Other accidents

Other accidents not reported, or spotted by you keen web trawlers were:

Jabiru J160C directional control loss on landing by a solo student down near Murray Bridge and;

Fisher Koala at Old Bar, EFATO, got it down ok, ran out of room and flipped it over. Unfortunately the fire brigade and HazMat people decided it was a good training exercise and promptly killed the aircraft by covering it in foam. I mean honestly, if the thing was going to burn, they could have toasted marshmellows on it! Needless to say, it is now stuffed.

Chris

Last Saturday at Camden.

J160 ground looped by a solo student pilot. No persons injured. Wrote off the prop. Crankshaft OK. Wingtip cracked and grazed and can be fixed with a bit of bog.

The only problem with the repair is breaking the Loctit on the flywheel bolts to get the old ones out and replaced. If that can be done, the plane should be OK for the weekend.

Old Man Emu

How about the brand new factory J230 written off at Bundaberg a few weeks ago with 2 POB? Too much air in the tanks perhaps?

There is a very good reason why J160's groundloop and have trouble when landing but the factory doesn't seem to make the required changes to achieve it.

Anyone care to guess what it is? It takes about 25 minutes to implement it and costs between $50 and $100.

I'll give a free J400 ride to whoever guesses. Wow!

I am waiting to see this one. Any hints.

Undercarriage bolts snapping

Not quite. It's not due to something breaking and it's not a major modification if that helps.

Clue:

If I said the exact price, it would give it away instantly.

axles

I was just discussing this the other day, along with the Jab valve issues and undercarriage breaking off, makes me a little worried sometimes...:confused:

What are the valve issues that you speak of? Leaking / compression?

Many an undercarriage were lost because either the bolts were loose or not upgraded as per the latest AD.

I'll leave the quiz open until tomorrow.

Sorry, it's not axle related.

Brent, you may be able to help. I posted re this issue at this thread too:

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10989

I thought this thread may have got more momentum. Oh well.

J160's as they come out of the factory suffer from poor directional control, sometimes on take-off and sometimes on landing.

It wasn't so much a problem on the LSA 55's as they were a bit lighter in the nose.

The J160's are heavier and when fitted with the standard 'square' front tyre you get the feeling of (stolen quote) 'riding on a poddy-calf's back' when trying to steer them, particularly with the full weight on the nose-wheel without applying backstick.

This problem can be alleviated by fitting a 'round' tyre on the nosewheel, more like a wheelbarrow tyre. The original ones are quite square and not suited to a nosewheel fitting.

I'm aware of another ground loop like the one mentioned earlier in this thread where the aircraft suffered identical damage, prop, wing etc. I have seen the results with my own eyes of what can happen when the pilot goes out of control as a result and I've experienced the sensation myself when landing. If the student (or pilot) wheel-barrows the aircraft and lands on the nosewheel, things can go horribly wrong.

Not surprisingly if you operate off grass you may have never experienced this problem.

The only case I am aware of are where the aircraft was being taxied in a hurry, the pic was used to a grass strip, and the tarmac didn't have the "slipperyness" of the grass.

Interesting. I had heard of this when I first questioned the directional control while taking off and landing it was mentioned as a possible cause however I must admit not following it through.

I assume you have done this and confirmed the results?

the latest j170 has the noseleg bent to a different angle as well as longer trail on the nose wheel

I heard that the Jab which crashed at Bundy was on a test flight and had only 20l of fuel on board at the start of the flight. My source flies a Jab with 303 engine and says that fuel comsumption can be up to 30l per hour on the sort of flying they would have been doing, so the comment about too much air in the tanks was probably correct.

Glenns, yes, proven and confirmed in a Vic flying school. Tyres sourced from Jab and replacements are the older style wheelbarrow looking type with grip versus the smooth channels of the Trellorborg 6 plies. I hope that makes sense. Let me know if you need pictures or more info.

Yenn, it would appear that your sources are mostly correct however it is my understanding that it is not known how much fuel was in the tanks, otherwise the pilot wouldn't have let it run out. High power settings can use up to and around 30 litres per hour and 20 on average and if it was a brand new engine, figures would be higher again.

I understand that whoever was involved may have trusted the guages versus a fuel dip. If you have flown with the wet wings and in particular used and seen the J series guages you would know what I'm on about.

Following on the square verses round type tires what effect if any would there be for a tail dragger having the different profiles on the main wheels. Cheers

The J160's are heavier and when fitted with the standard 'square' front tyre you get the feeling of (stolen quote) 'riding on a poddy-calf's back' when trying to steer them, particularly with the full weight on the nose-wheel without applying backstick.

There have been two prop strike incidents at my airport in the past 6 months involving Jabs. They have resulted in bent nose wheel legs and serious concerns about the state of the crankshafts.

The C150s, C172, Tomahawks and Cherokees aren't having these prop strikes.

I don't believe that the Jab has a tendency to prop stike of itself. I think it has to be flown into a prop strike situation.

I will concede that the Jab involved in the latest incident was reported to have a tendency to pull to one side during take off and landing rolls.

Old Man Emu

No, I haven't ground looped..

Lack of directional control on take of and landing is not (normally) due to the aircraft. Usually it is due to over control of rudder/nosewheeel without realising it by the pic. Alternately, a strong gusty cross wind can cause it.

Lack of control is not a good idea at anytime.

If pulling to the same side each time, (say, to the right) be fixed by adjusting the nosewheel so that it straight. Not hard. Or a partly flat tire on one side.

There is a feeling amongst my group of observers that student pilots are not being trained to flare properly, hold the stick all the way back and land on the main wheels. >There have been two prop strike incidents at my airport in the past 6 >months involving Jabs. They have resulted in bent nose wheel legs and >serious concerns about the state of the crankshafts.

 

I would think that the prop strike didn't cause the bent nose wheel. The opposite in fact. Kangarooing on landing is fairly common for students, and they should be taught early on not to do it. The causes you can look up somewhere... It often causes the a/c to stall about 2 metres off the deck and result in a heavy nose down landing/crash wrecking the nosewheel and then the prop. To hit the prop first would need about a 45 degree impact..

 

>The C150s, C172, Tomahawks and Cherokees aren't having these prop >strikes.

 

Maybe the greater mass helps them.. no time to think about it now..

 

>I don't believe that the Jab has a tendency to prop stike of itself. I think >it has to be flown into a prop strike situation.

 

Yep. :-)

 

>I will concede that the Jab involved in the latest incident was reported to >have a tendency to pull to one side during take off and landing rolls.

 

Doesn't cause prop strikes normally... though ground loops maybe, which can result on one I guess.. (see my previous post re ground loops)..