Baron (B-55) gear up landing

yea looks like the guy did an OK job though.

this was posted on purple followed by the typical engine on/off discussion
 
"Two people are OK after their plane screamed down a runway in Florida, without landing gear."

Gotta love the hype.

The guy really glued it on there, didn't he?
 
It's hard to tell. Did he chop engines prior to touch down? Either way, great landing.
 
Hm. He pretty much just flew into the runway. There was no visible change in descent or pitch.

Can't say he didn't do a good job though-since they made it and all.
 
jesse said:
Hm. He pretty much just flew into the runway. There was no visible change in descent or pitch.

Can't say he didn't do a good job though-since they made it and all.
Click to expand...

You probably don't want to drop it in, even from 6 inches above the pavement, so I think that "flying it on" is probably the best method.
 
Better to drive it into the runway,than Flare 6" above it ??????
 
lancefisher said:
You probably don't want to drop it in, even from 6 inches above the pavement, so I think that "flying it on" is probably the best method.
Click to expand...

True. Although it looks a hell of a lot harder than any other gear up landing I've seen. Generally you see people come in, level off, and fly it on. It looks as though the pilot made no attempt to slow down the rate of descent.

I don't think you should drop it on--but I think it'd be better to reduce how hard you're going to hit. The less energy slamming into the runway bending metal towards the fuel tanks..the better.

jpflys said:
Better to drive it into the runway,than Flare 6" above it ??????
Click to expand...

Really it's a balance between rate of descent and ground speed. The harder you smack the runway, the less directional control you are going to have if you didn't touch perfectly.

If you smack the runway too hard you are going to be bending an awful lot of metal in the area of your fuel tanks (low wing). If you make a nice smooth touchdown you might slide a little further but you will bend way less metal on impact and will have way more directional control.

For example. A fall from 6 inches is going to have a vertical impact velocity of about 336 feet per minute. Given the wings are still providing some lift--this number isn't entirely accurate. But you can do a much smoother landing (vertical velocity on impact) by flying it on. If you stall it on and do manage to do it with almost no vertical velocity--you better hope to hell you touched down perfectly straight or else directional control is going to be a challenge. There are too many variables playing against you in the full stall of a heavy airplane with no gear.

So I think I'm really saying the same thing as you Lance. It's better to fly it on with a little more airspeed to ensure directional control while reducing the vertical impact. My comments on the video were not complaining about the lack of stalling it on the runway. My comments were saying it appeared there was no attempt made at reducing the vertical speed which could have been done.
 
Last edited:
He did a good one. Fly it right to the center line.

That was Crystal River Airport in Florida. I have landed there many times. Nice airport, small town, and plenty of Manatees. This had to be one of the biggest news stories there all year.
 
Airplanes can take _much_ more of a vertical impact compared to any other kind. I'd much rather flare a few inches above the runway and stall it then drive it into the runway like this guy did. Looking at the certification specs, the certified lateral load is significantly less than then vertical one.

-Felix
 
My question is what failed that caused the gear to stay up, if it was just a simple switch or something more involved. Probably something more involved.

There's a video of a 310 doing a landing on YouTube where the nose gear didn't come down, but the mains did. The guy did (I thought) a very good jobof landing it on the mains, keeping the nose up off the ground, then turning off the engines and keeping the nose off the ground as long as possible before the thing ran out of lift and both props hit the ground. Poor plane. :(

Still a good landing, though, if they all walked away. Just that the plane wasn't reuseable (without some significant maintenance).
 
That looked like a very fast approach, what is normal approach spped in a B58?
 
dgdamore said:
That looked like a very fast approach, what is normal approach spped in a B58?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering...it looks and sounds like he was hauling a$$ with lots of power on, right down to the concrete.
 
Teller1900 said:
That's what I was wondering...it looks and sounds like he was hauling a$$ with lots of power on, right down to the concrete.
Click to expand...
That sort of makes sense to an extent. He wanted to maintain directional control on touchdown just as much as make it as soft as possible.

I'd compare it to one of my right seat landings... The throttle is pretty stiff to pull on one of the Cutlass' so I still had it in a bit far on short final. I came in hot enough, the plane didn't have a prayer of pointing off center to fool me on my perspective. Oddly, it was my first straight touch down out of the first few attempts. :)
 
Teller1900 said:
That's what I was wondering...it looks and sounds like he was hauling a$$ with lots of power on, right down to the concrete.
Click to expand...

IIRC, typical approach speed would be 90-95 KIAS. I can't tell from the video what the plane's speed actually was though. Also it does appear to me that the pilot did flare but did so fairly close to the ground and wasn't in the flare very long before touching down.

I would expect that minimizing the vertical speed would be desirable and you can do that without much chance of stalling. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if the plane would get "pulled" onto the runway once the props started hitting hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top