Tail Strikes ?

[billt460]

I was reading where Concorde had a wheel designed into the back belly of the fuselage, to prevent damage from over rotation on takeoff, that would prevent a tail strike. That seemed like a really good idea. How come other aircraft builders like Boeing and Airbus never elaborated on that design?

I can't imagine what it would cost to repair a bad tail strike on a large airplane, but it certainly can't be cheap. Not to mention possible air frame damage. If I remember correctly, Japan Airlines Flight 123 crashed because of a faulty repair made to the bulkhead, that was due to a tail strike, that took place earlier in the planes flight history. That accident alone killed 520 people.

 

[partspro]

The only Concorde to crash hit a large piece of i believe Engine Cowl from the previous plane, the metal ruptured a tire and large pieces of tire hit the underside of the plain resulting in a fire in the fuel tanks which were full for takeoff.

 

[Taildragger]

Many commercial airliners have tail skids.

 

[RooflessVW]

Impossible to design a plane to mitigate every mistake a pilot can make.

Tail strikes are not common.

 

[y_p_w]

There are weird balance issues with some planes - especially extended length 737s. I hear they're more vulnerable to tail strikes, especially with the stubby landing gear.

 

[wpod]

Being a Delta wing aircraft the landing angle Flair is quite severe as compared to a regular swept wing airliner

 

[WylieCoyote]

Not a wheel, but protection nonetheless.

 

[y_p_w]

Not a wheel, but protection nonetheless.
View attachment 83713

I don't think that little bit necessarily protects anything. They specifically tested prototypes for tail strikes knowing that it would scrape against the runway.

This says that they protected the tail area with a steel skid plate since the body is most carbon fiber in the tail area.

 

[4WD]

Dang - thought this was about lightning - I’ll wait to comment

 

[E365]

The placement of the tailskid on certain 737 versions is kind of odd. You pretty much hit the belly and tailskid at the same time (when landing), damaging the fuselage. You’d think they’d move the tailskid further forward and let the tailskid take up all the impact

737-800

Boeing 737 Tailstrikes

Some facts, tips and news about tailstrikes on the 737

www.b737.org.uk

The 737 MAX10 has longer landing gear - hopefully that helps a bit.

 

[John Galt]

If I remember right, even a Cessna 150 had a sacrificial tab at the tail in case a student pilot over rotated or blew soft field take-off training on an asphalt runway.

 

[Astro14]

I don't think that little bit necessarily protects anything. They specifically tested prototypes for tail strikes knowing that it would scrape against the runway.

This says that they protected the tail area with a steel skid plate since the body is most carbon fiber in the tail area.

They aren't testing for tail strikes.

They are testing a datapoint known as "minimum unstick" - it's partly a control evaluation and partly an evaluation of aerodynamic model accuracy. It's part of the development of takeoff performance data.

The tail has to be protected as it will hit the runway during a minimum unstick test, but they're not testing tailstrike or the airplane resistance to tailstrike.

 

[Astro14]

The placement of the tailskid on certain 737 versions is kind of odd. You pretty much hit the belly and tailskid at the same time (when landing), damaging the fuselage. You’d think they’d move the tailskid further forward and let the tailskid take up all the impact

737-800
View attachment 84718

Boeing 737 Tailstrikes

Some facts, tips and news about tailstrikes on the 737

www.b737.org.uk

The 737 MAX10 has longer landing gear - hopefully that helps a bit.

The tailskid isn't designed, or intended, to protect against a tailstrike on landing.

The tailskid is to protect against a tailstrike on takeoff.

The geometry is different in those two cases, as are the potential impact forces involved.

 

[billt460]

Have there been airliners written off due to bad tailstrikes? Or are they usually always repairable?

 

[Astro14]

Have there been airliners written off due to bad tailstrikes? Or are they usually always repairable?

Lots of write-offs have happened as a result of bad landings. Some were tailstrikes, some, well, just bad.

This 767 for example:



I don't know the statistics, but most tail strikes on takeoff are repairable. They tend to be more of a scrape, less structural damage.

 

[kschachn]

Lots of write-offs have happened as a result of bad landings. Some were tailstrikes, some, well, just bad.

I don't know the statistics, but most tail strikes on takeoff are repairable. They tend to be more of a scrape, less structural damage.

And then of course my favorite, the fuselage was subsequently repaired:

 

[billt460]

Nose wheel first.... OUCH! That MD-80 losing the whole tail cone is a classic.

 

[Astro14]

Wait @kschachn - That MD-80 was repaired!!??

 

[kschachn]

Wait @kschachn - That MD-80 was repaired!!??

Yes it was and then I believe it was sold to a commercial operator. MD later bought it back and used it in the UDF program. I can’t look it up right now but it was the prototype MD-80 fuselage.

 

[kschachn]

Nose wheel first.... OUCH! That MD-80 losing the whole tail cone is a classic.

That’s losing a whole lot more than the tail cone