EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8434 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
Quoting Eksath (Thread starter): shot this last weekend and I was expecting the props to be bent but I thought this was amazing. I cant see damage to them.
Well, for one thing they wouldn't bend, they'd break as they're composite. Also, they don't contact they gound when the nose gear fails as the angle of the fuselage and main gear won't allow it to happen. It's close... but the props do clear the ground.
[Edited 2005-12-30 22:11:57]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Lowrider From United States, joined Jun 2004, 2722 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1434 times:
They may have feathered the props just prior to touchdown. There may be some abrasion, but that would not be visiable in that picture. I would bet they still do a propstrike inspection on both sides.
Jamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3): Towing with the Door open.Is that OK.
and to add to that if the aircraft landed without nosegear why isnt their marks on the front of the plane and how did they get the nose gear down without any visible crane
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8434 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1307 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3): Towing with the Door open.Is that OK
Yes, its fine.
Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 4): and to add to that if the aircraft landed without nosegear why isnt their marks on the front of the plane and how did they get the nose gear down without any visible crane
It's been 10+ years since I've worked a 1900, but if I recall right the nose tire does not completely go inside the wheel well. So, when the plane landed the weight was still supported by the tire holding the nose off the ground.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8434 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Hawk-
Like I said, its been 10+ years since I've worked on a 1900.. but there are several pics in the A.net data base that show a 1900 with the gear retracted. I was told that Beech designed it that way just in case something like this happened. It held the nose up just enough that it prevented ramp rash on the nose underskin... AND kept the props from hitting the ground.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2774 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Hi Guys.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 6): the nose tire does not completely go inside the wheel well.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8): Beech designed it that way just in case something like this happened. It held the nose up just enough that it prevented ramp rash on the nose underskin... AND kept the props from hitting the ground.
This is another one of those small bits of info that's neat to learn about.
Here's a few shots that clearly show how the 1900's nosegear tire still protrudes out of the fuselage after being fully retracted. The main gear tires do the same.
Americanairfan From United States, joined Jun 2004, 316 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
That is very fascinating I guess Beechcraft sucsessfully had their design work. What was the reason that the nose gear didn't fully extend and lock though?
American Flight 1881 to San Jose you are cleared for takeoff!
DALMD88 From United States, joined Jul 2000, 1988 posts, RR: 13 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1197 times:
Metros and Merlins will not prop strike on a flat tire. I had one taxi onto our ramp off the active with two blown mains. The wheels were garbage but the props never touched. They will strike on a nose gear collapse. I've seen it happen in the hangar. When it happened both props were bent in a 90 when they hit the floor. They were straightened by a prop shop.
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8176 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 17):
Probably not as the PT6 is a free turbine and the props were feathered before touchdown.
But even if it was a PT-6, and the props struck in a similar fashion, would there not be potential bearing/shaft damage, or potential alignment problems?
FlyHoss From United States, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 4): and to add to that if the aircraft landed without nosegear why isnt their marks on the front of the plane
Look very closely (at the first or top photo in this thread) at the nose gear door (use a zoom function if necessary) and you'll see some abrasion, the paint and fleet number are worn down. It is true that a 1900 will roll on the wheels when all the gear are retracted (the main brakes will even work) but in this case, the aircraft did ride on the nosegear door. That the damage is so very minor is a real credit to the flight crew.
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5): Something is not adding up.
regds
MEL
Please elaborate, I don't understand your comment. What doesn't add up?
DALMD88 From United States, joined Jul 2000, 1988 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
As for the Metro dual prop stike I witnessed. We were also amazed they could straighten the bend blades. We didn't have to do anything to the engines. The Garrett rep said it wasn't required because they weren't running and it was really a slow fall as the gear sucked up. So why id the nose gear collapse? We had just done an alternate extention test. Through some quirk in the hydraulic system the nose gear doesn't always lock on the next extention. After you do the test you are supposed to retract and extend the gear numerous times to reset the system. The guys doing the test only did it once.
Burnsie28 From United States, joined Aug 2004, 6254 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
If any part of the prop striked the ground, the prop blade and engine are required to be replaced, as the prop strike could have caused a bent shaft.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8176 posts, RR: 65 Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 22): If any part of the prop striked the ground, the prop blade and engine are required to be replaced, as the prop strike could have caused a bent shaft.
No disrespect intended here, Burnsie, but I think the Garrett rep probably knew what he was talking about.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28615 posts, RR: 73 Reply 25, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 18): Metros and merlins don't use PT-6s.
Actually there are some Metros that where build with PT-6's.
Quoting DALMD88 (Reply 15): Metros and Merlins will not prop strike on a flat tire
Just said that because I can take my foot, rotate it back on it's heel and touch the bottom prop blade with my toe.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
26 MrFord: This is probably like the High Flotation Gears option on the BE10 (KingAir A100). The standard BE10 main gear set will fit flush in the wheel well, b
27 Lowrider: True, but a prop strike can impose a lot of stress on the prop gearbox, the hub, and the engine mount. I know all of these had to be replaced after I
28 EMBQA: The PT-6 doesn't have a prop gearbox... it's a free flow turbine. Though a prop strike will over torque the prop shaft and turbine.
29 Starlionblue: ?!? You can't just leave it like that! We want the whole story!
30 2H4: ...From http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_i...26X01404&ntsbno=CHI03LA276&akey=1: CHI03LA276 On August 19, 2003, at 2315 eastern daylight time, a Bee
31 Lowrider: Yeah, ya got me. It was messy to say the least. The aircraft was out of service for several months. The Feds ruled that the deer failed to comply wit
32 FlyHoss: Wrong and right. The PT-6 DOES have a prop reduction gearbox. And you're right, it's a "free turbine." Free turbine means that the shaft for the prop
33 Starlionblue: Hope they revoked it's license I'm also curious about insurance issues. Is this an "act of god" and no coverage or an "act of deer" and coverage? As
34 OzLAME: Regardless of whether the props struck the ground or not, is there any requirement to do an inspection due to the lack of engine cool-down time prior
35 FlyHoss: No. To generalize, turbine engines operate at very high internal temperatures and expensive alloys are thus required. Those alloys are capable of wit
36 HAWK21M: Wouldnt that be applicable only if it was operating on High power prior to Impact. Were the Engines inspected for Shaft damage after the Impact. regd
37 Eksath: huh? How come this incident didnt make the NTSB list for the month? http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/AccList.asp?month=12&year=2005
38 EMBQA: Because the NTSB didn't get involved....???!!!! Most all minor events like this are covered by the FAA and not the NTSB. I think the only way the NTS
39 Lincoln: Hey, don't know about your insurance, but mine [auto] specifically includes coverage for, among other things, Acts of God, Acts of War, Damage due to
40 Tornado82: When A**hole of a past-girlfriend's ex-before-me decided to dump some sugar in my gas tank (car, not plane)... my insurance covered it as vandalism.
41 Eksath: In Finland, one has to get "reindeer" insurance on top of regular coverage to protect from reindeer who are omnipresent in the north. In my experienc
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Aug 2004, 787 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 27845 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2774 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 1965 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
