Navy? C2/COD makes single engine, gear up landing.

[Dave S]

Just saw a video on local (Houston) news of a Grumman C2 making a belly
landing on a paved runway at Norfolk, VA. Over 25 souls on board,
everyone ok.

The left fan was turning, the right one was feathered. Apparently the
right engine failure prevented the gear from being extended. I would
have figured the military a/c would have the ability to extend the gear
inspite of an engine out.

Anyone familiar with the systems on these birds, and wether the right
engine is "critical" with regards to this function, or is there likely a
double failure of some kind (powerplant AND hydraulics).

Flaps were extended/down, but I am unsure if they were in full landing,
or approach setting, nor am I sure of how they are actuated.

Dave

[Bret Ludwig]

Most a/c have hydraulics on both engines PLUS a blowdown or bleed air
valve to provide emergency gear extension.

[Doug Carter]

In article t>, Dave S wrote:

> The left fan was turning, the right one was feathered. Apparently the
> right engine failure prevented the gear from being extended. I would
> have figured the military a/c would have the ability to extend the gear
> inspite of an engine out.

Perhaps they were saving the starboard engine from a tear down inspection.

[Dave S]

> Perhaps they were saving the starboard engine from a tear down
inspection.

The aircraft is a high wing twin. The props appear to clear the
ground... and the left one continued to operate quite briskly until
AFTER the landing.

I think the Navy would hang someone from the yardarm (if they still have
em) if someone stowed a perfectly good, taxpayer supplied turbine engine
with 25 passengers..

Dave

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
>
> I think the Navy would hang someone from the yardarm (if they still have
> em).....

Until the termites finish off the U.S.S. Constitution, the Navy will have quite
a few yardarms.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Skywise]

Dave S > wrote in news:py9Me.7241$RS.2848
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Just saw a video on local (Houston) news of a Grumman C2 making a belly
> landing on a paved runway at Norfolk, VA. Over 25 souls on board,
> everyone ok.
>
> The left fan was turning, the right one was feathered. Apparently the
> right engine failure prevented the gear from being extended. I would
> have figured the military a/c would have the ability to extend the gear
> inspite of an engine out.
>
> Anyone familiar with the systems on these birds, and wether the right
> engine is "critical" with regards to this function, or is there likely a
> double failure of some kind (powerplant AND hydraulics).
>
> Flaps were extended/down, but I am unsure if they were in full landing,
> or approach setting, nor am I sure of how they are actuated.
>
> Dave

The way the story reads on CNN, the nose gear came down but not the
main. After circling and going through emergency procedures, the
nose gear was raised and one engine shut down for the belly landing.
The arresting hook was used to stop the plane upon landing.

It appears the only malfunction is with the main gear not coming
down.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jose]

> After circling and going through emergency procedures, the
> nose gear was raised and one engine shut down for the belly landing.
> The arresting hook was used to stop the plane upon landing.

What advantage would this give?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Could it be possible the one prop was turning and the other one was stopped
to help get rid of any excess speed? Just a thought.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:NwcMe.166$zb.14@trndny04...
> Dave S wrote:
>>
>> I think the Navy would hang someone from the yardarm (if they still have
>> em).....
>
> Until the termites finish off the U.S.S. Constitution, the Navy will have
> quite a few yardarms.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jose]

> Save an engine, while still having power to adjust the approach

I'm more wondering about retracting the nose wheel. Seems the nose
wheel would prevent a prop strike and provide some ground steering.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> > After circling and going through emergency procedures, the
> > nose gear was raised and one engine shut down for the belly landing.
> > The arresting hook was used to stop the plane upon landing.
>
> What advantage would this give?

Save an engine, while still having power to adjust the approach, and using
the hook means you don't slide as far, chewing up the belly skins.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> Could it be possible the one prop was turning and the other one was
stopped
> to help get rid of any excess speed? Just a thought.

I doubt it. They would use close to normal speed, and plus, they con
control speed all they want, with prop pitch. If anything, I'll bet they
can adjust speed better, with both burning.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Gardner]

A stopped/feathered prop has less drag than a windmilling prop, so if there
were any effect on speed it would be an increase, not a decrease.

Bob Gardner

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Could it be possible the one prop was turning and the other one was
> stopped to help get rid of any excess speed? Just a thought.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:NwcMe.166$zb.14@trndny04...
>> Dave S wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the Navy would hang someone from the yardarm (if they still have
>>> em).....
>>
>> Until the termites finish off the U.S.S. Constitution, the Navy will have
>> quite a few yardarms.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
>> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.
>

[W P Dixon]

Interesting,
My thinking was that without the prop operating it was not producing thrust
and maybe with the thrust of one engine instead of both it may slow their
approach speed some.

Patrick

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>A stopped/feathered prop has less drag than a windmilling prop, so if there
>were any effect on speed it would be an increase, not a decrease.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

[Bob Gardner]

Sure doesn't enter into the thinking of any multiengine pilot. Airspeed is
airspeed, no matter where the impetus comes from. If the book says to
approach at 90 knots, for example, the pilot is going to maintain 90 knots
no matter how many engines are operating.

Bob Gardner
Author, THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT
(can't pass up the opportunity!)


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting,
> My thinking was that without the prop operating it was not producing
> thrust and maybe with the thrust of one engine instead of both it may slow
> their approach speed some.
>
> Patrick
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>A stopped/feathered prop has less drag than a windmilling prop, so if
>>there were any effect on speed it would be an increase, not a decrease.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>

[W P Dixon]

Good Point! And good plug ! ;)

Patrick

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Sure doesn't enter into the thinking of any multiengine pilot. Airspeed is
> airspeed, no matter where the impetus comes from. If the book says to
> approach at 90 knots, for example, the pilot is going to maintain 90 knots
> no matter how many engines are operating.
>
> Bob Gardner
> Author, THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT
> (can't pass up the opportunity!)
>
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Interesting,
>> My thinking was that without the prop operating it was not producing
>> thrust and maybe with the thrust of one engine instead of both it may
>> slow their approach speed some.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>A stopped/feathered prop has less drag than a windmilling prop, so if
>>>there were any effect on speed it would be an increase, not a decrease.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>
>
>

[Sylvain]

Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> Bob Gardner
> Author, THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT
> (can't pass up the opportunity!)

out of curiosity, have you been tempted, just once,
to use a slightly different spelling for 'complete'? :-))

--Sylvain

[Michelle P]

the right engine was secured for evacuation purposes. They did not want
anyone to run into a turning prop.
Michelle

Dave S wrote:

> > Perhaps they were saving the starboard engine from a tear down
> inspection.
>
> The aircraft is a high wing twin. The props appear to clear the
> ground... and the left one continued to operate quite briskly until
> AFTER the landing.
>
> I think the Navy would hang someone from the yardarm (if they still
> have em) if someone stowed a perfectly good, taxpayer supplied turbine
> engine with 25 passengers..
>
> Dave
>

[Michelle P]

there is no ground effective steering with a tail hook. You stop when
you catch the wire.
Michelle

Jose wrote:

>> Save an engine, while still having power to adjust the approach
>
>
> I'm more wondering about retracting the nose wheel. Seems the nose
> wheel would prevent a prop strike and provide some ground steering.
>
> Jose

[Morgans]

"Michelle P" <> wrote

> the right engine was secured for evacuation purposes. They did not want
> anyone to run into a turning prop.

That makes perfect sense. How did you find out, or is that just the answer
that makes sense to you?
--
Jim in NC

[Michelle P]

I watched very little news on monday but I did get to see and hear the
interview with the helo pilot that was shooting the video. He was first
called in the help assess the situation. He talked directly with the
pilots and stated that they were securing the engine for safety (evac)
reasons.
Michelle

Morgans wrote:

>"Michelle P" <> wrote
>
>
>
>>the right engine was secured for evacuation purposes. They did not want
>>anyone to run into a turning prop.
>>
>>
>
>That makes perfect sense. How did you find out, or is that just the answer
>that makes sense to you?
>
>

[Tony]

Can this airplane fly a miss with one engine?