Cessna Conquest weird landing...

[JanetFlight]

Not to be any kind of pilot's judge here...just any sharing opinions >>>

https://www.facebook.com/reel/956891605599567

I think even those without a Facebook account could see...

[Capt Fathom]

Maybe this one?

W967YTx9z4I

[4forward8back]

Ooof!!! Looks like a prop strike on the second touchdown. ADS-B data indicates the aircraft departed 3 hours later.

Also, this thread should probably be moved to Accidents and Close Calls.

[Capt Fathom]

Seems like the nose leg / linkages were damaged, leading to that severe shimmy.

We've all done bad landings and bounced. But you never stop flying it! Note the elevator position. :confused:

[PoppaJo]

I remember doing something similar in a 172. I think I had about 70 hours at time. I know someone who did it in a 210 back in the day, he was slightly more experienced being employed, but did some considerable damage to the nose wheel which cost a bit to fix.

Correct above. The thing will just bounce and bounce until airspeed is such that it can’t do so anymore if you just let it run the show, I know startle will catch many out who have never experienced such a landing before, a bit of what the heck is it doing will hit some especially low hour. I mean, they nearly caught it on the third bounce in the case above, if they just held it off a bit longer she would have been good.

[Andrewgr2]

Note the elevator position. :confused:

… and the wind direction!

[Pilot DAR]

I opine that the pilot chose to land at a runway which was very short compared to that ideal for the airplane, and perhaps with confined approaches (which may affected the decision to land downwind). If the pilot has used the entire length of the runway to land and stop from what appears to have been an extra steep, slow approach anyway, it's probably too short for proper accelerate/stop distance for a normal takeoff - the runway was too short for that airplane. The pilot suspected that, and flew an extra slow approach, so even the meager effort to flare probably resulted in a stall, and drop onto the runway. But once it hit ('cause it's too slow to fly again), hold the nose as light as possible to keep it on the runway, rather than riding through pitch change bounces.

The hard landing resulted in reason to believe there had been nosewheel damage. I was taught (after I'd had a landing gear malfunction in a 310), once you have landed and stopped successfully on three wheels, which are still supporting the plane - stop it, chock all three wheels, and have the gear safely locked down before you taxi it anywhere! Bad enough to execute a landing like that, worse to finish the landing still on three wheels, then have the nose gear collapse taxiing in, and then have two prop strikes!

[B2N2]

Thats a nice airplane with a tool flying it.
Probably hot started that RH engine on the restart too…

https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/210047039/n17tj-1980-cessna-conquest-ii



https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x534/image_deda8195aaec14a31a1041617b173e20b749c1fd.jpeg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Airport_(British_Columbia)

[atakacs]

I am very sceptical that this airframe was flying again 3 hours after that incident 🤔
​​

[what next]

I am very sceptical that this airframe was flying again 3 hours after that incident ​

I have flown quite a bit on Cessna 421 and 414s (which have the same landing gear as this Conquest) and I assure you that those landing gears can take a lot of abuse! As long as the props don't touch the runway you are good to go... The nosewheel obviously suffered some damage (broken torque link maybe?) but maybe it was an easy fix.
The runway is 950m long according to B2N2s Wikipedia link, plenty enough for this plane. My guess would be that out of this unusually steep approach the pilot flared a little late or just not aggressively enough.

[inbalance]

I opine that the pilot chose to land at a runway which was very short compared to that ideal for the airplane, and perhaps with confined approaches (which may affected the decision to land downwind). If the pilot has used the entire length of the runway to land and stop from what appears to have been an extra steep, slow approach anyway, it's probably too short for proper accelerate/stop distance for a normal takeoff - the runway was too short for that airplane. The pilot suspected that, and flew an extra slow approach, so even the meagre effort to flare probably resulted in a stall, and drop onto the runway. But once it hit ('cause it's too slow to fly again), hold the nose as light as possible to keep it on the runway, rather than riding through pitch change bounces.

The hard landing resulted in reason to believe there had been nosewheel damage. I was taught (after I'd had a landing gear malfunction in a 310), once you have landed and stopped successfully on three wheels, which are still supporting the plane - stop it, chock all three wheels, and have the gear safely locked down before you taxi it anywhere! Bad enough to execute a landing like that, worse to finish the landing still on three wheels, then have the nose gear collapse taxiing in, and then have two prop strikes!
The Cessna 441 doesn’t need long runways.
Half of the runway length in this video is enough.
500 meters or 1600 ft is enough.
What we are seeing here is a total lack of basic flying skills.

[Capn Bloggs]

The CP said "hit the aiming point" so I did!

[Sailvi767]

If you watch carefully you can see the prop strike on the right engine. Never should have flown out.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Could be an illusion but it seems to be a steep approach perhaps coming in too fast with a tailwind landing and he simply got caught out.

[sagan]

If you watch carefully you can see the prop strike on the right engine. Never should have flown out.

Yep, when the engine is stopped it appears there is damage to the prop tips?

[MechEngr]

I was rather impressed that the nose wheel shimmy also became rudder shimmy.