dug the nosewheel in and
flipped the plane over. The nosewheel leg remained firmly
attached but was now pointing upwards.

This was a 150.

Paul

[Mark Kolber]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:11:07 -0500, Magnus >
wrote:

>Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
>touchdown would be my way of doing it.

Go right ahead. The goal of the maneuver (as opposed to anything that
might happen in the real world) is to


Touches down softly with no drift, and with the airplane's
longitudinal axis aligned with the runway/landing path.

Maintains proper position of the flight controls and sufficient speed
to taxi on the soft surface.

Some find the application of power helpful for the touchdown part;
most find it helpful for the second.

When I teach it, since we're on a hard paved runway, I treat it as a
game: how long can you keep the nose up? I do a demonstration in which
I do a touch and go in which the nose never hits the ground I tell
them that's what they can do with finesse but they don't have to. So
far, they want to.

[Rocky]

Magnus > wrote in message >...
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.
>
> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.
Hi
Well, I can think of quite a few landing areas that are long and soft
as well as some strips that can be "soft field" with heavy rain, or
fresh snow. Have you ever landed on a beach? Hmmm...a beach with fresh
snow..but even that is possible<g>
A precision spot landing (which I think EVERY landing should be) with
power to literally slow fly the aircraft to touchdown and decreasing
power as the surface dictates. If its grass, sometimes you have no way
of knowing how tall the grass is until you settle in it. Same with
mud, snow, water. Sand can have soft and hard spots within inches.
Numerous times I have landed on soft or unknown surfaces at remote
strips and will always opt for the "slow fly touchdown" before I
commit myself. On at least one occasion in Mozambique I had to use
additional power to keep from gong on my nose in standing water on the
only strip available to me way out in the bush. I was crop dusting
with a Piper Pawnee at the time. The water coming off the wheels bent
both flaps in a shallow V. If I had not used power to stay right side
up, I'd have ended up on my nose for sure or at the very least got the
prop.
Could go on and on describing similar landings with a variety of
aircraft including helicopters. That reminds me of the time when I was
taking off over a rice paddy and the power sagged a little........but
thats for another time!! <gggg>
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Paul Sengupta wrote:
> I think the nosewheel legs are stronger than some people
> who manage to break them would illustrate.

There are nosewheels and there are nosewheels. Some, like on C150s,
Tripacers, Musketeers etc. are pretty tough (IIRC, the Musketeer
nosegear is the same as the mains minus a brake). Others are bent bits
of wire with a wheel hanging off the end (Grumman AA5). And others are
strong enough, but the bit they attach to has a tendency to get bent
when mistreated (C182 firewalls).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert M. Gary]

Magnus > wrote in message >...
> Just curious how you guys perform this maneuver. From what I've been
> taught you should flare with a little power still in to soften the
> touchdown, and then keep rolling to avoid digging yourself into the
> runway surface.
>
> I just think that it should be possible to land anyway, without any
> power like you normally land. Just keep the plane airborne as long as
> possible and keep the nosewheel up as long as you can. Keeping power in
> just eats up a lot of runway it seems.
>
> I mean, how often do you happen to find a rough and long field.
> Ususally if a soft-field landing is required, it's a pretty short field
> too out in the bush somewhere.
>
> Approach like a short-field and flare as long as possible to soften the
> touchdown would be my way of doing it.


That's part of the problem with the PTS, a lot of it is not realistic.
Yes, most soft fiels are also short (in my experience). I've taken my
Mooney into a soft fields and its usually the length that I'm most
worried about. Also, a lot of soft fields don't have any go around
possible. Most of the soft fields I used in the Aeronca were "one-way"
fields because some giant trees or soemthing prevent you from going
around. In some planes you can't hold power in the flare (like a
Mooney) so you have to get used to planning the approach right. In
some fields you don't want to have to hold power becaues losing the
engine on short final could mean you're going to hit the trees short
of the runway. You can get just a soft a touch down w/o power. In a
real (i.e. not PTS) soft field landing you should consider...
1) "Drag the field", i.e. do a low pass and decide where you want to
touch the mains and where you want to touch the nose down.
2) Once the mains touch add power to hold the nose off until you reach
the part of the field you plan to drop the nose on. This can be
further down the field because you don't need as much stopping
distance from the nose touch down as the mains.
3) Don't worry about landing on "center line", land in the best part
of the field. Notice that the soft field landing is the ONLY landing
in the PTS that does not require you to be on center line.

-Robert, CFI

[john price]

The nosewheel structure on a Cessna is pretty strong,
but digging it in can cause:

a). A prop strike
b). A bent firewall
c). All of the above

I agree with Dave... Nosewheels should be outlawed!!!
Get a taildragger!!!

John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
home.att.net/~jm.price

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Dave Stadt wrote:
> > >
> > > Better yet, get rid of the nose wheel.
> >
> > Easily done if you don't keep it out of the mud.
>
> :-)
>
> I think the nosewheel legs are stronger than some people
> who manage to break them would illustrate. One of the
> students at the flight school where I learnt to fly managed
> to leave the runway onto the grass at full power. Still at
> full power he braked hard, dug the nosewheel in and
> flipped the plane over. The nosewheel leg remained firmly
> attached but was now pointing upwards.
>
> This was a 150.
>
> Paul
>
>

[Newps]

john price wrote:

> The nosewheel structure on a Cessna is pretty strong,
> but digging it in can cause:
>
> a). A prop strike
> b). A bent firewall
> c). All of the above
>
> I agree with Dave... Nosewheels should be outlawed!!!
> Get a taildragger!!!

Yeah, main wheels on a taildragger never get dug in the mud.