Not an airplane I would want to fly...they get built once - and that level of "rebuilding" is disconcerting...
Tail Strikes ?
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
I was thinking of that infamous bad landing of one of the first 747s at Renton. Someone apparently thought it was a good idea to finish up assembly where there was only 5300 feet of runway to get in/out.
That’s losing a whole lot more than the tail cone
It kind of depresses me when I think of Die Hard 2 and the fictional account of a plane given bad info/data in whiteout conditions by the baddies. However, none of that really makes sense. I thought with that kind of situation they would have all been diverted to airports hundreds of miles away where there would be no snow.
Yeah. I don't believe that thing was repairable. Certainly not cost effectively.That’s losing a whole lot more than the tail cone
I flew the Q400, the stretched version of the Dash 8.
We had a 6° nose up limitation on takeoff, with a similar limitation on landing. The tail would not hit at that angle at any weight, even on a hard landing.
The "unstretched" Dash 8 did not have that limitation.
I also flew the ATR 42, which has a sacrificial tail skid, inspection of which was required prior to flight. VERY short gear on that airplane.
No tail strikes by me, or anyone that I knew that flew these airplanes… The training is quite good in the simulator, where they demonstrate a tail strike and the nose angle required to achieve it.
We had a 6° nose up limitation on takeoff, with a similar limitation on landing. The tail would not hit at that angle at any weight, even on a hard landing.
The "unstretched" Dash 8 did not have that limitation.
I also flew the ATR 42, which has a sacrificial tail skid, inspection of which was required prior to flight. VERY short gear on that airplane.
No tail strikes by me, or anyone that I knew that flew these airplanes… The training is quite good in the simulator, where they demonstrate a tail strike and the nose angle required to achieve it.
Definitely repaired, and as I noted later used for the UDF project as N980DC.
In some planes, yes. But not on a 737-800 SFP or 737-900ER. The hydraulic, 2-position tail skid literally has a “landing position”, specifically designed to prevent/reduce tailstrike damage when landing.
Normal/Takeoff Position
Landing Position (stuck down at the gate)
And the SFP Tailskid Landing Position doing its job on a 737-900ER landing tail strike.
The question was, why isn’t every 737 designed to reduce tailstrike damage?
Last edited:
Back to my original post. Why not a "tail wheel" like the Concorde?
Last edited:
I’d assume it comes down to cost, weight and maintenance. A throw-away chunk of metal that gets scraped-up during a tailstrike is easier/cheaper to deal with than wheel bearings, tires, etc.Back to my original post. Why not a "tail wheel" like the Concorde?
The Concorde's wings were optimized for supersonic flight. Rotating up to nearly the tailstrike angle was a normal procedure so the wings would make lift at takeoff and landing speed.
This also required a complicated unusually long legged main landing gear structure to make the center of the plane high enough above the runway that the tail doesn't hit. A competing theory of the fatal crash blames a problem with that landing gear.
This also required a complicated unusually long legged main landing gear structure to make the center of the plane high enough above the runway that the tail doesn't hit. A competing theory of the fatal crash blames a problem with that landing gear.
Last edited:
As high as it is, it's still got a ways to go to smoke that tail wheel. Especially compared to this.
Then, I stand corrected.
That design is not common, and simply put, shows how badly bodgered the 737 design has become. Stretched to an unreasonable length, band aid fixes on tail skids, landing gear, engine placement, and of course, MCAS to fix the handling problems.
Even with the “landing position” it can only protect a light hit. Not a hard hit.
No tail skid can handle the kind of load that a landing gear can, wheels, or no wheels. The underlying fuselage structure strength isn’t there, and the skid doesn’t have enough travel/compression to absorb anything more than a “kiss” of the runway.
On the 767-300 (shown, Delta in SLC) tail skid contact happens at 9.6 degrees on takeoff.As high as it is, it's still got a ways to go to smoke that tail wheel. Especially compared to this.
That’s a lot of pitch, and normal liftoff happens at about 7.5 degrees.
I thing the Q40 and Dash 8 are nice planes.
Chalk up another one, (tailstrike). This one happened yesterday at Heathrow. Freeze it at 0:24 for the bang job.
Flared too high. Floated the landing (looking for a smooth touchdown* I suspect). Then when a modest gust hit, totally over controlled the airplane.
Pilot error.
*Pilots are always looking for a smooth touchdown because passengers are, well, sorry to say, morons for the most part.
I can manage a thousand details of operating a widebody long range over water, balancing weather, airport condition, complex communications and air traffic, fuel, crew, pilot proficiency, aircraft maintenance issues along with myriad others.
Bring that widebody into a snowy, short runway in Newark with gusty crosswinds, and if I touch down with anything less than glass smooth, some joker will say something flippant and stupid on their way out as a I stand by the door.
I managed a thousand details, kept you safe for nine hours across the North Atlantic in winter, and yes, the touchdown was a little firm, only a little, because, on this day, with these conditions, it was the safest way to handle this 250,000# machine with 200 people on board.
You‘re welcome.
On a dry runway, on a clear day, I’ll grease it on for you. But not today. You’re just too ignorant to understand.
I can't imagine anyone doing that. Are they really that insulting?
Not everyone is that snippy. I recall LAS-OAK going home with the family on a Christmas day. Raining buckets outside and the wind was just nasty that we could tell that the pilot was fighting it. And of course a 737 which I get that you don't like for its stubby landing gear. We didn't land smoothly, but as soon as we figured that we were down safely, passengers started to applaud.
Yep. They really are. Empowered to criticize things they know nothing about...just fascinating that they think they are able to judge from their position of complete ignorance.
Most are OK, but some, who know nothing, think they're being cute, or funny.
They are neither.
Remember, I've got over 200 people on the jet. You would be surprised how many stupid, rude, or foolish people exist in that number. You may not hear them, but I get to see every one of them.
Let me also state, that when I say, a little firm that's precisely what I mean. I am still much smoother than the Autoland system. I'm not pranging the thing on.
In my experience, passengers would thank the pilot when there was a rough, but otherwise safe landing in challenging weather.
