Mark11 Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Sh...t Wouldn't have wanted to be on that one
facthunter Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Aircraft landing gear are a great piece of engineering. Even on a "Normal" landing they move about a lot. There's usually a viewing panel in the floor to check visually they are down when the light does not indicate. Watching through it when the landing occurs is often available during training. Nev
facthunter Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Heavy Landing checks are mandatory in such circumstances. Indicative structures are examined in a listed priority to assess the likelihood of damage. Any pilot of an RAAus plane should act similarly as a responsible action to the next pilot who uses it. Nev
Old Koreelah Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Damned impressive engineering to take that punishment!
Mark11 Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 One of my favorites! Dropping at that rate would scare me in my trike - let alone a jumbo... Geez that slamming it on the runway... Gotta be some damage
facthunter Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 They are designed to a certain sink rate. I think it is about 1,000 fpm or more. The shimmy in the bogies looks bad. Nev
cherk Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 ............rubber going in all directions , runway looks like it will need a good sweep !
facthunter Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 The spoilers might have actuated. In those conditions it would be better to do it manually.(maybe) and do it before it bounces. Nev
poteroo Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Back in the early 70's, there was a Cessna 180, (ex RFDS), which was for hire in Jandakot. It originally had conventional undercarriage, then a bright spark had it fitted with 'crosswind' gear while still in RFDS. This involved castering wheels which allowed the aircraft to be landed without correction applied. The theory was that things would all work out if the pilot just flopped it onto the ground and hoped for the best. Well, it was smashed up rather quickly, but I've never been told the full story. I flew it several times ex JT, (without the x/w gear), and it was just another 180 which required the usual wheelers to get it on in a strong crosswind. I suspect that the problem was in respect of the fact that without the into wind wing being held down by aileron, the 'flat' landed special x/w gear C180 was very prone to having its' wing lifted by a gust and losing directional control. Another unusual modification that wasn't really needed if pilots were properly trained. happy days,
facthunter Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Other aircraft were experimented with it also. I haven't heard of any success. I can't imagine much directional control would be available with fully castering wheels. I have experienced "aquaplaning" for about 600 meters at Sydney before they grooved the runways, in heavy rain which would be a similar to a castering wheel system. and IF the plane hadn't been at a considerable angle to the runway, it would have drifted off the strip rapidly, because the grip is non existent when aquaplaning. The only control you have is aerodynamic. Nev
planedriver Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 Damned impressive engineering to take that punishment! That includes the tyres that still managed to hang together.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now