Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Stay Away From Nosedraggers


38 posts in this topic

Posted

This is why taildraggers are safer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Never seen a tailwheel Bonanza. He must have landed with the brakes on... :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The pilot did everything just right in that landing. Bet his other plane has a tailwheel. :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The pilot did everything just right in that landing. Bet his other plane has a tailwheel. :-)

Good pilot - GREAT Landing - didn't even bend the prop!   Retractable LG is just 3 more places for failures....

EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Agree!!! Nicely done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Putting on my best backseat driver hat... great landing under duress, but my question - sure looks like a lot of runway left to stand on the brakes as hard as he did. I'll bet that cost a shit ton more to fix than simply letting the tail settle on the tail skid. I know, easy to critique others but he had the foresight to shut the engine down at the last minute and it didn't look like he was having directional issues or major problem keeping it straight so why put the plane up on it's nose? I'm not throwing crap, just trying to learn something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Putting on my best backseat driver hat... great landing under duress, but my question - sure looks like a lot of runway left to stand on the brakes as hard as he did. I'll bet that cost a shit ton more to fix than simply letting the tail settle on the tail skid. I know, easy to critique others but he had the foresight to shut the engine down at the last minute and it didn't look like he was having directional issues or major problem keeping it straight so why put the plane up on it's nose? I'm not throwing crap, just trying to learn something. 

Unless he had the plane loaded real tail-heavy, and it don't look like it, the weight is going to be forward of the gear and it aint gonna sit on the tail, even without brakes, which he probably applied to keep the nose from skidding and doing more damage.  Once he lost rudder control, he had no directional control without a nose wheel - I would want to get it stopped asap.

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Putting on my best backseat driver hat... great landing under duress, but my question - sure looks like a lot of runway left to stand on the brakes as hard as he did. I'll bet that cost a shit ton more to fix than simply letting the tail settle on the tail skid. I know, easy to critique others but he had the foresight to shut the engine down at the last minute and it didn't look like he was having directional issues or major problem keeping it straight so why put the plane up on it's nose? I'm not throwing crap, just trying to learn something. 

Unless he had the plane loaded real tail-heavy, and it don't look like it, the weight is going to be forward of the gear and it aint gonna sit on the tail, even without brakes, which he probably applied to keep the nose from skidding and doing more damage.  Once he lost rudder control, he had no directional control without a nose wheel - I would want to get it stopped asap.

EDMO

Well, I will correct myself before someone else does - I was thinking "Ercoupe" which did not have individual wheel braking - guess he had some control with his brakes, but I would still want to get it stopped asap.

The design theory for a nose-dragger is that, "With the tail down on the skid, the most aft CG should be 3 degrees forward of a vertical line from the center of the main wheels" - So it is not supposed to sit on the tail if loaded within the CG range.

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed, I did not know that. But I will tell you that my tri gear MKIV with 582 would happily sit on it's tail and it was pretty far forward CG empty. I thought that was planned by design to make it easy to keep the nose wheel up when landing. I could (fairly easily) land, exit the runway and taxi to shutdown without touching the nose wheel to the ground....even on uneven surfaces.  Completely UNLIKE trying to keep the nosewheel up under ANY landing conditions while training in the 172 when I was learning to fly. Even fairly aft loaded I never was able to balance the 172 on the mains and taxi around. I much prefer being able to balance a tri gear on the mains. So much easier on the nose wheel assembly not to have to really use it till the "landing" is done and you are only taxiing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ed, I did not know that. But I will tell you that my tri gear MKIV with 582 would happily sit on it's tail and it was pretty far forward CG empty. I thought that was planned by design to make it easy to keep the nose wheel up when landing. I could (fairly easily) land, exit the runway and taxi to shutdown without touching the nose wheel to the ground....even on uneven surfaces.  Completely UNLIKE trying to keep the nosewheel up under ANY landing conditions while training in the 172 when I was learning to fly. Even fairly aft loaded I never was able to balance the 172 on the mains and taxi around. I much prefer being able to balance a tri gear on the mains. So much easier on the nose wheel assembly not to have to really use it till the "landing" is done and you are only taxiing.

Chris,  I would have to go back and read a couple of books to give you a better answer about the reasoning.  I believe they said a certain percent of the GW should be on the nosewheel for positive steering (like 8 to 12%) with 10 % being optimal.  I could get the nosewheel off with power at a standing start with my 150, but never could with the 172.   Maybe they don't want your weight on the tailskid so you can steer by the nosewheel?

I think maybe the MkIV nosegear was a compromise on a taildragger-designed plane, and not fully a nose-dragger?

They were saying in Alaska to load the 206 until the tail touched the ground, then when the pilot gets in if the tailskid comes off of the ground it is OK to take off - Never tried that on my own tho!

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well I definitely learned something, many thanks Ed. What you say makes perfect sense after a little reflection, guess I was just stuck in a 'TD frame of mind'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I definitely learned something, many thanks Ed. What you say makes perfect sense after a little reflection, guess I was just stuck in a 'TD frame of mind'.

Doug,   I think that the years of driving the Ercoupe probably jarred my brain into thinking a little bit about what was going on with balance - Once the mains touched down, the nose came down with a bang and you couldn't get it off of the ground without flying speed.  Nose draggers are supposed to be nose heavy, and taildraggers tail heavy, until you show off or screw up and get one on its nose!  I had a friend who was real proud of how he could balance a Champ on its mains - Until he stood it on its nose!

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

They were saying in Alaska to load the 206 until the tail touched the ground, then when the pilot gets in if the tailskid comes off of the ground it is OK to take off - Never tried that on my own tho!

EDMO

I knew guy that flew a 206. He was a bit more conservative. He would only load so if he pushed down on the tail and it stayed on the ground; he would lighten the load until it didn't.

The Bonanza is pretty heavy on the nose. I was around them a lot as I worked for a Beechcraft dealer. There's a six cylinder Continental in the cowl plus the constant speed prop, etc, etc. They are really made well too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

  Ed, I did not know that. But I will tell you that my tri gear MKIV with 582 would happily sit on it's tail and it was pretty far forward CG empty. I thought that was planned by design to make it easy to keep the nose wheel up when landing. I could (fairly easily) land, exit the runway and taxi to shutdown without touching the nose wheel to the ground....even on uneven surfaces.  Completely UNLIKE trying to keep the nosewheel up under ANY landing conditions while training in the 172 when I was learning to fly. Even fairly aft loaded I never was able to balance the 172 on the mains and taxi around. I much prefer being able to balance a tri gear on the mains. So much easier on the nose wheel assembly not to have to really use it till the "landing" is done and you are only taxiing.

If you don't want to use your nose gear why have one?

Edited by Bandit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

  Ed, I did not know that. But I will tell you that my tri gear MKIV with 582 would happily sit on it's tail and it was pretty far forward CG empty. I thought that was planned by design to make it easy to keep the nose wheel up when landing. I could (fairly easily) land, exit the runway and taxi to shutdown without touching the nose wheel to the ground....even on uneven surfaces.  Completely UNLIKE trying to keep the nosewheel up under ANY landing conditions while training in the 172 when I was learning to fly. Even fairly aft loaded I never was able to balance the 172 on the mains and taxi around. I much prefer being able to balance a tri gear on the mains. So much easier on the nose wheel assembly not to have to really use it till the "landing" is done and you are only taxiing.

If you don't want to use your nose gear why have one?

Bandit,  The CG in front of the mains makes the plane a lot more stabile, so it don't want to swap ends on landing and groundloop - 

 The nosewheel keeps the prop out of the dirt when you are too hard on the brakes.  I think they discovered this about 100 years ago!

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bandit,

I understand your comment, and also ChrisB's statements.  Sometimes on soft or rough ground you want to keep the weight off of the nosewheel as much as possible, and you sure don't want to put such a strain on it that it fails....Some planes are better for that than others.

EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you don't want to use your nose gear why have one?

My line of thinking.

The landing that collapses the nose-gear is a perfect excuse to start on the Bonanza Tailwheel conversion.

The plane definitely looks a heck of a lot better without and the tail is already up to start installing a good quality tail-wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you don't want to use your nose gear why have one?

My line of thinking.

The landing that collapses the nose-gear is a perfect excuse to start on the Bonanza Tailwheel conversion.

The plane definitely looks a heck of a lot better without and the tail is already up to start installing a good quality tail-wheel.

And, you have a Million$ to spend on showing the FAA that it is safe for a field approval or an STC?

EDMO

Edited by EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

  Ed, I did not know that. But I will tell you that my tri gear MKIV with 582 would happily sit on it's tail and it was pretty far forward CG empty. I thought that was planned by design to make it easy to keep the nose wheel up when landing. I could (fairly easily) land, exit the runway and taxi to shutdown without touching the nose wheel to the ground....even on uneven surfaces.  Completely UNLIKE trying to keep the nosewheel up under ANY landing conditions while training in the 172 when I was learning to fly. Even fairly aft loaded I never was able to balance the 172 on the mains and taxi around. I much prefer being able to balance a tri gear on the mains. So much easier on the nose wheel assembly not to have to really use it till the "landing" is done and you are only taxiing.

If you don't want to use your nose gear why have one?

Bandit,  The CG in front of the mains makes the plane a lot more stabile, so it don't want to swap ends on landing and groundloop - 

 The nosewheel keeps the prop out of the dirt when you are too hard on the brakes.  I think they discovered this about 100 years ago!

EDMO

My brakes don't work good enough to put it on its nose. I'm thinking if you put a airplane on its nose and hit the prop you have done something real stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I remember right when I was training in a 150,152 my instructor drilled into my head to keep the nose wheel up as long as you could. What the hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just like taildraggers, the way you land a nosedragger depends a lot on what the wind is doing and how the field is - and students have to keep the instructors happy.   When I took my private test, the WW2 instructor / examiner didn't like some of the ways I was taught to handle the 150, and took time to show me his way, and I guess I made him happy too.  Once you get your ticket, then you can start the real learning, and you never get too old to learn something new!

EDMO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I prefer to drag my nose wheel through the air as long as possible both on t/o and landing and keeping the stick in my lap while taxiing in calm conditions to keep the nose light.  When doing short/soft field maneuvers i can just about pick the nose up just by going WOT and holding the brakes.  Great fun!  It feels like doing wheelies. Fun also to balance it with the tail just about touching the dirt while rolling out. 

To to me it appeared the pilot I the video held the nose up until it was no longer possible to keep it up wth stick. I did not sense the application of brakes at all. Adding brakes with the nose up would have slammed it in. Adding brakes during the grind, I would think would just cause the nose to griind in extra hard. All in all to my rookie eyes it was a well executed e-landing

Edited by Knuckledragger
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was a very well done landing.  And the problem wasn't a nose wheel, it was retractable gear.  If the nose wheel had been properly welded down, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

I was particularly impressed that he got the engine stopped, and the propellor stopped horizontal to the ground.  No prop strike means a little work on the cowl, get the gear issue fixed, and back in the air.  His insurance company should give him a bonus of 1/2 what the engine tear down would have cost if he hadn't gotten the prop out of the way!

 

Mark

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was a very well done landing.  And the problem wasn't a nose wheel, it was retractable gear.  If the nose wheel had been properly welded down, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

I was particularly impressed that he got the engine stopped, and the propellor stopped horizontal to the ground.  No prop strike means a little work on the cowl, get the gear issue fixed, and back in the air.  His insurance company should give him a bonus of 1/2 what the engine tear down would have cost if he hadn't gotten the prop out of the way!

 

Mark

 

Totally agree Mark - This was not a nose wheel failure, or a bad landing causing it - This was a perfect landing after failure of the nosegear extension, and He got lucky on the horizontal prop - guess it was a 50/50 chance with a 2-blade - Different story usually with 3-blade - Give him the bonus for the landing with minimum damage...

EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was a very well done landing.  And the problem wasn't a nose wheel, it was retractable gear.  If the nose wheel had been properly welded down, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

I was particularly impressed that he got the engine stopped, and the propellor stopped horizontal to the ground.  No prop strike means a little work on the cowl, get the gear issue fixed, and back in the air.  His insurance company should give him a bonus of 1/2 what the engine tear down would have cost if he hadn't gotten the prop out of the way!

 

Mark

 

Totally agree Mark - This was not a nose wheel failure, or a bad landing causing it - This was a perfect landing after failure of the nosegear extension, and He got lucky on the horizontal prop - guess it was a 50/50 chance with a 2-blade - Different story usually with 3-blade - Give him the bonus for the landing with minimum damage...

EDMO

Go back and look at the video. He killed the engine and bumped the starter to get it as horizontal as possible. This guy is a pilot.

When the tail stalled, the nose fell. The V tails (forked tailed dr. or lawyer killers) are light as far as Bonanzas go. The one I maintained had magnesium rudder-vators. Had to replace the old ones due to corrosion. Anyway, I bet it weighs as much on the nose gear alone as our small planes weigh empty.

Oh and these have mechanical gear driven by electric motors, gear boxes and chains. And gear doors, if you have ever seen a P-51 gear up, the Bonanza and Baron work the same way on the mains. So there was a mechanical failure for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0