colgan beech about to nose it in.

[druglord]

I hear colgan has a beech 1900 circling around with a nose gear that won't come down looking for a place to land. Good luck to the crew and pax.

 

[chperplt]

I heard it was a right main this time...

 

[dh82dvr]

i hear it was all of them, but they were pumped down and landed without incident.

 

[chperplt]

i hear it was all of them, but they were pumped down and landed without incident.

I heard that too, but that wouldn't make much of a story.

 

[CitationLover]

i wonder if during testing on the beech that someone perfectly landed a gear up beech. wouldn't it only scrape off a few antennaes and ding the props if they were stopped before landing since the wheels stick out halfway retracted?

 

[GateGirl]

What now that Im not there none of the darn rumors get cleared up??? Which was it?

 

[Mungusaurus]

Everything Ok now

the crew were the only occupants and the gear did finally come down. The captain has blood blisters on his right hand from pumping so much, saw them this morning. His first emergency in 10000 hrs of flying. Hey check my number of posts out!!!!!!!!

 

[chperplt]

Hey check my number of posts out!!!!!!!!

Real proud of that one, aren't ya??

 

[shamrock]

i wonder if during testing on the beech that someone perfectly landed a gear up beech. wouldn't it only scrape off a few antennaes and ding the props if they were stopped before landing since the wheels stick out halfway retracted?

Commutair did this about 3-4 years ago in ROC. I'm sure somebody else can probably fill in the blanks but from what I remember, some of the worst damage came from one of the pax throwing the emergency exit over the nacelle putting a ding in the wing. They killed the engines in the flare (I believe) and the brakes could still be used on roll out.

 

[cptsesso]

I twice had the nose landing gear fail to extend on a Cessna 310 freighter. A defect in the nose gear according to the FAA. Not a lot of damage except for engines and props and some nose work.

First time cut both engines in the flair and they still ended up spinning down into the pavement. Second time I got a little ballsy and shut one down in flight and the other down on final and glided in.

I thought I was doing the company a favor by saving two fairly new engines but the boss complained because he could have gotten more money from the insurance company if the engines were bad. You can't win.

 

[Cardinal]

i wonder if during testing on the beech that someone perfectly landed a gear up beech. wouldn't it only scrape off a few antennaes and ding the props if they were stopped before landing since the wheels stick out halfway retracted?

I have a couple great pictures of the Beech that Lakes parked in ORD with the gear up, basically no damage other than a scraped up aft belly - the aircraft tips back on the mains. The engines were running at impact, and when the props shed they did ding up the fueslage a bit. Our FSM recently incorporated a suggestion to land with all the gear up if any one main won't come down, and in fact offers that the brakes will still be an effective means of directional control.

 

[CitationLover]

even with a prop strike the entire engine does not need to be replaced right? it would just be the power turbine section correct, since it is not connected to the gas generator section?

 

[starchkr]

I don't know about replacing a turbine engine after a prop strike, but cptsesso was talking about a C-310 (piston). They must be torn down and most likely scrapped or rebuilt after a prop strike... only if the strike causes the engine to stop however. If the engine continues to turn then it is not required, but it is recommended.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Ya sure about that starchecker?

It has nothing to do with stoppage of the prop. Shoot, you often have to rebuild them if a tug hits one (a non moving prop), you have to tear it down for a lightning strike, etc...

If you read TCM or Lyc manuals, you'll see that they arent' concerned with whether the engine continues to turn or not, they want to know if there was an abnormal force applied tothe engine through the prop.

Dan

Disclaimer: it's been a year or two since I last read through TCMs bulletins and all, but I had a blast reading about the lightning stike tear down

 

[starchkr]

I am pretty sure...

a few years back we had a deer strike in a cessna and we inquired lycoming (i think it was lycoming) as to whether the engine needed to be torn down or replaced and they told us no, unless the strike caused the prop to stop spinning. So i was just going by what their guys told us.

 

[erj-145mech]

I twice had the nose landing gear fail to extend on a Cessna 310 freighter. A defect in the nose gear according to the FAA. Not a lot of damage except for engines and props and some nose work.

How is that possible? The 310 has one electric gear motor with one transmission, and mechanical linkage to the three landing gear. If the nose gear doesn't come down, the mains don't either. If the nose comes down partially, then the main doors will be in transient. If the nose gear linkage physically breaks, then gear will not lock into position (air load) as it has to go over center to lock.

Please enlighten me. I've been working on twin Cessna's since early '75 and am confused.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[cptsesso]

There is a bell crank in the nose section which has an unusual tendancy to break, or so I was told by the FAA inspector. When it does, the nose gear will not extend and lock into place. It just hangs freely in the slipstream. If you pull some positive and negative g's, it will bang in and out of the wheelwell.

The mains are still connected through their own linkage and will extend and retract normally.

I wish I had taken some pictures. It has been probably 5 or so years since I flew cargo in C310's.

 

[erj-145mech]

Thanks, I believe that I know which bellcrank that is. I guess that if it doesn't get greased it could bind and fail.

Dave

 

[jergar999]

I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard about a guy flying a 310 who had both mains down and locked, but the nose gear stayed up. On landing he had all the pax (4 of them I think) get as far back as they could along with all of their belongings and slid it in on the mains and the rear tie down hook.

 

[cptsesso]

I am not sure how true that is. Even with the rear seats installed and the other two pax sitting in the middle row, I don't see how there would be enough rearward weight to keep the nose off of the ground.