Warbird Information Exchange

In this case, we are certainly talking maintained good grass runways. Much of the advice seems to be predicated on grass airfield non-runway surface.

I'm just curious here. Surely a tarmac surface guarantees a degree of abrasion, albeit more regular? If we are talking safety, rather than aiming to minimise damage, that's a difference of no great importance.

Runway length isn't an issue, surely? The declaration of the friction is going to stop the aircraft in a far shorter distance than a 'normal' landing, and I can't see more runway was going to help. This is the a/c home base.

How do we know he didn't use idle cutoff? Doing so earlier would have been a risk for a safe landing presumably the no.1 priority with minimising damage being a secondary consideration after that.

A good point, I presume. A lower touchdown speed would be far more important, surely, as enabled by a flap landing.

I'm no expert, but it is worth remembering that the pilot in charge had plenty of time and a chance to discuss with his team on the ground what they thought the best procedure. They minimised the risk to the pilot, and the even more important safety of the passenger (as (I presume) a fare-paying member of the public, rather than a vintage aircraft professional). For that they get a big thumbs up. We seem to be armchair theorising about minor aspects of the process, without enough local knowledge or qualification. As there's nothing bigger to discuss, clearly they did a good job.

Thanks for Vlado's insight.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Thanks for the input. It makes since.....

Lynn

Didn't see this posted

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2nEipDLR0

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Great coverage, very professional.

Very professional and spot-on video. You would never see anything like that in American "News" coverage.

Mike

Hi guys,

First of all, hats off to the pilot for the great job he did handling this emergency landing.

I’ve always been told that when a gear up landing is mandatory, it’s best done on a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete whenever possible. This will cause some abrasion but beyond that, little other damage is typically encountered (Considering it is a straight slide to a stop ala Tom Woods mishap). A gear up on a dirt or sod surface is unpredictable in most cases and as Vlado pointed out, it has a tendency to “Grab” prop blades and scoops causing significant damage as well as causing the slide to become erratic and unpredictable. Beyond that, as somebody else pointed out there can be a lot of hidden nastiness in a grass runway that will rip and tare at the airframe surfaces in contact with them. The sliding aircraft also tends to “Ball” the dirt and sod up before it rolls under the sliding airframe. These balls of dirt and sod cause damage much deeper into the airframe (Broken/deformed ribs, skins and longerons as an example) than the “Topical” grinding damage a paved surface will cause.

It’s worth noting that the pilot probably did cut the power well before touching down. Even with that done, at 100 to 120 mph the prop is going to continue to windmill no matter what. Damage to all four prop blades (And most likely the spider and possibly the front and rear case halves) was bound to happen. With the power cut, any potential shock damage to the engines internal components would have been minimized significantly. I’m certain the pilot and his ground crew were well aware of this.

Regards,
John