>> Just to let everyone know I had a serious problem with a landing
>> today and the plane is seriously damaged. Pilot has a
scratch on
>> his
>> thumb.
>>
>> I had a pretty bad bounce on landing and after the second
bounce,
>> decided to go around. That was a mistake. I never got out from
>> behind
>> the power curve and ended up doing a high power skid into the
>> grass on
>> the south side of the runway. Both main wheels were torn off,
>> the prop
>> disintegrated, an the fuselage is somewhat bent. After
>> contacting the
>> ground, the plane did about 1/2 turn and skidded to a stop.
>>
>> Bob W.
>>
>> --
>> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 -
http://www.bob-white.com
>> First Flight: 11/23/2006 7:50AM - 3.3 Hours Total Time
>> Cables for your rotary installation -
>>
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>>
>> Dang! I was just about to go over there and take some pictures
>> of Bob's airplane. I have never been a fan of tail dragger's.
>> I think they add to the hazards of aviation. They are
>> fundamentally
>> unstable on the ground. The CG is behind the main wheels.
>> Therefore
>> there are situation where they are impossible to control no
matter
>> how good the pilot.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Bob, we are taking an early stand by flight non-stop to
>> Albuquerque
>> Monday morning. I'll call you when we arrive. I would like
>> to see how the motor mount made out.
>>
>> Folks, the news letter will be shut down about noon today for
>> a few days. Don't send messages until I get back.
>>
>> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>>
>> Glad to hear Bob's okay..
>>
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>
>
>
> With over 6500 hrs in tail-dragger's and no accidents or incidents, I
> think you need to reassess your "opinion" of tail-dragger's. It's
good
> when a man knows his limitations...
>
> Eric Benson
>
> It is not an opinion. It is a law a physics. The CG is behind the
> side force input and that causes severe yawing motion in the
airplane.
> It is the same as putting the feathers on the front of the arrow.
>
> Your obviously a highly skilled pilot that can handle a fundamentally
> unstable design. Particularly on pavement. However most of the
> people on here are building airplanes and not bush flying for a
> living.
>
> They are rusty to say the least and some are brand new pilots
> with little time in tail dragger's if any. They need all the help
> they can get. A nose gear airplane is stable when touching down,
> unlike a tail dragger, because the side restoring force is behind
> the CG just like the feathers on the back end of an arrow.
>
> Statistically speaking tail dragger's have more accidents
> and hence hull insurance cost more.
>
>
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/051215_insurance.html
>
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
That's why you have what's called a "rudder". Your feet do not belong
on the floor, they belong on the rudder pedals flying the airplane.
Your comparison of an arrow's feathers on the front of an arrow is
invalid.
If you'd like to come out to my airport, it is KAOC which has a 6600 ft
asphalt runway. We are at the heart of the Idaho back-country and have
not had any "accidents" with all these "unstable" aircraft flying
around on my airport.
Regards,
Eric Benson
I have no doubt you are a wonderful pilot Eric.
That does not change the laws a physics however.
The feathers on the front of the arrow are exactly
the problem.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Eric,
Hey.. I'm in Boise, and occasionally make it to Arco. Is Grandpa's
Southern Style BBQ still in business there? They served some great grub
the last time I was in there.
I am a fan of taildraggers. They typically weigh less, go faster, treat
their props better, and just look snarkier than the equivalent nose
dragger variants.
However, pilots have to stay ahead of taildraggers - they are less
forgiving of rustiness/complacency than like nosedraggers. If you are a
pilot that enjoys taildraggers, there's no problem. Get after it. For
absolute practicality however, nosedraggers are less likely to create an
expensive situation.
As to your claim that nobody has accidents with taildraggers in back
country Idaho, I have to beg to differ. Just a quick search on NTSB db
of the Arco airport shows that there have been at least 2 accidents that
could be attributed to loss of directional control in a taildragger
airplane.. If you expand the search to other Idaho airports you see
more. Hailey is especially bad. I haven't figured out how to get the
real backcountry runways like Johnson Creek or even Soldier Bar. In the
defense of taildraggers, I have to say that people do things in the back
country with taildraggers that they wouldn't even think of doing in a
nose dragger. Higher risk ops= higher accident rates.
Even so, I am tempted to try converting my 182 to a 180 - for the
reasons listed above.. I like the 180's more.
Regards,
Matt-
BTW Matt what do you spend on the average per year to maintain
your O-470? Are you an A&P? An IA?
I am trying to get a handle on certified air cooled aircraft engine
over all costs. with me it was about $2000 total with at least half
of that engine. Not counting allowances for replacement or overhaul
after 1500 or 2000 hours (depending on the dash number).
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.