Teckair Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Woops. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151597748988554 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 14 sept 2008 in Hastings NZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Bugger! all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Na, he really wanted a low wing Wouldn't call him ham fisted just ham footed Alf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It was a STOL competition I believe,,,,,he won ,as no one else was willing to drive the vertical fin into the ground to aid braking 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmick Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Thems the brakes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Slow up the video and look where the elevator goes as the tail starts to rise. Damn shame to do that to a nice C185 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Is a C185 a bit out of it's leauge in a STOL competition anyway?, The universe has spoken! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 And is it covered under insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Is a C185 a bit out of it's leauge in a STOL competition anyway?, The universe has spoken! They are not in the strictly STOL category, but with the right technique they can be short fielded well and with a good payload. They are not super STOL like the highlander, or Hornet And is it covered under insurance? I would think so it was a landing at at least an ALA, just a little cocked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The competition aspect might balls up the claim, was what I was thinking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The competition aspect might balls up the claim, was what I was thinking. One would hope not. Typical aero club competitions such as spot landings etc are covered by insurance, one would hope this would fall into the same category. It is a pseudo training exercise of sorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Does training preudo's go with needing lerts? Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 ............................. NZCAA report says pilot was unable to prevent plane from overturning ................... 1700 hours on type Accident Brief, Occurrence # 08/3894 Registration: ZK-DXANature of Flight: PRIVATE OTHER Aircraft Model: Cessna 180JPilot Licence: PPL (Aeroplane) Date and Time: 14 Sep 08 at 14:39Pilot Age: 74 yrs Location: HastingsFlying Hours (Total): 2900 POB: 1Flying Hours (on Type): 1700 Injuries (Fatal): nilLast 90 Days: Injuries (Serious): nilTAIC Ref.: Injuries (Minor): nilPublishing Ref.: Vector Sep/Oct 2009 Damage: SubstantialDate Published: 08 Jan 09 Synopsis: The aircraft was attempting a short landing; on application of the brakes after landing, the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft from overturning. The aircraft was substantially damaged, but the pilot was uninjured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Slow up the video and look where the elevator goes as the tail starts to rise. ... .............. the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft from overturning..... But then - if you have the flaps deployed, apply the brakes heavily and shove the stick full forward all at the same time it does make it difficult to prevent the aircraft from overturning ... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 But then - if you have the flaps deployed, apply the brakes heavily and shove the stick full forward all at the same time it does make it difficult to prevent the aircraft from overturning ... Unfortunate for someone with 1700hrs on type, that is a lot of C185 time, he would certainly know the aircraft. Maybe the seat moved forward and the seat belts were loose ... trying to think of what could have gone wrong with someone with that experience. Nice looking 185 and a lot of money to fix, especially that prop strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I see the problem, the pilot was 74!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 What is the difference between a C180J and a C185? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 What is the difference between a C180J and a C185? The 180J fuselage is almost exactly the same dimensions as a C185 - same window configuration, same doorsill height agl - same gear legs. The 180J had the last of the 0-470-R engines. it was about 1970-75 or thereabouts. The next, and last model of the 180 was the K model from 1977 to 1984 and it had the lower revving 0-470-U engine with Slick mags. The C185's changed from IO-470 (260HP) engines in around 1967, to the IO-520 (285/300HP)model from then on. All the later models were known as A185 D,E,F etc. The early (1962-67) 260 HP models were known as 185A,B,C - there was no D onwards. An empty 185 with 300HP is a truly mean takeoff machine. It's also able to near 'hang' off the power for a very short landing. All you have to do is keep it in the right direction! As far as I know, the shortest, and safest, short field landing in a 180 or 185 - is to 3 point them at the point of stall, using full flap and some power. That's what I was taught back in the 60's by a Chief Pilot who had more PNG and 180 type time than we'll collectively accumulate in our lifetime. I reckon he was on the money. Higher time pilots tend towards wheeling the 180/185 types on because of crosswind assistance, and they also are prone to showing off how coolly they can manoeuvre the aircraft with its' tailwheel still off the ground. I've seen some aggies 'taxy' off 06/24 at Jandakot onto the main taxyway - along several others and then place the tailwheel down where they wanted to park! Sometimes it can come unstuck! This might have been one of those unfortunate events. happy days, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 If you end up slightly nose down and almost stopped and you still need braking with no power on, it won't matter where your elevator is. With no wind over it, it is just an ornament.. If you land 3 point at min speed hanging on the prop, I can't see how you would get into the problem. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I saw this happen once when a smartass 'don't tell me how to do it' jump pilot landed with the handbrake still on. He did cop an ear full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The 180J fuselage is almost exactly the same dimensions as a C185 - same window configuration, same doorsill height agl - same gear legs. The 180J had the last of the 0-470-R engines. it was about 1970-75 or thereabouts. The next, and last model of the 180 was the K model from 1977 to 1984 and it had the lower revving 0-470-U engine with Slick mags. The C185's changed from IO-470 (260HP) engines in around 1967, to the IO-520 (285/300HP)model from then on. All the later models were known as A185 D,E,F etc. The early (1962-67) 260 HP models were known as 185A,B,C - there was no D onwards. An empty 185 with 300HP is a truly mean takeoff machine. It's also able to near 'hang' off the power for a very short landing. All you have to do is keep it in the right direction!As far as I know, the shortest, and safest, short field landing in a 180 or 185 - is to 3 point them at the point of stall, using full flap and some power. That's what I was taught back in the 60's by a Chief Pilot who had more PNG and 180 type time than we'll collectively accumulate in our lifetime. I reckon he was on the money. Higher time pilots tend towards wheeling the 180/185 types on because of crosswind assistance, and they also are prone to showing off how coolly they can manoeuvre the aircraft with its' tailwheel still off the ground. I've seen some aggies 'taxy' off 06/24 at Jandakot onto the main taxyway - along several others and then place the tailwheel down where they wanted to park! Sometimes it can come unstuck! This might have been one of those unfortunate events. happy days, I think the 180's had smaller tail surfaces as well, not that it would matter here, could've been the size of the main wing and it would've still gone ar5e up Matty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I love the look of taildraggers but this does seem to be a bit of a problem. From motorbike riding days I know how easy it is to get the back wheel off the ground under braking, and that's with the full weight of the bike and not unsubstantial rider behind the pivot point. On an aircraft the wheels are close to the CG so it seems that a noseover would be far easier if the brakes were applied too firmly. Think I'll stick with a nosewheel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The main wheels are way forward of the loaded C of G in taildraggers. You have to provoke what happened to that guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I love the look of taildraggers but this does seem to be a bit of a problem. From motorbike riding days I know how easy it is to get the back wheel off the ground under braking, and that's with the full weight of the bike and not unsubstantial rider behind the pivot point. On an aircraft the wheels are close to the CG so it seems that a noseover would be far easier if the brakes were applied too firmly.Think I'll stick with a nosewheel! That is why a nose wheel is considered inherently safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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