gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Say, do you work out?
I'll bet some of those guys in the flight school wouldn't have have manged to work the pump to the point where the gear pushed out. You Da Man!
Congrats to Tristan...
- Thread starter jesse
- Start date
Say, do you work out?
I'll bet some of those guys in the flight school wouldn't have have manged to work the pump to the point where the gear pushed out. You Da Man!
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
What can I say? I didn't feel like dieing that day! I know most people would say that wouldnt happen, but you never know...and I'm not risking it.
Although I thought it was pretty awesome when I found out the cause. I was just so glad it was something I couldnt prevent, yet we still solved the problem and got safely on the ground. I really have to say thanks to my instructor for noticing the red light, I'm still getting used to the idea.
Although I thought it was pretty awesome when I found out the cause. I was just so glad it was something I couldnt prevent, yet we still solved the problem and got safely on the ground. I really have to say thanks to my instructor for noticing the red light, I'm still getting used to the idea.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,113
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
gkainz
Final Approach
Hydraulics - the great strength equalizer!!! 
Good job, glad it worked out well, and glad the mechs found something wrong. I hate unexplained mechanical failures.
Good job, glad it worked out well, and glad the mechs found something wrong. I hate unexplained mechanical failures.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Get used to looking at it more than once to. On short final is one of the last times I look. But I put the gear down and look at the light, turn base and look at the light turn final and look for it one more time, then lastly on short final. In instrument condition it is just part of my scan.
Glad you found the cause, that sounds similar to the failure that happened down in Florida with the 172RG I was flying. Your result was a good one, they should be much happier to just fix a couple of gear doors than having to do a bunch of skin repair and an engine tear down.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just gives rise to the words "tin can" and "Spam* Can"....
*(Spam is a registered trademark of Hormel Foods)
*(Spam is a registered trademark of Hormel Foods)
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/31/spam_ruling/
Hormel has been losing these kinds of cases and their failure to push for protection is all markets is probably gonna cost them the trademark in the future. For right now their trademark only seems to apply to meat products. While a SPAM-Can does have meat products inside of them it is not the defining characteristic of the item.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
So, this makes me wonder. What do ya'll think of Cessna RG's as a whole? I've always thought about a 172RG as a possibility for my first purchase. All the benefits of a 172 with less drag. Would you take one into and out of Gaston's?
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I don't mind the RGs, I really like the 182RG a lot. I have soft fielded landed with both of them. The only thing that was bad is on one of the take offs it was very muddy and when I raised the gear I wedged a lot of crud up into the wheel well.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
Would it have been possible to just let 'em hang until you got to pavement and could have cleaned them off?
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I am sure it would have been. But I was new to the whole retract and soft field thing and did not think about it until later. I was nice to the ground crew and got a hose and cleaned them out myself before the mud set up.
BTW in the RGs you do not bring the gear up right way. In the retraction mode it can cause a lot of extra drag that you don't want when lifting off of a soft field configuration.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
You could take one into Gastons no problem.
That said, I wouldn't buy one. The Cessna retract system sucks and gear issues are very common. The constant speed prop and retractable gear mean increased maintenance.
Basically there is a lot of crap to break and the benefit of having all that crap is about 10-12 knots. 172s are great because there isn't much maintenance and they are easy to fly. The 172RG ruins everything that's great about the 172 and doesn't take you much faster.
They make good complex endorsement planes. That's about it--lotsa other cool stuff to buy.
Patch
Pre-takeoff checklist
Pretty much anytime you have a problem extending the gear there's a better chance than normal for it to collapse during or after the landing. It doesn't take much time for a mechanic to externally lock the gear down on most planes.
You were concerned about a collapse during the landing, why should that concern evaporate once you are safely on the ground. That said, I'd guess than 90+% of the pilots out there wouldn't give a second thought to taxiing after a good landing like you did, especially with three greens.
Of course, if you had landed successfully only to have the nosegear collapse during the taxi to your tiedown, it would have been blamed on the fact that the pilots were female.
Yup!
If it's a gear problem or possible/known fire, I'm going to be shutting down and getting a tow.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
considering the geometry that Cessna had to deal with on their single engine retracts, the system is about all they could do. you gotta have hydraulic pressure to push the gear out into the relative wind. doesnt matter if its a piper or cessna. the only thing they coulda done to change it wouldve been to move the wing down, and we wouldnt want them doing that...
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't know about that. You don't have to have hydraulic pressure to push the gear out into the relative wind. There would be lots of ways to do that. You *could* design a backup method capable of doing it.
I'm a little confused by your statement too. The Beech Sierra I flew did not need hydraulic pressure to extend the gear. If you had a hydraulic failure the gear would simply fall and lock in place. If there was a pump failure or something you'd turn a valve to release hydraulic pressure and "BOOM BOOM BOOM" a second later you had 3 green.
Without hydraulic pressure the gear was down no matter what. This is the opposite in the Cessna.
I'm not completely sure how the nose wheel was able to fall into the wind so fast. Perhaps it retracted forward instead of back, or sideways or something. It's been too long and I just don't remember.
CJones
Final Approach
I think it's a high-wing vs. low wing situation. While the low-wingers are able to fold their gear directly into the underside of the wing spar area, Cessna is trying to cram both gear legs plus nose gear into the width of the fuselage. It's nice for low-wing retract planes: If you lose hydraulic pressure, the gear has two pivot points to flex and BAM! gear down. For the Cessna guys, they have to fold, twist, turn, retract to get the wheels and legs to fit in the tuck-away space they have available.
The only option Cessna has as far as "lose hyd. pressure and gear falls into place" would be to have the gear pivot from the rear (Retract forward instead of rearward). The engineering aspect of that may seem easy, but think about if you're cruising along at 120kts and the gear falls and locks into place. If the gear leg is 3' long and it's falling from forward into the slipstream and locking into place, that is a LOT of momentum built up that has to stop once it hits its stops.
Just thinking out loud...
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well I know why Cessna did what they did. But the whole system should have been built better. I don't think anyone is going to argue that.
I was mainly curious why tony said low wings need hydraulic pressure to extend.
CJones
Final Approach
I agree. No redundancy in the system if you loose hydraulic fluid. Unless you happened to drink a few 20oz Mt. Dews in flight and have a supply of 'fluid' yourself.
And from my experience with machinery that depends on hydraulic fluid to operate at all - there is ALWAYS a leak.. SOMEWHERE.. But if I blow a high pressure line on a TerraGator, I park in the shade and wait for the Caterpillar mechanic to come deliver a new one - not so easy at 5500'.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
some low wings do. I believe there was a gear up near here in an aztec recently, due to a hydraulic line that got rubbed wrong by a flap cable. apparently in the Aztec, the gear also comes down forward into the air, and requires hydraulic pressure to do so.
stick yer hand out the window at 60 knots, imagine using just gravity to overcome that drag. yea right.
stick yer hand out the window at 60 knots, imagine using just gravity to overcome that drag. yea right.
RogerT
Cleared for Takeoff
Congrats on keeping your cool and saving the plane.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Piper uses gravity on the mains and a spring on the nose for the Arrow. No hydraulic pressure needed.
Aztecs have that funky lump-in-the-bottom-of-the-nacelle retract thing. Kinda reminds me of a DC-3. Doesn't surprise me that it wouldn't work the same.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think Cessna's RG system sucks. One of the worst, IMHO. Lose your fluid? Even the backup extension system won't work. It's been subject to some very expensive AD's too. Even when the emergency extension DOES work, it's quite time-consuming.
For contrast, take Piper - If you lose your hydraulic fluid, the gear just drops. If the motor quits or there's another problem that causes it to not work, you just press the other button and it releases the pressure and drops. (Nose gear has a spring assist, need to be below 87 KIAS).
Even better is Mooney - They simply did away with the whole hydraulic portion of the system. Motor fails, the crank pushes a jackscrew into the system and extends it 100% mechanically, if my memory serves. I'm sure Ed G will fill us in.
Jason, what's your mission?
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
My mission is to convince my wife that I need an airplane.
Nothing fancy. A solid IR platform (when I get my IR). An occasional four seats. Pretty much right up the middle of the 172/PA-28-180 road.
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
yup, think you guys could convince the schools to have different airplanes? Just outta curiosity, is the 182RG any better? We have one but its more expensive.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
My mission is to convince my wife that I need an airplane.
Good luck with that! Cool. You might want to consider a straight-leg 182 rather than a 172RG if you want the extra speed. I bet the extra 3 gph would be offset by the lower insurance and lack of folding gear to maintain. And, the 182 is *very* comfortable (which should make your wife happy) and very very stable as well. Excellent traveling bird.
Are you gonna be at Gaston's? I'd be happy to give you (and your wife, if she's there) a ride.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
It'd probably be easier to convince you to switch schools instead.
Y'know, I hear U-DBQ has a flight school that uses TB20's, and it's a lot closer to MN.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Same basic system as the 172RG for the gear.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
Cool. You might want to consider a straight-leg 182 rather than a 172RG if you want the extra speed. I bet the extra 3 gph would be offset by the lower insurance and lack of folding gear to maintain. And, the 182 is *very* comfortable (which should make your wife happy) and very very stable as well. Excellent traveling bird.
Are you gonna be at Gaston's? I'd be happy to give you (and your wife, if she's there) a ride.
I'm going to try. There is a chance that I'll be in training.
I've seen old N271G in person...she's a beaut. I'd love a ride if I'm there.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
yea tri, 182RG and 172RG have same gear system. Ive never flown a 172RG, but 182RG is a sweeet flying airplane.
kent have you ever pumped down the gear on a cessna single? i think the book calls for about 30 pumps to get it extended. doesnt take that long. i cant think of many situations where you would (or should) be in a hurry to manually extend the gear. you are spoiled with the arrow and its gravity drop. many of the "crank down" style of gear airplanes take many cranks, debonair was 50 i believe. plus the crank was wedged behind the seat. talk about taking a while to extend.
and cessna retracts are fine, as long as you're insured
kent have you ever pumped down the gear on a cessna single? i think the book calls for about 30 pumps to get it extended. doesnt take that long. i cant think of many situations where you would (or should) be in a hurry to manually extend the gear. you are spoiled with the arrow and its gravity drop. many of the "crank down" style of gear airplanes take many cranks, debonair was 50 i believe. plus the crank was wedged behind the seat. talk about taking a while to extend.
and cessna retracts are fine, as long as you're insured
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
The biggest drawback to the Cessna system is if the hydraulic system is compromised there is no back up way to get the gear down. All the hand pump does is replace the electric pump. If the system is loosing fluid neither pump will get the gear down for you.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Didn't someone post something a week or two ago to the effect that their insurance company was not going to cover gear related claims for ANY reason?
Oh, never mind. It was just that the deductible was raised to $10,000 for any gear related incident.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13544&highlight=gear+insurance
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
My mission is to convince my wife that I need an airplane.
Nothing fancy. A solid IR platform (when I get my IR). An occasional four seats. Pretty much right up the middle of the 172/PA-28-180 road.
Simple- just book your next few vacations through Chicago. All it takes is a couple of wasted days at that place. I'd have a plane by now if my wife hadn't discovered Omaha (more direct flights where we want to go). I think only 25% of our trips through Chitown didn't take forever.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,765
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Yeah, I've been pondering a 182RG, now that I've conceded that the MX on a twin would be beyond our reach. This thread is making me think again about an Arrow or a 182 straight leg. Probably the latter because of the payload. Not having a backup for fluid failure scares me a little. Now I realize that I don't remember how the 310 works. Time to pull out the POH before I fly it anymore!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
And the nice wide comfortable cabin.
Likewise. I also don't like how weak the gear looks (yeah, I know it isn't really that weak, but...) and the whole mosquito-legs retract sequence.
If you're looking to get ratings (comm/CFI), get the Arrow. If you just want an airplane to fly around and travel in, you can't go wrong with the 182. But, you know that... You fly one a lot!
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
The gear on the 310 and other twin Cessnas is electric, with a bunch of rods and bellcranks. There is no hydraulic fluid to lose, but the system has its own issues as I found out.
jshawley
Pre-takeoff checklist
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Well.... It's been a long time since I've flown a Twin Cessna, and even a longer time since this happened, but I remember that the system has a lot of moving parts which can get out of adjustment or break. If you're really interested, the Cessna Pilot's Association has more information. In my case the push-pull tube which pushes the nosegear forward into the airstream to extend it bent and broke. Needless to say, cranking the gearbox down had no effect. A year or so later on a preflight of the same airplane (Cessna 320) I found the edges of the nosegear doors scuffed and bent as if they had been contacting the nosewheel during extension or retraction. I have heard that many twin Cessna gear problems are due to the gear not being rigged properly but I also think it's a weak spot in the design of the airplane. Even the guys who came to investigate said, "Oh yeah, this happens a lot."
Anyway, my experience makes me leery of insurance companies which set such high deductibles for gear incidents regardless of the cause. I can see their desire to cover their butts because I'm sure they have statistics which show that gear problems make up a large portion of their claims. Still, it seems to defeat the purpose of having insurance when things that are more likely to happen than other things are treated differently. Similarly, it's very expensive or impossible to get earthquake insurance in earthquake prone areas or flood insurance in flood prone areas. I see the business angle and I realize insurance companies are not charities, but the system seems to favor the insurance company and not the insured... just like they intended.
I don't mean to turn anyone off Cessna 310s or Twin Cessnas in general because they are nice airplanes. Just be aware that this is a possible problem area and have that gear inspected thoroughly before you buy.