Belly landing.

[gprellwitz]

Do you have a credible source for that statement? In any case, I firmly believe in pulling the mixture(s) prior to touchdown and I think feathering a twin's props at the same time would at the very least reduce the potential for an engine tearing out of it's mount which could lead to a fire. I would hold of on killing engines until the landing was "assured". And FWIW, I don't think a go around from the flare or beyond would be a good idea during a gear up landing because it might be difficult to tell if the props had already contacted the ground. Doesn't anyone else see a difference between stopping props on final vs over the runway? The former definitely carries a risk of coming up short, the latter doesn't.

As far as the go-around after the props have struck the pavement, I personally witnessed one 3 or four years ago in a single engine. It was successful, though not something I'd recommend trying!

 

[COFlyBoy]

Do you have a credible source for that statement? In any case, I firmly believe in pulling the mixture(s) prior to touchdown and I think feathering a twin's props at the same time would at the very least reduce the potential for an engine tearing out of it's mount which could lead to a fire. I would hold of on killing engines until the landing was "assured". And FWIW, I don't think a go around from the flare or beyond would be a good idea during a gear up landing because it might be difficult to tell if the props had already contacted the ground. Doesn't anyone else see a difference between stopping props on final vs over the runway? The former definitely carries a risk of coming up short, the latter doesn't.

Like I said in an earlier post, A gentleman giving a presentation at a FAAST seminar made the statement. I believe he was from the FSDO. I'll see if I can find some other source.

I think they were really referring to pilots who were killing the engine(s) on short final, not in the flare over the runway.

I have the plunger type engine controls, and the mixture is way over to the right, so it takes a look and a reach to pull it (the Cherokee Six is wide), which I think is a bad idea a few feet over the runway. If I had a throttle quadrant I'd probably pull the throttle, prop, and mixture all right before touchdown.

 

[COFlyBoy]

As far as the go-around after the props have struck the pavement, I personally witnessed one 3 or four years ago in a single engine. It was successful, though not something I'd recommend trying!

When I was a kid, a neighbor at the airpark I lived at almost bellied his Staggerwing. He went around. We went and looked at the runway. There we gouges from the prop for probably about 400 feet. You could see where he poured the coals to it, because the gouges got closer together. He also dragged the flaps for part of it. Successful go-around and landing.

 

[Dan Thomas]

When I was a kid, a neighbor at the airpark I lived at almost bellied his Staggerwing. He went around. We went and looked at the runway. There we gouges from the prop for probably about 400 feet. You could see where he poured the coals to it, because the gouges got closer together. He also dragged the flaps for part of it. Successful go-around and landing.

Lucky go-around and landing. He could have damaged the engine or airframe enough that something critical might have failed in the circuit and things would have become pretty ugly.

Dan

 

[alaskaflyer]

A few years ago I attended a school for my instrument rating. One evening while waiting around the office for a 172 to return to the line so I could do some airwork, we heard a CFI and a student having problems with the 172RG, left main wouldn't lock. They orbited and tried everything including hanging out the open door at Vbg trying to use the shoulder belt to hook the gear and pull it forward to lock.

All this was for naught and they retracted everything and came in and executed what was to me a great gear-up landing. Engine was at idle but as I remember there was still a bit of windmilling. Prop boinked of course.

When the owner showed up shortly afterwards (thousands of hours CFI) he was livid. Turned the air blue on the runway for a while. I thought he was mad about the open door stunt, or just unhappy about fate. Nope. Wanted him to shut down and save the squirrel drive in this scenario. Never did hear if he fired the CFI.

Thing is, the kid was one of his better CFI's. I unfortunately had cycled through most of them on the payroll in those ten days and had an inkling of their relative worth (another story.) Not sure that I would have unfastened my seat belt to try to use it as a lasso, myself, but he was a good teacher.

Turns out the flight school was "self-insured" (which meant not insured.) No wonder the owner was ****ed.

Never been back, and no one I care about will attend that place without an earful from me first.

Anyway...

 

[gismo]

Do you have any credible evidence of THAT ever happening? I can't see an engine at idle having enough rotating mass (inertia) to do that.

I've seen a video (actually a movie converted to a video) showing that happening to a B-17 that landed with one gear up and one down. I've never seen any video of such an occurrence on a more modern plane but IIRC there was a recent accident (not just a gear up) where at least one of the engines of some twin (Baron/310/421???) was came off the wing and sort of folded under it but I can't say if this was in any way related to the lack of stopped props.

I also can't really say that letting the props windmill poses a significant risk vs stopped props and I do agree with the sentiment that one should be much more concerned with performing an intentional gear up without injury to people rather than trying to prevent engine damage. But I think that pulling mixtures and props while over the runway has at least some potential to improve the safety of the occupants and very little drawback. The only downsides I can think of are the reduction in drag (makes for a longer flare/float) and the elimination of the go-around option once the props actually feather.

In my case, since I have 3 blade props there's pretty much no way I could prevent prop/ground contact if the gear was totally retracted so it's kind of a moot point for me.

 

[brcase]

If you don't regularly practice power off landings then you have no business shutting engine(s) down for a gear up landing.

If your proficent at doing power off landings then the equation might change. In my case I would pull the mixture and shut off the fuel as I crossed the threshhold about about 150ft agl in most aircraft I fly. I wouldn't be trying to position the prop any particular position, as previously mentioned It could easily move anyway.

I watched an acrobatic routine this last weekend where the guy does a routine deadstick in an RV4. You can easily see the propeller turning occasionally from one compression stroke the next.

While I have only tried it once or twice, my impression is that a constant speed prop is typically near impossible to stop turning unless it has a feathering feature. So trying to do so is most likely a really bad idea in an emergency.

My motto is to do as little unknown or new stuff during an emergency as possible.

Brian

 

[Everskyward]

My motto is to do as little unknown or new stuff during an emergency as possible.

Yeah, and the object is NOT to make the emergency worse.

I had to make this decision once, a long time ago, and I elected to leave the engines running and the mains down even though the nosegear was retracted. Obviously I am still around.

My boss, who was the owner of the airplane, never questioned what I did. Actually he saw the whole thing from the tower (as well as he could see it since it was night) since the whole event played out over a couple hours. The thing I'm really, really happy about is that this took place before the 24-hour news stations and there was no coverage or even video.

The airplane also lived to fly again and I flew it another 2,000+ hours. It's still flying today as I see it from time to time.