Guest Maj Millard Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 That landing didn't look too hard considering that you can get a pretty fair crosswind at Oshkosh at times. What I did notice is a pilot not using the best of crosswind techniques IE: crabbing into the wind and attempting to straighting things up on touchdown, probabily because the damn computer won't let you use the better method of, 'into wing down and hold top rudder'. It won't let you sideslip either apparently. It also looked like he was a bit late straightening out, and didn't do so until the mains were on. The way he was working that rudder makes you wonder just how long that vert fin is going to stay attached !!.....
winsor68 Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 I think it was a publicity stunt by Airbus to show how tough their planes are...? After all this is "the" prototype production machine...I wonder if the onboard sensors were running? And I wonder what that landing would have felt like to a passenger onboard from two stories up? I mean that little bounce would have been eight feet high...
turboplanner Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 What I did notice is a pilot not using the best of crosswind techniques IE: crabbing into the wind and attempting to straighting things up on touchdown, probabily because the damn computer won't let you use the better method of, 'into wing down and hold top rudder'. It won't let you sideslip either apparently. Not sure about Airbus, but I believe it is mandatory technique to crab a 747 all the way down, and that the undercarriage is designed for substantial cross loadings on touchdown. I've got a video somewhere of one coming in at what looks like 20 deg+ offset, with a huge smoke cloud on landing.
Guest Brett Campany Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 Not sure about Airbus, but I believe it is mandatory technique to crab a 747 all the way down, and that the undercarriage is designed for substantial cross loadings on touchdown.I've got a video somewhere of one coming in at what looks like 20 deg+ offset, with a huge smoke cloud on landing. Nice, I'd like to see that Turbo if you find it!
turboplanner Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 Nice, I'd like to see that Turbo if you find it! ] had a look, didn't find it, busy on a project, but give me a reminder in about a month if I haven't posted it by then (think it's buried in incoming emails)
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 Turboplanner, You may be correct as I am certainly not a heavy-jet pilot, however I'm sure that nose gear assembly in NOT designed to be slammed on sideways like that. Remember that aircraft is a prototype test aircraft, with I'm sure test pilots on board....................................................................................
Thx1137 Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 Here is what an A380 had to say about it. --------------------8<-------------------- I certainly looks harder than normal, but It's not that bad. If you watch the last part of the approach they seem to get some sink at about 100ft the also went in short around the 500' area (maybe due to a wind gust or shielding producing undershoot shear?), so there's not much you can do about that in an aircraft like the 380. The approach was very stable and the crosswind technique is petty good. The commentary is is a load of tosh for three reasons, The reason for the harder landing is not from "wiping the power off" .The 380 wing is super efficient and even if you pulled the thrust off early (which I doubt Terry Lutz did,given the sink and undershoot) you still have heaps of lift going into the flare, which is why you never flare much in the 380. At light landing weights say 330T or less you don't flare at all or you float. In contrast if you pulled the thrust off early in a 767 you buried it every time. Not sure about the 777, but I presume it's like the 767 given the commentary. The reason they flared a lot is due to the undershoot PIO is for Pilot Induced Oscillation, I didn't see any? The aircraft tracked the center line after touchdown with only one small swing into wind off the center line hence the rudder input. So you're not inducing an oscillation if it's not oscillating and Three "the aircraft will still be usable" what a tool --------------------8<--------------------
Guest ozzie Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 Remember they needed to make the aeroshell taxi way so needed to put it down right on the keys. there was a little nose nod at about 200 ft. probably needed to look over the nose.seemed to pull it up a lot shorter than the dreamlifter did last year. good stuff considering the x wind and narrow runway. don't think there are any approach aids there except for the vasi. good test for the overhead lockerbins tho
facthunter Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 Hard landing. I would call it pretty firm. The current technique is to leave the drift on till flare and let the undercarriage take it. The plane seems to have been a bit slow, on the approach and established a fair sink rate. There is not much that you can do at that point as there is too much inertia associated with this type of aircraft. If you pull back on the stick you just put more download in the hor. stabiliser and that can just drive the plane into the ground, as it will not rotate that quickly. Nev
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