That's one way to get the gear down and locked

[Louis L. Perley III]

I've heard of this being done before, but this is the first I've seen.

They drove a Jeep under the plane to check out why the landing gear
would not lock, then they used a stick to push the gear forward so it
would lock (Cessna RG, not sure if it's a 172/182)

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/4982688/detail.html

--
Louis Perley
N370

[sfb]

Close up at http://www.news-journalonline.com/

One more example of folks who think planes are worth more than their
lives.

"Louis L. Perley III" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've heard of this being done before, but this is the first I've seen.
>
> They drove a Jeep under the plane to check out why the landing gear
> would not lock, then they used a stick to push the gear forward so it
> would lock (Cessna RG, not sure if it's a 172/182)
>
> http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/4982688/detail.html
>
> --
> Louis Perley
> N370
>

[Steve Foley]

You certainly wouldn't find me in my Jeep under that spinning meat cleaver.


"sfb" > wrote in message news:zuWWe.2539$9a2.1354@trnddc04...
> Close up at http://www.news-journalonline.com/
>
> One more example of folks who think planes are worth more than their
> lives.
>
> "Louis L. Perley III" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > They drove a Jeep under the plane to check out why the landing gear
> > would not lock, then they used a stick to push the gear forward so it
> > would lock (Cessna RG, not sure if it's a 172/182)

[Mike W.]

1) engage brain
2) raise gear
3) belly land in grass

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[xerj]

I'd always thought that it was better to belly land on the runway because of
the tendency for the plane to dig in and nose over on a soft surface.

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> 1) engage brain
> 2) raise gear
> 3) belly land in grass
>
> --
> Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....
>
>

[john smith]

> 1) engage brain
> 2) raise gear
> 3) belly land in grass

Actually, you want to land on the paved surface.
This is a proven fact. Less damage and more control.
Mike, do you own or what club do you fly with?

[Mike W.]

columbus northwest flyers

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> > 1) engage brain
> > 2) raise gear
> > 3) belly land in grass
>
> Actually, you want to land on the paved surface.
> This is a proven fact. Less damage and more control.
> Mike, do you own or what club do you fly with?

[Kyle Boatright]

"Louis L. Perley III" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've heard of this being done before, but this is the first I've seen.
>
> They drove a Jeep under the plane to check out why the landing gear
> would not lock, then they used a stick to push the gear forward so it
> would lock (Cessna RG, not sure if it's a 172/182)
>
> http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/4982688/detail.html
>
> --
> Louis Perley
> N370

Reading the story, I hated to see:

"The airport will now investigate to see if the impromptu in-flight
inspection broke any major rules."

The fact is that the New Smyrna airport is under pressure by locals to close
the airport. This investigation either sounds like an appeasement move to
that faction, or maybe, the "airport" (Who's that, anyway, the airport
authority?) is looking to give ammunition to the NIMBY's.

As someone else said, this act was dumb as a box of rocks, and the less that
"the airport" says about it, the better.

[Frank Stutzman]

john smith > wrote:

> Actually, you want to land on the paved surface.
> This is a proven fact. Less damage and more control.

Well, depends.

Much of the damage from a gear up landing doesn't come from landing, but
in the removal of the plane from the runway. At a busy class C or so
airport there is a lot of pressure to re-open the runway. Ground
personel are more interested in clearing the runway than they are of
causing further damage. I've heard storys of chains being wrapped around
a tail the plane being yarded to the side of the runway, crushing the
fuselage.

I'm dubious of the more control while sliding down the pavement as
opposed to the grass. Seems like it could very pilot and aircraft
dependant. Could you cite your source where this is "proven?"

And, yes, I am a member of the group "that has".

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Michael 182]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> 1) engage brain
>> 2) raise gear
>> 3) belly land in grass
>
> Actually, you want to land on the paved surface.
> This is a proven fact. Less damage and more control.

I would want to land on pavement in my 182 RG because it looks like the
retract holes in the belly would catch turf and make for a messy
deceleration. In a retract with wells in the wings, maybe grass is a better
option?

Michael

[Mike W.]

there was a case here (OSU) where someone belly landed a 182RG in the grass.
A couple of broken antennas was really the only damage to the fuselage. they
tore the engine down because they landed with power, so the prop was a
little bent. It was back in the air within a few weeks.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 1) engage brain
> >> 2) raise gear
> >> 3) belly land in grass
> >
> > Actually, you want to land on the paved surface.
> > This is a proven fact. Less damage and more control.
>
> I would want to land on pavement in my 182 RG because it looks like the
> retract holes in the belly would catch turf and make for a messy
> deceleration. In a retract with wells in the wings, maybe grass is a
better
> option?
>
> Michael
>
>

[john smith]

> I'm dubious of the more control while sliding down the pavement as
> opposed to the grass. Seems like it could very pilot and aircraft
> dependant. Could you cite your source where this is "proven?"
> And, yes, I am a member of the group "that has".

Something I have read, Frank. I cannot cite a reference.
It has to do with variability in the ground surface off the paved
runway. Culverts, drainage ditches, holes, etc.
The paved surface is generally "smooth", allowing the aircraft to slide
unimpeded. With a two-bladed prop, it is possible to bump the blades so
as to prevent a prop strike and mandatory engine tear down. This would
leave only the belly skins and antenna to be replace.

[john smith]

> there was a case here (OSU) where someone belly landed a 182RG in the grass.
> A couple of broken antennas was really the only damage to the fuselage. they
> tore the engine down because they landed with power, so the prop was a
> little bent. It was back in the air within a few weeks.

OSU flight school Cessna 172 RG/Cutlass; last year or the year before.
Instructor landed the aircraft.

[Frank Stutzman]

john smith > wrote:

> Something I have read, Frank. I cannot cite a reference.
> It has to do with variability in the ground surface off the paved
> runway. Culverts, drainage ditches, holes, etc.

I agree that there is a much higher chance of damage while landing
gear-up on an unknown surface. Somehow in my mind I thought we were
discussing the damage that might happen when doing such a thing on a grass
runway as opposed to a paved runway.

> With a two-bladed prop, it is possible to bump the blades so
> as to prevent a prop strike and mandatory engine tear down. This would
> leave only the belly skins and antenna to be replace.

Putting the prop horizontal (in theory) could be done regardless of the
landing surface.

Getting a little thread drift here, but in my experiance the only way you
are going to stop a prop (much less bump into into a nice position) on a
piston plane is going to be either 1) have the engine seize or 2) monkey
around way too much near stall speed. I havn't had 1) happen to me, but I
have experimented with 2). I've never been successful, but with the right
prop and a tight engine I can see where it might be possible.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[private]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> > I'm dubious of the more control while sliding down the pavement as
> > opposed to the grass. Seems like it could very pilot and aircraft
> > dependant. Could you cite your source where this is "proven?"
> > And, yes, I am a member of the group "that has".
>
> Something I have read, Frank. I cannot cite a reference.
> It has to do with variability in the ground surface off the paved
> runway. Culverts, drainage ditches, holes, etc.
> The paved surface is generally "smooth", allowing the aircraft to slide
> unimpeded. With a two-bladed prop, it is possible to bump the blades so
> as to prevent a prop strike and mandatory engine tear down. This would
> leave only the belly skins and antenna to be replace.

It is my understanding that the major danger in a gear up landing in the
grass is the possibility of catching a wingtip and turning a slide into a
cartwheel which is more likely to result in fatalities., and it is for this
reason that it is recommended to land on a hard surface runway. I would
suggest that this danger is greater with the higher touchdown speed of many
retractable gear aircraft particularly twins, and especially if attempting a
landing with one leg not properly locked down.

In any emergency, passenger survival should be the primary consideration.

Happy landings

[Morgans]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> there was a case here (OSU) where someone belly landed a 182RG in the
grass.
> A couple of broken antennas was really the only damage to the fuselage.
they
> tore the engine down because they landed with power, so the prop was a
> little bent. It was back in the air within a few weeks.

While there is anecdotal evidence to support both sides, the runway still
gets the nod. Why? Runways are always smooth, ( questionable, here <g>)
while grass may have drainage cuts, culverts, lights, washed out areas, and
other things that could snag on a plane, and cause it to flip, cartwheel, or
tear things in a "messy" manner.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike W.]

I agree that landing in an 'unknown' grassy area could be risky, tree
stumps, rocks etc. This particular example was in a grass area parallel to
the runway, so they knew it was clear.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike W." > wrote in message
> ...
> > there was a case here (OSU) where someone belly landed a 182RG in the
> grass.
> > A couple of broken antennas was really the only damage to the fuselage.
> they
> > tore the engine down because they landed with power, so the prop was a
> > little bent. It was back in the air within a few weeks.
>
> While there is anecdotal evidence to support both sides, the runway still
> gets the nod. Why? Runways are always smooth, ( questionable, here <g>)
> while grass may have drainage cuts, culverts, lights, washed out areas,
and
> other things that could snag on a plane, and cause it to flip, cartwheel,
or
> tear things in a "messy" manner.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Paul kgyy]

This is another candidate either for the Darwin award or the "why women
live longer" group on the oops list http://www.micom.net/oops/