Originally Posted by
Ex FSO GRIFFO
Question for those 'in the know'.......
In such a case, for both the aircraft and the outcome, is it better to land on the grass, less friction, = less damage(?), or the hard bitumen?
I witnessed a Be55 Baron at Perth many moons ago land on the bitumen at YPPH and the noise was 'shrieking', in that one could imagine the metal underbelly being ripped open like a sardine can.....whereas on the grass would be 'softer' would it not?
I remember the C.310 at SY many many moons ago, when the pilot selected the grass, made a long approach, engines off, used the starter motors to align the two-bladed props horizontal, and slid it along the grass, with what was described as 'minimal damage'.....
Never had to do it, but, always thought that the grass would have been my choice.......
OVAH!
P.S.......'WELL DONE' that pilot
Runway surface was wet today at Newcastle. Must of had rain. That would of reduced some of the friction when the aircraft landed on the runway with its belly. The pilot did really well = 10/10.