What a Landing!

[NW_Pilot]

What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!

http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

When we were in Wisconsin yesterday a guy landed his Champ in the snow
alongside the runway. Luckily he was on skis, and was presumably on his way
back from the ski plane fly-in in Oshkosh!

We didn't see him land, and it was kinda startling, seeing the plane parked
off in the deep snow. At first, we thought he had crash-landed.

The guy had to go through quite a production to fuel (carrying cans over
from the pump -- no way to get the truck to his plane) and to depart (pick
up the rear end, and turn the plane around 180 degrees, which looked like no
fun at all in the deep snow) -- but he seemed to be having a good time
nonetheless.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tina]

It's hard to say it was flat and fast. The snow drag on the mains
would have pitched the nosewheel down even if he was making a soft
field landing.

Great technique for short fields. Let's see, if you can walk away from
it it's a good landing, and if the airplane can be used again, a great
one. One out of two, huh?




On Jan 28, 9:01*am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Splnj.5393$yE1.1303@attbi_s21:

>> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>>
>> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html
>
> When we were in Wisconsin yesterday a guy landed his Champ in the snow
> alongside the runway. Luckily he was on skis, and was presumably on
> his way back from the ski plane fly-in in Oshkosh!
>


Luckily?

Wow, good thing those things appeared all the sudden, eh?


> We didn't see him land, and it was kinda startling, seeing the plane
> parked off in the deep snow. At first, we thought he had
> crash-landed.
>


Boggle.


> The guy had to go through quite a production to fuel (carrying cans
> over from the pump -- no way to get the truck to his plane) and to
> depart (pick up the rear end, and turn the plane around 180 degrees,
> which looked like no fun at all in the deep snow)

Uh yeh.

-- but he seemed to
> be having a good time nonetheless.


God what an idiot you are.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> It's hard to say it was flat and fast. The snow drag on the mains
> would have pitched the nosewheel down even if he was making a soft
> field landing.
>
> Great technique for short fields. Let's see, if you can walk away from
> it it's a good landing, and if the airplane can be used again, a great
> one. One out of two, huh?
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 28, 9:01 am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
>> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>>
>> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html
>
What always gets me laughing is when the media refers to the aircraft's
"top" instead of it's back. You'd think that since the Wright's flew at
Kittyhawk these people reporting constantly on aviation would at least
have learned that an airplane to a pilot doesn't actually have a "top" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 6:01*am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

I don't have a lot of snow flying experience but I would think that a
couple feet of soft powder would be a bad place to land a 172
regardless of the touch down speed.

-Robert

[Phil J]

On Jan 28, 8:01*am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

Two things surprise me about this. One - how short the landing "roll"
was. It looks like it stopped in about 50 feet. I would have thought
it would take a longer skid than that to stop the airplane. Two - the
nose gear didn't collapse!

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:3df80bdb-00ac-49f4-baa5-
:

> On Jan 28, 6:01*am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
>> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>>
>> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html
>
> I don't have a lot of snow flying experience but I would think that a
> couple feet of soft powder would be a bad place to land a 172
> regardless of the touch down speed.


Yeah, if you're aware of the depth it's not so bad. I've been in snow tha
deep without skis and the landing can be tricky, but the airplane will
definitely stay upright if you touch down slowly and keep the nose up.
Getting out is a bigger problem unless you are very light and have a lot of
room and a bit of horseposer, but I've gotten a 150 out of snow that
deep.It's definitely a dicey operation though.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 10:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:3df80bdb-00ac-49f4-baa5-
> :

> Yeah, if you're aware of the depth it's not so bad. I've been in snow tha
> deep without skis and the landing can be tricky, but the airplane will
> definitely stay upright if you touch down slowly and keep the nose up.
> Getting out is a bigger problem unless you are very light and have a lot of
> room and a bit of horseposer, but I've gotten a 150 out of snow that
> deep.It's definitely a dicey operation though.

When I was flying the PA-18 my greatest fear was getting water on the
top of the floats. As long as you kept your touch down speed low and
your nose high you were fine, but if you let the floats dig in you
could end up inverted quickly (so I'm told). The tricky part was doing
so when the water was glassy since we didn't have a VSI. You just held
the nose up, hanging on the prop, until you heard a splash. If your
butt felt a sink before you hit you added power. I would assume that
snow flying must be similar.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 28, 10:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:3df80bdb-00ac-49f4-baa5-
>
>> :
>
>> Yeah, if you're aware of the depth it's not so bad. I've been in snow
>> tha deep without skis and the landing can be tricky, but the airplane
>> will definitely stay upright if you touch down slowly and keep the
>> nose up. Getting out is a bigger problem unless you are very light
>> and have a lot o
> f
>> room and a bit of horseposer, but I've gotten a 150 out of snow that
>> deep.It's definitely a dicey operation though.
>
> When I was flying the PA-18 my greatest fear was getting water on the
> top of the floats. As long as you kept your touch down speed low and
> your nose high you were fine, but if you let the floats dig in you
> could end up inverted quickly (so I'm told). The tricky part was doing
> so when the water was glassy since we didn't have a VSI. You just held
> the nose up, hanging on the prop, until you heard a splash. If your
> butt felt a sink before you hit you added power. I would assume that
> snow flying must be similar.


Don;t know since my float flying is very lmited and I'm not rated, but
yeah, I guess so. The takeoff is a sort of short field deal. plenty of
flap and full aft stick, the idea being to get it up and out of the snow
ASAP. almost planing on it. I've never done it in a taildragger, but I
think that would be more of a problem. I've flown taildraggers on skis
though and that's a non-event. It's incredibly easy, in fact.

Bertie
>

[John Godwin]

NW_Pilot > wrote in
:

> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!

I thought Beaver Marsh was closed during winter.

--

[Phil J]

On Jan 28, 5:13*pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> NW_Pilot > wrote m:
>
> > What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> I thought Beaver Marsh was closed during winter.
>
> --

I read in another article about this incident that this airport is
closed in the winter. I guess that explains all the snow on the
runway. :-)

Phil

[Matt Whiting]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

Adds new meaning to the term short though!

[gatt[_2_]]

"Phil J" >

>> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html
>
>Two things surprise me about this. One - how short the landing "roll"
>was. It looks like it stopped in about 50 feet. I would have thought
>it would take a longer skid than that to stop the airplane. Two - the
>nose gear didn't collapse!

Looks like the airplane fared pretty well, all things considered.

BTW, KATU is a fairly aviation-friendly local news channel. I enjoy
watching their helicopter come in to Troutdale every day. He lands it on a
wheeled dolly that looks about the same size as the skids, and then pulls it
into the hangar with a tractor. Fascinating to watch.


-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 29, 10:17*am, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Phil J" >

> Looks like the airplane fared pretty well, all things considered.
>
> BTW, KATU is a fairly aviation-friendly local news channel. * I enjoy
> watching their helicopter come in to Troutdale every day. * He lands it on a
> wheeled dolly that looks about the same size as the skids, and then pulls it
> into the hangar with a tractor. * Fascinating to watch.

Yea, channel 10 and channel 3 do that here in Sacramento too. Just a
little platform with 4 castering wheels and an ATV to pull it into the
hanger. I'm sure a regular powertug would have worked just fine but I
guess if someone else is buying ;)
-Robert

[[email protected]]

Test post..(My earlier reply missing) new newsreader..

Dave




On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:55:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>NW_Pilot wrote:
>> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>>
>> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html
>
>Adds new meaning to the term short though!

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 28, 9:01*am, NW_Pilot > wrote:
> What a Landing looks like it was flat and way to fast!
>
> http://www.katu.com/news/local/14446792.html

That's deep.

Wil