747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 14 Posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
I was just wondering - what do they do with a jet if they can't get the landing gear down? Esp. the majority low-wingers? Even a slow landing would still tear your engines and probably wings to peices! I'm thinking someone has to have some solution for this but I can't imgaine what.
N-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
If the emergency systems fail, the plane will re-route long enough for the runway to be covered with a thick layer of foam (to prevent explosions and fire), and the plane will come in as slowly as it can, then land on its belly.
Yaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Considering the the simplicity of most MLG alternate gear extension (release the uplocks and gravity free fall) the possibility of all the gear being locked up are pretty slim. I am only familiar with a 747-100 that had wing gear that did not lower. I have heard of aircraft landing with the nlg up that had very little damage (seen videos of a 747-400). The pylons are designed not to transfer excessive loads to the wing structure, so it is possible to isolate the damage to the engine and strut. Even the hull damage might not be too excessive, I have never actually seen it done, but I have heard that they foam the runway.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
A 747 did this once, actually it didn't land in the water, it slid off a runway into the water. It floated quite nicely, as I recall having heard, but at even the slowest speeds a water landing could be ungodly rough and painful for the passengers, not to mention that at high speeds water is like concrete, and a foamed up runway for a smooth skidded landing could be a lot nicer, even for the aircraft. The engine thing still gets me, I guess I always assumed if they were on tight enough to push an entire jumbo jetliner forward, they wouldn't just pop off that easily, but what do I know, it was my question after all!
F-WWAI From Andorra, joined Dec 1999, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
Let's call it "wheels-up landing"
the aircraft are designed for it. Boeing uses fuse bolts so the engines drop off after impact, Airbus uses more rigid design so the engines stay on wing and the aircraft can slide on them to stop (they look different though after such manoeuver).
the pilot runs the fuel tanks as dry as recommendable, does a nice approach and shuts the engines down when the aircraft touches ground.
recent experience have shown that this usually works quite well, however I would prfer beçing on another flight that day.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8510 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
I know of one Eastern 727 that landing in Miami (I think) with no gear. The runway was foamed and the 727 suffered only minimal damage. They had to replace a few belly skins, but that was it.
I wonder whatever happened to that Air Canada 767-200 that ran out of fuel. I remember seeing a picture of it with the nosegear collapsed. The engines didn't touch the ground. I wonder if the 737 Classics or NGs would. The Classics have flatter nacelles, the NGs taller landing gear. I'd want to be in a MD-80/90, 717, or 727 with a foamed runway if I was going to be in a no gear accident. Plus it's a shorter distance to the ground if the emergency slide at your door doesn't deploy.