Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:27:10 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-814898@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.34; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <list-812821@logan.com>
References: <list-812821@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: off airport landings-lnc2


> If the G forces on your back are inversely proportional to number of 
> inches of stuff that has to compress before the vertical component of 
> your velocity reaches zero, it seems to me gear down is better on your 
> back.    Not sure how to trade that off against the fire hazard.   In 
> an LIV I would definitely go with gear down.
>

This is always an interesting discussion.  In the Yak/CJ world, because 
the aircraft sits high with the gear down (and in the case of the Yaks 
hangs externally when "up"), it's probably better, in most cases to go 
in gear up.

You have to consider the potential for the nose gear catching and 
flipping the airplane upside down.  Would you go in gear down into a 
corn row?  What about a soggy field?

In the case of the Legacy, I don't know how much energy would be 
absorbed by the gear being down.  I do think that if the mains get 
ripped out there's a good chance of the fuel tanks/lines being 
compromised...somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.

I don't think there are any absolute answers here, though it does seem 
worth the time to consider various scenarios and what the likely 
outcomes would be in both gear up and gear down configurations...

MTC,

Barry