C172 - Tail strike
Christian Falck
During a max-weight lesson in a C172 recently, following a simulated
power-cut during t&g's,
I experienced a light tail strike as I flared the plane for a flapless
landing.
My CFI pulled power about 30 ft , IAS 60kts. I lowered the nose, but due to
the low altitude, I decided there was no time for setting the flap.
The flare and landing felt pretty normal for a flapless (nose high) , but
just as the stall horn came on, there was this light scracthing sound from
behind, before the mains touched down. The landing was not a 'greaser', but
far from heavy...
The plane was at max weight with CG pretty much in the center of the
envelope.
Inspection revealed that the tie-down hook had broken off, but no further
damage to the plane had occured.
It seems that the margin for tail strike in a C172 in a flapless
configuration for landing is far less than I had envisaged.
Comments?
CITABRICKR
and knocking the ring off was not a light scrape, they can take a pretty good
hit.
Bob Gardner
where a lot of metal has been ground off. Breaking one completely off is
unusual.
Bob Gardner
tscottme
Christian Falck wrote:
> Just thought I'd share a recent experience with you all...
>
> During a max-weight lesson in a C172 recently, following a simulated
> power-cut during t&g's,
> I experienced a light tail strike as I flared the plane for a flapless
> landing.
>
> My CFI pulled power about 30 ft , IAS 60kts. I lowered the nose, but due to
> the low altitude, I decided there was no time for setting the flap.
> The flare and landing felt pretty normal for a flapless (nose high) , but
> just as the stall horn came on, there was this light scracthing sound from
> behind, before the mains touched down. The landing was not a 'greaser', but
> far from heavy...
> The plane was at max weight with CG pretty much in the center of the
> envelope.
> Inspection revealed that the tie-down hook had broken off, but no further
> damage to the plane had occured.
>
> It seems that the margin for tail strike in a C172 in a flapless
> configuration for landing is far less than I had envisaged.
>
> Comments?
I've seen a "U" shaped piece of heavy spring steel that is installed under the
tail tiedown ring and curves around the ring. In case of tailstrike the heavy
spring steel makes contact with the ground and keeps from damaging the tiedown.
--
Scott Methvin
"There is nothing in the Balkans worth the bones
of one Pomeranian Grenadier." Bismark
[revised]
nightjar
Christian Falck > wrote in message ...
>....
>Inspection revealed that the tie-down hook had broken off, but no
further
>damage to the plane had occured.
>Comments?
>
I hope that was an inspection by a qualified engineer, not just by you
and your instructor. The sort of loading that would be needed to do that
could easily cause internal damage to the aircraft structure that would
not be obvious from a superficial inspection. There has been at lest one
fatal accident in the UK in recent years when a major structural element
failed following a 'light' impact that gave no external signs of damage.
Colin Bignell
Ron Natalie
take off in a 152. My instructor referred to them as Texas soft-field
takeoffs (Being a native coloradoan, texans were the butt of many
a joke).
St Stephen Ames
Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> Check out the tiedown rings on the tail cones of a few Cessnas and you will see
> where a lot of metal has been ground off. Breaking one completely off is
> unusual.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
>
> > Just thought I'd share a recent experience with you all...
> >
> > During a max-weight lesson in a C172 recently, following a simulated
> > power-cut during t&g's,
> > I experienced a light tail strike as I flared the plane for a flapless
> > landing.
> >
> > My CFI pulled power about 30 ft , IAS 60kts. I lowered the nose, but due to
> > the low altitude, I decided there was no time for setting the flap.
> > The flare and landing felt pretty normal for a flapless (nose high) , but
> > just as the stall horn came on, there was this light scracthing sound from
> > behind, before the mains touched down. The landing was not a 'greaser', but
> > far from heavy...
> > The plane was at max weight with CG pretty much in the center of the
> > envelope.
> > damage to the plane had occured.
> >
> > configuration for landing is far less than I had envisaged.
> >
> > Comments?
--
Till the next time,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometime you can get shown the light,
in the strangest of places if you look at it right!"
-R.Hunter & J.Garcia -
St Stephen Ames
>There has been at lest one fatal accident in the UK in recent years when a major >structural element failed following a 'light' impact that gave no external signs of >damage. Colin Bignell
Good possibility but how can they tell that?...How do they know the
impact didn't cause the structure to fail?
Steve
instructor, as I had been noticing that the tail tiedowns are typically very
scratched.. I am more careful now though! Didn't think it was possible on
landing though, but I guess I've never attempted a no-flap, full-stall..
-Steve
Christian Falck > wrote in message ...
Brad Crosier
> nightjar wrote:
> >There has been at lest one fatal accident in the UK in recent years when a major >structural element failed following a 'light' impact that gave no external signs of >damage. Colin Bignell
>
> Good possibility but how can they tell that?...How do they know the
> impact didn't cause the structure to fail?
I'm reading between the lines a bit on your question, but . . .
Assume a part is damaged due to a stress beyond design limit. It may not immediately fail, but might crack instead. The crack provides a concentration point for further stress forces. Each
time it is stressed the crack grows. Ultimately, the part fails. When closely examined, you would see a relatively smooth surface where the initial crack was, followed by short serrations
where it grew little by little on each subsequent cycle, and ultimately a clean edge where it finally completely failed.
--
BTC
Tri-Guy
nightjar
St Stephen Ames wrote in message <373F3F...@stephenames.com>...
>nightjar wrote:
>>There has been at lest one fatal accident in the UK in recent years
when a major >structural element failed following a 'light' impact that
gave no external signs of >damage. Colin Bignell
>
>Good possibility but how can they tell that?...How do they know the
>impact didn't cause the structure to fail?
The art of accident investigation lies in telling what failed and in
which order. If you read through accident investigation reports you will
see some of the ways that the investigators can determine such things.
Of course, in the case I am thinking of, having several witnesses see
the aircraft fall apart in mid-air did give them a good clue.
Colin
St Stephen Ames
>
> St Stephen Ames wrote:
>
> > nightjar wrote:
> > >There has been at lest one fatal accident in the UK in recent years when a major >structural element failed following a 'light' impact that gave no external signs of >damage. Colin Bignell
> >
> > Good possibility but how can they tell that?...How do they know the
> > impact didn't cause the structure to fail?
>
>
> Assume a part is damaged due to a stress beyond design limit. It may not immediately fail, but might crack instead. The crack provides a concentration point for further stress forces. Each
> time it is stressed the crack grows. Ultimately, the part fails. When closely examined, you would see a relatively smooth surface where the initial crack was, followed by short serrations
> where it grew little by little on each subsequent cycle, and ultimately a clean edge where it finally completely failed.
> --
> BTC
> Tri-Guy
Makes sense, I guess, I'm not an accident investigator...Being that
said, if upon pre-flighting a plane, we see that the tail tie-down has
numberous scrapes and is an irregular shape from contacting runway a few
times, should we assume there is some damage not visible to us and
figure we may be the straw to break the proverbial back if we just land
it a little harder than average and not fly that plane?...Just fishing
for debate...
Till the next time,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
"I may go to hell in a bucket baby,
but at least I'm enjoying the ride!"
-J. Barlow & B. Weir-
Ron Natalie
>
>
> Makes sense, I guess, I'm not an accident investigator...Being that
> said, if upon pre-flighting a plane, we see that the tail tie-down has
> numberous scrapes and is an irregular shape from contacting runway a few
Yep, someone struck the tail real hard on our Navion (wasn't
me). The tie down ring was bent and upon closer inspection the
rearmost fuselate bulkhead was bent up pretty baddly.
You can overrotate the Navion if you pull back real hard, I've
seen others drag their tail...
Dale
<christi...@online.nojunk /remove 'junk' for emails> wrote:
Sounds like you over-rotated. I'm guessing you did that because the sink
rate was higher than you're used to so you rotated hard trying to soften
the impact. That'll happen with the power cut at low speed unless you're
very fast with getting the nose down. A 30' power cut, IMO, is rather
challenging for a new pilot. I know of two airplanes that suffered
structural during hard landings after the instructor cut the power at low
altitude on takeoff.
> Just thought I'd share a recent experience with you all...
>
> During a max-weight lesson in a C172 recently, following a simulated
> power-cut during t&g's,
> I experienced a light tail strike as I flared the plane for a flapless
> landing.
>
> My CFI pulled power about 30 ft , IAS 60kts. I lowered the nose, but due to
> the low altitude, I decided there was no time for setting the flap.
> The flare and landing felt pretty normal for a flapless (nose high) , but
> just as the stall horn came on, there was this light scracthing sound from
> behind, before the mains touched down. The landing was not a 'greaser', but
> far from heavy...
> The plane was at max weight with CG pretty much in the center of the
> envelope.
> Inspection revealed that the tie-down hook had broken off, but no further
> damage to the plane had occured.
>
> It seems that the margin for tail strike in a C172 in a flapless
> configuration for landing is far less than I had envisaged.
>
> Comments?
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
nightjar
Brad Crosier wrote in message
<373F877F...@integrityonline32.com>...
>.....
I have been trying to find the original accident report, but I think it
may have been before the AAIB put its reports on line. As you say, with
metal you can easily tell the difference between a fatigue failure and a
catastrophic failure. Corrosion on one part of a break and not on
another is also a good indicator that the damage had happened over a
period of time.
However, there may be other factors, such as marks on parts that go in
the wrong direction for something that could happen on impact. In one
airline accident paint that was only used on the exterior was found in a
scratch on an interior part, which showed that the aircraft had broken
up in mid air.
In the accident I have in mind, the aircraft had a wooden main spar and
a flexible wing covering, which showed only minor scuff marks. The
accident investigators were able to determine that the spar had been
cracked by an impact prior to its failure in mid air, although I forget
the details of how they worked that out in wood.
Colin Bignell
Anibal Baranek
where I usually rent planes(Tomahawks) and one of the mechanics told
me someone had called to say a person with my description had
overrotated the tail of an aircraft in another airport.
He asked me if it was I but and didn't know about it. The event had
happened a month or so before but nobody had an exact date for me to
compare with my logbook. I had flown to the said airport but couldn't
remember anything wrong with the aircraft on take off.
Nothing came out of it but I was left wondering, Wouldn't I had feel
something strange if the tail contacted the runway? I have about 150
hours in Tomahawks but I never felt something specially rare in take
off or landing.
Roger Halstead
Sounds like a trashcan full of beer cand dropped on the runway, or at least
the ones that I've wittnessed did.<LOL>
I son't know if you'd feel it, but I'd bet that you'd hear it.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Anibal Baranek <bar...@infovia.com.ar> wrote in message
news:3742feef...@news.satlink.com...
<snip>
jga...@hotmail.com
bar...@infovia.com.ar (Anibal Baranek) wrote:
<snip>
> Wouldn't I had feel
> something strange if the tail contacted the runway? I have about 150
> hours in Tomahawks but I never felt something specially rare in take
> off or landing.
>
I don't think you could drag the tail without noticing it. The
vibrations from the scraping tend to resonate in the tin drum of the
fuselage. It sounds like someone tearing the plane in half.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
luc...@metrowerks.com
"Christian Falck" <christi...@online.nojunk /remove 'junk' for
emails> wrote:
I often drag the tail skid on my plane on landing (a Quicksilver MX
Super, an ultralight) - it only happens during real greasers when I
touch down at full back elevator and I hold it all the way back on
rollout (this procedure is much easier on axle and nose struts then
plonking it down).
Looks like I'm going to need to get out some rubber hose and clamps, or
it'll wear through eventually......... One of our locals solved this
problem on his MX by attaching a small castoring tailwheel on his skid.
I never had a tail strike when flying 150/152's, but I came close once
or twice when practicing no-flap landings a while back. IMO, there
should be a drag guard of some kind on the tails of those things; they
really can come in at a high AOA without flaps.....
Lucien S.
PP-ASEL.
> Just thought I'd share a recent experience with you all...
>
> During a max-weight lesson in a C172 recently, following a simulated
> power-cut during t&g's,
> I experienced a light tail strike as I flared the plane for a flapless
> landing.
>
> My CFI pulled power about 30 ft , IAS 60kts. I lowered the nose, but
due to
> the low altitude, I decided there was no time for setting the flap.
> The flare and landing felt pretty normal for a flapless (nose high) ,
but
> just as the stall horn came on, there was this light scracthing sound
from
> behind, before the mains touched down. The landing was not a
'greaser', but
> far from heavy...
> The plane was at max weight with CG pretty much in the center of the
> envelope.
> Inspection revealed that the tie-down hook had broken off, but no
further
> damage to the plane had occured.
>
> It seems that the margin for tail strike in a C172 in a flapless
> configuration for landing is far less than I had envisaged.
>
> Comments?
>
>
Lowell H Brigham
situation that you weren't trained to handle properly. If you had a real engine
failure, breaking the tie down hook would have been inconsequential. Breaking
something when you are practicing emergency procedures represents a failure for
both teacher and student.
tscottme
152/172, you simply unscrew the ttail tiedown ring, place threaded
portion of the tiedown ring through a whole in the guard and then screw
the tiedown ring back in position.
The guard is no more complicated that a piece of steel bent to shape.
Once installed, it starts at the tiedown/aircraft surface, curves
forward and around the tiedown, and extends past the tiedown like a very
small tailskid. It also helps to align the tiedown so that you see the
circle of the tiedown ring when looking from the side of the tail and
not so that you see the circle when looking from the tail toward the
nose.
If I had a dollar for every broken tail tiedown ring I've seen, I could
afford to fly more often.
Steve Dold
>Breaking
>something when you are practicing emergency procedures represents a failure
for
>both teacher and student.
No it doesn't. It just means a mistake was made.
Please don't get so melodramatic about mistakes.
I've drug the tail once or twice, it happens.
Everybody: watch it when you flare, because the
tail can drag the ground. In a no-flap landing,
it'll be lower than usual.
There. That's all it takes. Now, a few
people will still do it, but it won't be
the end of the world.
Mike500188
>tail can drag the ground. In a no-flap landing,
>it'll be lower than usual.
And in a 152 at least on a soft-field t/o; gave it a quick blast of power once
with the elevator full back, and <BANG>, I didn't know what I did, and my
instructor didn't say anything....
Mike O'Malley
\--==PP-ASEL==--/
mike5...@aol.com
oma...@marist.marist.chi.il.us
Remove "nospam" at end of e-mail to reply
Ron Natalie
> It also helps to align the tiedown so that you see the
> circle of the tiedown ring when looking from the side of the tail and
> not so that you see the circle when looking from the tail toward the
> nose.
>
And in the Navion, it's not so easy to push on the tail to
lift the nose gear to reposition like you can in the 172.
Our technique is to stand on the put a foot on the tail skid
to lift the nose.