He almost got it....Daaammn

[59pacer]

I'd be struggling to find a reason not to land on a hard surface if there was one available.

[Steve Pierce]

Seems a bit of a catch 22, takes power to get the nose up and super slow with full flaps etc, at the cost of a prop strike. Of course engines are cheap compaired to a pilot

Clippers don't have flaps and 3point beautifully.

[LarryV]

The data on gear up and gear broken landings is very clear.

In terms of gear up landings, the popular wisdom is landing on a soft surface will minimize the damage but it almost never works that way. What happens instead is the turf or first starts building up in front of the leading edges and under the fuselage where it does far more damage to the structure and results in a much more abrupt stop.

In contrast, on a paved surface, the aircraft doesn't dig in, nothing balls up under or in front of it and the aircraft slides to a much more gradual stop.

In aircraft like a Piper Lance, the fuselage has what amount to runners under it and very little damage results if the pilot greases it on smoothly on a paved surface The runners get ground a little shorter and you might have to replace a little skin. On grass, a lot more damage will occur to fuselage and the wings.

If the ground is smooth and frozen hard then it's closer to a wash, but in that case you might as well land on pavement anyway as it's a known quantity.

----

The same rationale applies if you are landing on one remaining wheel in a tailwheel aircraft. When the wing finally touches down, it'll be far more likely to dig in on grass than it will on pavement and the much more abrupt stop on grass with be far more likely to pitch the aircraft up on it's nose or over on it's back.

There might be an argument for putting the aircraft into a slip just above runway and leading with the low wing on touchdown, so that the angles and moment arms are better when things start sliding to a stop. But that would still be pretty solid test pilot territory and require more skill to ensure to flew it on in the slip rather than stalling in a slip just above the runway.

Similarly, and more reasonably, I don't see any disadvantage putting in full rudder to bring the low wing forward as or just be before the wingtip touches, and then holding full rudder to keep the aircraft moving off in an arc pivoting on the remaining gear rather than letting it go straight forward with more potential to go up on it's nose or over.


----

The data is also very clear on landing gear up or gear broken with engine on versus engine off.

There have been basically no fatalities in decades when a single engine or multi engine GA aircraft lands gear up under power on a paved runway. Nearly all the fatalities and serious injuries happen when the pilot tries to get fancy and save the engine(s) by shutting it/them down on approach. It's fine in theory, but if the airplane lands short of the runway, the accident is far more likely to be fatal or involve serious injuries and similarly, if the pilot lands long the option to go around is gone and there is much more potential to go off the end of the runway with greater damage and risk of injury or death as a result.

In short, don't play hero and try to save the engine(s) and prop(s) as you are far more likely to kill yourself or someone else.

[MrBill]

I wouldnt know why you would shut it off on approach. Do it on flair...or what ever you call your last second technique....but do it. then.

[smcnutt]

If something like this were to happen I'm not sure I would be at all concerned with the prop strike and therefore shut down the engine. After all, the insurance company now owns the airplane and I just need to walk away safely. Don't start doing things differently and just land the airplane with the least amount of remaining energy.

[LarryV]

If something like this were to happen I'm not sure I would be at all concerned with the prop strike and therefore shut down the engine. After all, the insurance company now owns the airplane and I just need to walk away safely. Don't start doing things differently and just land the airplane with the least amount of remaining energy.

Exactly. Damage to the prop, the required engine tear down and any parts inspection, repair or replacement related to the prop strike will be covered by insurance (if you have all hazards coverage).

Now...if you are under insured, you will probably be really disappointed.

If you do $15K worth of damage due to a prop strike, you are insured for the $25K you paid for the aircraft, and it's now worth $40K, you'll probably end up with your aircraft totaled. You'll have $25K in hand - a lot less than you'll need to replace your aircraft. If they can sell your aircraft for $10,001 or more and pay you $25K, they will total it rather than pay you for a $15K repair.

[dgapilot]

Exactly. Damage to the prop, the required engine tear down and any parts inspection, repair or replacement related to the prop strike will be covered by insurance (if you have all hazards coverage).

Now...if you are under insured, you will probably be really disappointed.

If you do $15K worth of damage due to a prop strike, you are insured for the $25K you paid for the aircraft, and it's now worth $40K, you'll probably end up with your aircraft totaled. You'll have $25K in hand - a lot less than you'll need to replace your aircraft. If they can sell your aircraft for $10,001 or more and pay you $25K, they will total it rather than pay you for a $15K repair.

Having worked in the insurance repair field for quite a while, my advice has always been if you don’t carry hull insurance at least equal to what replacement value is, there is no sense carrying it at all. Each insurance company has different formulas, but a good rule of thumb is if the repair will be about 75% of insured value, it will be totaled.

I’ve seen nice airworthy airplanes totaled because the minor repairs were greater than the underinsured value the owner had on his airplane. I’ve also seen airplanes repaired that really should not have been because they were over insured.

Again if you are going to carry hull insurance, carry the most they will let you. The incremental increase in premium isn’t that much, but if underinsured, something as simple as some minor hail damage could total your airplane!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrBill]

Some might be well off just to throw their hands in the air and give up. Lack of training, practice, overworked mind or just plain cannot handle the extra stress for a quick pull on the mixture knob at the right time. Knowing when the right time would be...shouldn't one know this?..not at the stressed out pucker up time that requires them to remember and act. Poor fellers.

[59pacer]

I have no personal experience of anything similar, but I was once told by an air safety accident investigator, that a prop strike with a stationary prop can rip an engine right out and all that that entails, but if it's rotating it's likely to thrash itself around and the engine stays attached. It's a long time ago, and he may have been talking about a feathered prop on a twin.
Thoughts, anyone?

[MrBill]

Kinda makes sense.