Look up OY-IPE. I was not flying that day!
The nose wheel on a Corvalis is definitely not steerable
mmgreve wrote:
Look up OY-IPE. I was not flying that day!
aviation-safety.net: “The pilot was intending to land at the beginning of the runway because of the calculated landing run distance (522 m) with an available runway length of 550 m.”
The accident investigation report: “Pilotens beregning af krævet landingsafløbsdistance ved brug af et softwareprogram til iPad gav på havaritidspunktet mulighed for at indsætte en lavere korrektionsfaktor for græsbaner (30% = 1,3), end den faktor der var beskrevet i flyets POH (60% = 1,6).” (At the time of the accident, the pilot’s calculation of landing run required using a software program for iPad gave the opportunity to insert a correction factor for grass runways (30% = 1,3) lower than what was described in the aircraft POH (60% = 1,6).)
What can you say?
Cobalt wrote:
… the undercarriage is positively flimsy.
Where do you get that ?
Believe me, the landing gear on the Lancair / Columbia / Coarvalis / TTx is anything BUT “flimsy” – ask me how I know !
For that reason the aircraft has a max landing weight well below the max takeoff weight.
Max landing weight is NOT dictated by any structural limitations. Braking performance is generally the “weak link”, and indeed, the 400 could use more braking power.
Peter wrote:
Since you are probably selling one, d
Nope, I am not selling one, just pointing out un-informed inaccuracies concerning the type since very few pilots have had the pleasure of flying one, let alone owning & maintaining one …
Always good to see you posting informative stuff, Michael
Michael wrote:
Believe me, the landing gear on the Lancair / Columbia / Coarvalis / TTx is anything BUT “flimsy” – ask me how I know !
Ok, I’ll ask – how do you know that? I sense an interesting adventure story..
To be fair, maybe calling it “flimsy” was a bit of an exaggeration. I certainly never had any issues with it, either, just a bit of respect because of the max landing weight. I don’t believe this has much to do with braking action (you can certainly lock the brakes, there was an AD about that after an overbraking incident led to structural damage).
Overall, the Columbia is a VERY solid build, and also certified in the utility category (so it has a higher certified G load than the normal category).
The “story” is here: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211866
I surveyed the plane & now I’m repairing it.
Let me just say that despite the nose gear & the right wheel getting ripped off, the main landing gear support and the firewall did not budge one iotta !
If it had been a spam can, the firewall would have been shoved back a foot and the gear would have been ripped out of the fuselage …
Maybe it is not the right thread, but how did the plane was recovered from Vejro ?
Michael wrote:
Let me just say that despite the nose gear & the right wheel getting ripped off, the main landing gear support and the firewall did not budge one iotta !
It is very solidly built…
I would guess that when they designed it, they spent a bit of thought on what they want to break off first so no damage is done to harder to repair items.
(although that composites are harder to repair is a myth, the one I flew had a repair to the empennage, which was probably easier to make than the equivalent on a metal aircraft. As usual, it depends).
Out of curiosity – after an accident like that, how does one ensure integrity of the wing spar and other structural elements?