Thread: LSA Nose wheel landing/collapse

Please go to the following site and take a look at the comments section. PLEASE help make sure the CT isn't getting wrongly defined.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo...st-mortem.html

Interesting. It looks like this was all caused because of the extra speed on approach and what looked like a poor landing attitude. Students need confidence to get the approach speed and angle right. A slip would have been a great way to increase the decent angle while keeping speed constant, then allowing for a normal round-out and flare. Teaching the "wheelie" attitude (i.e., nosewheel about 6" off the ground) is really important. It is useful for an instructor to fly the airplane in the wheelie attitude while the student is just looking at the sight picture. Too many pilots land in a 3-point attitude, and LSA aren't the only ones subject to this problem - there are plenty of 172s and 182s with bent firewalls too.

As for CG, the CT seems happier at aft CG, but then so do many airplanes. That's just a fact of life.

Doug

It's not a CT, but a Remo.s
No stall just a nose wheel landing. He never arrested his vertical descent. Neither pilot was paying attention at the bottom of the landing and never leveled off. Just nosed it in and no saving it after that because the nose gear was damaged on the first hard hit so the second just folded it under.

Originally Posted by comment section PlaneAndPilotPilotJournalMagazine

...CT had a similar problem and changed the CG limits until the longer fuselage LS model. The 2005 CT has a more forward limit. After that version you need ballast to fly full fuel solo. CG to far forward.]

I recognize the poster, he is correct in that the ctsw cg envelope did change. I have the old envelope, they didn't move it aft they limited the portion that was full forward. This change does create the need for ballast when solo and full fuel.

The implication here is that bad behavior was fixed in the ct and could be fixed here with a more aft cg. This implies that a forward cg leads to incidents like this. Isn't that backwards? The forward cg (longer moment arm) would have higher stick forces and more stability where the aft cg (shorter moment arm) becomes more pitch sensitive.

Originally Posted by Roger Lee

Just nosed it in and no saving it after that because the nose gear was damaged on the first hard hit so the second just folded it under.

I was thinking that too ... the first hit looked pretty flat, 3-point, and that may have done in the nose gear.

Doug

I think your dead on Roger. There was no roundout or flare.

Plain and simple... he flew nose first into the ground. They forgot to round out because they were busy talking.

Neat video. No sound though after the crash?

No sound after the crash?


Hmmm, I wonder why?

I might have learned a few new words in my vocabulary.

airplane flying handbook chapter 8...

Originally Posted by scottj

Plain and simple... he flew nose first into the ground. They forgot to round out because they were busy talking.

I think the instructor is well meaning in trying to offer trips during the flare, but that's not the time to be talking to the student about something new. The instructor should demonstrate and narrate while they're doing it. I'm not saying that it caused the incident, but it might have been a contributing factor.

Doug