Plane in hte ATL makes belly landing

I thought it was a 200, but then I *just* noticed the aircraft in the photo didn't have a t-tail.
 
goredbirds said:
....B100...it would definitely be a big deal to shut down the motors before impact. That gear box is expensive...
Click to expand...
Laudable to try to mitigate the costs. Still, I think that I'll stick with my point. I have no particular desire to add much risk to this type of situation just to save the insurance company some money. That doesn't match my priorities. Others may say that the incremental risk increase is negligible, and would be willing to take that chance - I'm O.K. with that as long as they realize that they are adding risk, great or small. And that really is the only reason for me to continue posting about this - so that others will take the time before they're in an emergency situation to realize that some actions may have consequences beyond their intended ones, and to make decisions like this very, very carefully.

:)
 
Doug Taylor said:
I thought it was a 200, but then I *just* noticed the aircraft in the photo didn't have a t-tail.
Click to expand...

Just did a search. N86TR is a Model B100, with AIRESEARCH TPE331-5&6SER engines.

Guess you can disregard my PT-6A discussion earlier. :)

Haven't flown anything with these engines, so I'm unfamiliar.
 
Direct drive turbines as far as I know. I really can't imagine why they'd even wildly consider direct-drives on a king air. Especially when Pratt's are the champagne of gas turbine engines.
 
B100's were outfitted with the direct drive Garrett engines because Pratt and Whitney was on strike when Beech was in production. Pratt couldn't meet the demand, so Beech went with the screamer. I flew a B100 for a short time in air ambulance. Good airplane, and the engine didn't have the lag time typical of most turbines. That having been said, it was INCREDIBLY LOUD.
 
Just read some interesting comments on another board regarding those Garretts and the proximity of the prop blades to the cockpit. Might make one rethink their position on shutting down engines prior to those same blades getting torn up upon runway contact, eh?
:D
 
At least in the 19, if we started throwing blades, it'll make an awful racket in the cockpit, but it'll mort the 1a and 1c pax.
 
SteveC said:
Laudable to try to mitigate the costs. Still, I think that I'll stick with my point. I have no particular desire to add much risk to this type of situation just to save the insurance company some money. That doesn't match my priorities. Others may say that the incremental risk increase is negligible, and would be willing to take that chance - I'm O.K. with that as long as they realize that they are adding risk, great or small. And that really is the only reason for me to continue posting about this - so that others will take the time before they're in an emergency situation to realize that some actions may have consequences beyond their intended ones, and to make decisions like this very, very carefully.

:)
Click to expand...

I think a wise man once said "F the airplane"

it's a hunk of overpriced metal and I'd pour gasoline on it and light it afire myself if it meant we all walked away from the scene unharmed.
 
Unless it was a restored civilian OV-10. MikeD knows what I'm talkin' about!

Whoops, forgot he's off doing secret stuff.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Unless it was a restored civilian OV-10. MikeD knows what I'm talkin' about!

Whoops, forgot he's off doing secret stuff.
Click to expand...

still don't care.
it could be the last surviving P51 and I'd pile that mofo into anything I had to in order to GTFO alive.

Risking a life to save damage to an airplane is akin to running your car off the road to avoid hitting a squirrel in my book.
 
Oh and aparently the pilot of that King Air trains here at the FlightSafety Atlanta center and called up one of our instructors for advice durring the emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top