Aztec Gear-Up Daytona Beach Video

ARFlyer

En-Route
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
3,177
Location
Central AR
Display Name

Display name:
ARFlyer

HOLY NO ENGINE FLOAT, BATMAN!!

It looks like he killed the engines on a high final and spent the rest of the landing f'ing with the starters.
 
Well there's always a positive way to look at this.

Parts!! :D

(It's the same year and type as mine)

Registered to the "Ace Tomato Co."
 
Last edited:
Very sad, pilot did a great job. Wondering if will ever fly again.
 
OWAO!!kudos to the pilot for being such calm and in control

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
HOLY NO ENGINE FLOAT, BATMAN!!

It looks like he killed the engines on a high final and spent the rest of the landing f'ing with the starters.

Yes, he told ATC he was going to try to avoid a prop strike. But I didn't see him trying to use the starter to get the props anywhere close to horizontal, and not clear if he feathered them.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it's just the sheet metal on the belly and some new gear parts. Plus two engine tear downs.

Aztecs are tough, tough airplanes. I have the airframe from one a couple years older than mine that had a gear up. I use it for hard to find airframe parts to keep mine flying. Same situation, hydraulic system failure. In that case there were only two pilots on board and they brought it in under power and did a perfect job putting it down. Damage was limited to the lower engine cowls, the rear tail skid/tie-down fitting and the transponder and stormscope antenna on the underside. Everything else was scratch free, literally.

Unfortunately the value of these airplanes, even a late model 1979 'F' like this one, is less than cost of rebuilding the engines and replacing the props. The insurance company wrote off the one I bought from them for a pittance.
 
Hopefully it's just the sheet metal on the belly and some new gear parts. Plus two engine tear downs.

Why tear down the engines? Were they not part 91? Looked like to me that the engines were not running.
 
Why tear down the engines? Were they not part 91? Looked like to me that the engines were not running.

There's quite a bending load imparted to the crankshafts given the radius of the prop, compounded by the prop extensions on the Aztec. And it looks like both sides were dragging a blade when she hit.

It may technically not need a tear down but I wouldn't fly it without a pretty damn thorough inspection and runout check on the crank.
 
He came really close to running off of the end of 16. At least, that's how it appeared in the video I watched.


Dumb***
 
He came really close to running off of the end of 16. At least, that's how it appeared in the video I watched.


Dumb***

Gear-up approaches with the power off aren't exactly the sort of thing that gets practiced a lot. He also would not have had any flaps because those are driven by the same hydraulic system, and the priority valving puts the gear first. So "everything" about the airplane configuration is different from a normal set-up/approach.

I question his decision to shut down the engines. But if you factor that in I think he did a very credible job. He used the length he had to slow the airplane right down, minimizing the forward momentum, before he touched the ground. It's almost always better to err running off the end of the runway than to stall it in short because you were too low and too slow.
 
Last edited:
There's quite a bending load imparted to the crankshafts given the radius of the prop, compounded by the prop extensions on the Aztec. And it looks like both sides were dragging a blade when she hit.

It may technically not need a tear down but I wouldn't fly it without a pretty damn thorough inspection and runout check on the crank.

Me too. Just seems like some folks believe that if the prop touches anything then the engine gets an automatic teardown.

And it may just be me, but in that situation I would not care about the props, or engines or the plane. Priority #1 will be ensuring the safety of the people inside.

But the outcome was a happy one for the folks inside, that's all that really matters.
 
Me too. Just seems like some folks believe that if the prop touches anything then the engine gets an automatic teardown.

And it may just be me, but in that situation I would not care about the props, or engines or the plane. Priority #1 will be ensuring the safety of the people inside.

But the outcome was a happy one for the folks inside, that's all that really matters.

I agree. Although I think he did a fine job, I don't think I would have done the same.

It's hard to get the Aztec slowed down without gear and flaps, but I would have tried to make as "normal" a powered approach as possible with the engines turning. Airplanes can be replaced easier than friends and family.
 
They're not turning and the engines weren't having a problem, so it had to be feathered.
 
Good lord :rolleyes: The pilot did a phenomenal job, no injuries, no fire, minimized damage to the aircraft. Yet, the experts here are already calling him names and being keyboard experts. Bob Hoover would have given him a thumbs up for that landing.
 
Aztecs are tough, tough airplanes. I have the airframe from one a couple years older than mine that had a gear up. I use it for hard to find airframe parts to keep mine flying. Same situation, hydraulic system failure. In that case there were only two pilots on board and they brought it in under power and did a perfect job putting it down. Damage was limited to the lower engine cowls, the rear tail skid/tie-down fitting and the transponder and stormscope antenna on the underside. Everything else was scratch free, literally.

Unfortunately the value of these airplanes, even a late model 1979 'F' like this one, is less than cost of rebuilding the engines and replacing the props. The insurance company wrote off the one I bought from them for a pittance.

Damn, you need a cannibalized frame in the hangar to keep the other one flying?! And I thought Comanches were bad. Kudos for your perseverance, but things like that further galvanize my decision to stick with PA-28s.
 
Good lord :rolleyes: The pilot did a phenomenal job, no injuries, no fire, minimized damage to the aircraft. Yet, the experts here are already calling him names and being keyboard experts. Bob Hoover would have given him a thumbs up for that landing.
The keyboard pilot can always do better, haven't you learned that by now? :cool:
 
Damn, you need a cannibalized frame in the hangar to keep the other one flying?! And I thought Comanches were bad. Kudos for your perseverance, but things like that further galvanize my decision to stick with PA-28s.

Aztecs are still being parked and parted out so not usually too much difficulty finding components, but not as easily as for a PA-28 admittedly.

This was more serendipity. The last series of Aztecs, the 'F' models built between 1976 and 1981, when Piper discontinued production, were 28 volt, so things like autopilot servos and other electrics are more difficult to find. I just happened to get a chance to pick up a well equipped, intact 'F' airframe for a distressed bid price. I've already used some of the gear parts, one of the electric boost pumps, moved some of the avionics to upgrade mine and a few other minor things. I sold the engine cores and got back half what I paid.
 
Aztecs are still being parked and parted out so not usually too much difficulty finding components, but not as easily as for a PA-28 admittedly.

This was more serendipity. The last series of Aztecs, the 'F' models built between 1976 and 1981, when Piper discontinued production, were 28 volt, so things like autopilot servos and other electrics are more difficult to find. I just happened to get a chance to pick up a well equipped, intact 'F' airframe for a distressed bid price. I've already used some of the gear parts, one of the electric boost pumps, moved some of the avionics to upgrade mine and a few other minor things. I sold the engine cores and got back half what I paid.
If you have the place to store it, it sounds like a good plan to me.
 
Me too. Just seems like some folks believe that if the prop touches anything then the engine gets an automatic teardown.

And it may just be me, but in that situation I would not care about the props, or engines or the plane. Priority #1 will be ensuring the safety of the people inside.

But the outcome was a happy one for the folks inside, that's all that really matters.


Could be because AD2004-10-14 requires that the crank bolt be replaced at the minimum. Even if the engine was not running.


Bob
 
Back
Top