Looks like another 1953 Cessna 180 has gone to the airplane graveyard this week. Everyone managed to walk away with one taking a trip to the hospital to get a minor injury looked at.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/four-people-survive-small-plane-crash-in-bend/283-3ed7736d-e4da-488f-afec-022338c16bb3?fbclid=IwAR32f5kBYeFNISL-cfhS5XtI60a1KELl9x_WumVWN5k78R0RC87UUSuvUu0


My heart goes out to Mr. B as I know how much work he has gone through with his ground up restoration. Following his build on YouTube has really helped me to understand a few more things about our series of airplane and has given me some ideas to implement on my bird. I'm really happy that the airplane did its job at keeping everyone safe. Airplanes are easily replaced, people are not.

Very sad for the pilot/restorer. I hope he stops here soon to let us know he’s OK, and know that we feel his pain.

I see now that this was N7757C.
I have an old Air Progress magazine (1970's) which featured a pirep on this airplane.
At that time, it was fitted with a pair of manual-wastegate Rajay turbochargers.
( the name of the article was "Going Up!")
It was up for sale on BS not long ago, current registration is dated 2016 so maybe the owner decided not to sell it.
Or maybe it was up for sale longer ago than I remember.
Anyway, I emailed the seller and ended up sending him a scan of the article.

I enjoy hearing about these old airplanes continuing to soldier on.
I sure hope this one is rebuilt and flies again.
"You can't keep a good data plate down".

Very Sad, Glad everyone got out alright. I had the pleasure of seeing her at Lake Hood this summer, clearly a LOT of work done.

Recent crashes are taking a toll on the active fleet of C180 aircraft. This one was from near Townsend, MT. Wednesday, 2 Jan 2019. Powerline strike.

https://kxlh.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/2019/01/02/small-plane-crash-reported-near-townsend/

Very sad. Even after high and low recons in Pawnees, I have cut two wires with the prop and had the cable from the cabin to the vertical stabilizer save me once. Training pilots in high wing airplanes, which have poor visibility in turns, was scary.

Saying they shouldn't be there doesn't help those whose work takes them there, nor does it help those who choose to be there.

PapernScissors wrote:Recent crashes are taking a toll on the active fleet of C180 aircraft. This one was from near Townsend, MT. Wednesday, 2 Jan 2019. Powerline strike.

https://kxlh.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/2019/01/02/small-plane-crash-reported-near-townsend/

The pictures in that clip make me want to fly airplanes with steel cages....

PapernScissors wrote:Recent crashes are taking a toll on the active fleet of C180 aircraft. This one was from near Townsend, MT. Wednesday, 2 Jan 2019. Powerline strike.

https://kxlh.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/2019/01/02/small-plane-crash-reported-near-townsend/

Sure a bummer, glad they survived.
It's not clear to me from the news reports if the "powerline strike" was the cause of the crash or a result of the crash.
FWIW the registration for that airplane is dated the beginning of last month, so maybe a new owner unfamiliar with the aircraft?
I saw the two different groundlooped airplanes at KBVS a couple weeks ago-- a PA12 & a C180, both very nice airplanes.
Checking the registrations, both were purchased within the last 8 months or so.

pilotryan wrote:...My heart goes out to Mr. B as I know how much work he has gone through with his ground up restoration. Following his build on YouTube has really helped me to understand a few more things about our series of airplane ....

Idon't think I've ever seen an air filter configured quite like that on a C180.
Can you provide a link to the youtubes?
I don't really wanna wade through a bunch of footage,
hopefully he has something recapping his mods.

One of the few video he has.

I teach tailwheel ratings, have flown a few hundred hours in 180/185, and have seen some recent 180 losses in my local area . Subject is close to heart. In one loss the new owner was getting checked out by an experienced pilot, landing on a narrow bush runway, flared with a higher rate of sink, bounced, then was welcomed by the open arms of the alders that knew just what to do with an airplane adrift with no airspeed or control.

This subforum is accident analysis, I'm curious to hear more from experienced 180 pilots on how to keep our collective hull insurance rates down. Paved airport is in most circumstances pretty benign compared to the real serious stuff the plane is capable of doing. I don't want my students to lose an airplane every time a gust comes along. Can we get any suggestions if not consensus from the high-time 180 guys on here: extra speed and control of wheel landing?

Fast wheel landings with partial flaps get the 180 on the ground with more control at touchdown and less as it slows down. Full flaps and a slower power/pitch approach, or short final, requires slow flight rudder and throttle skills. The users of either technique generally believe that technique is more preventative of bounce and/or ground loop. Regardless, the greater the vertical speed and/or forward speed when control is lost, the greater the damage.

I prefer to control when the airplane touches down and I prefer to touchdown as slow as practicable. In bad gusting conditions, not using throttle movement necessary to control sink and balloon and using mostly aileron to fight wing drop will ruin the full flap slow short final to controlled touchdown technique.

I would be interested in what percentage of loss of control accidents occur when doing touch and go landings and takeoffs. A second of distraction while resetting flaps or trim and off we go on a wild ride. Personally I do full stop landings, either taxi back or stop and go.

Tim

Agree, I do no touch and goes with my 180. It's just too easy to get into trouble, with no real advantage.

bat443 wrote:A second of distraction while resetting flaps or trim and off we go on a wild ride. Personally I do full stop landings, either taxi back or stop and go.

Tim

Good advice. I have always leaned towards full stop taxi backs. It is real easy to forget to reset trim, especially in a busy pattern with the tower asking if I need assistance while I'm getting ready to punch it. (Anybody know why they are asking me that? Maybe its the string of pan pan pan calls associated with my n number... ).

Another thing to mention is that during my initial PPL training, my flight-school did not permit touch and goes in their rental aircraft. Maybe they were onto something.

pilotryan wrote:

bat443 wrote:A second of distraction while resetting flaps or trim and off we go on a wild ride. Personally I do full stop landings, either taxi back or stop and go.

Tim

Good advice. I have always leaned towards full stop taxi backs. It is real easy to forget to reset trim, especially in a busy pattern with the tower asking if I need assistance while I'm getting ready to punch it.

Absolutely terrible, terrible advice.

How do you expect to be proficient at a go-around if you aren't in practice of a simple touch and go? Maybe not as common asphalt to asphalt as landing off airport, but even still. You're going to be up shit creek and then some when you have no option but a go around and you lack the basic muscle memory to preform one.
That moose or other aircraft that unexpectedly appears or the strip that's shorter than you thought is going to have most of your attention and brain power while your body is sitting idle wondering what the hell to do.

Skywagon go arounds are not voodoo. Max Power - Retract Flaps. As fast as you say it, you perform it.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Big difference between a go around from the flare or just after touch down with the change in trim and flap setting occurring once the power is in and the airplane is airborne and looking down at the trim setting or reducing/retracting flaps while rolling out before the power is put in and the airplane is airborne. I stand by my original statement. Touch and goes do not teach go around muscle memory unless you are putting the power in before re configuring the airplane to a takeoff configuration. Remember flaps 30 or 40 are not an approved takeoff configuration. I do agree that all pilots should be able to do a go around in any airplane they are flying.

Tim

TradeCraft wrote:

pilotryan wrote:

bat443 wrote:A second of distraction while resetting flaps or trim and off we go on a wild ride. Personally I do full stop landings, either taxi back or stop and go.

Tim

Good advice. I have always leaned towards full stop taxi backs. It is real easy to forget to reset trim, especially in a busy pattern with the tower asking if I need assistance while I'm getting ready to punch it.

Absolutely terrible, terrible advice.

How do you expect to be proficient at a go-around if you aren't in practice of a simple touch and go? Maybe not as common asphalt to asphalt as landing off airport, but even still. You're going to be up shit creek and then some when you have no option but a go around and you lack the basic muscle memory to preform one.
That moose or other aircraft that unexpectedly appears or the strip that's shorter than you thought is going to have most of your attention and brain power while your body is sitting idle wondering what the hell to do.

Skywagon go arounds are not voodoo. Max Power - Retract Flaps. As fast as you say it, you perform it.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

x2. A touch and go is a basic building block in pilot proficiency.

Sounds like that flight school is choosing their insurance premiums over worthwhile training - I’m sure that’s not a first. We live in a pretty litigious society and shit gets expensive fast.

If you can’t successfully accomplish a touch and go, I wouldn’t feel confident with you operating as a PC.

That’s a base task in all military aircraft. As in, one of the first things you learn and are graded on come check ride time.

It's interesting to think about the relationship between touch & goes and go-arounds. When I was in primary training, go-arounds could happen (instructor calling it) at any point and in any configuration in the approach and landing sequence, down to the slowest point of the rollout. Touch & goes were the standard for landing practice and I routinely did them as a 9 hour solo student, but I have to admit I never thought of them as prep for a go-around. It seemed more like a way to squeeze more landings into the available time. The prescribed sequence for a touch & go was to let the nose wheel come down (C-150), get the flaps up and trim set, then push the throttle in. Maybe others have a different definition of a touch & go. I guess that's some prep for a go-around, but it seems a pretty limited slice of the possible situations.

So, to the extent a touch & go is defined as a specified sequence of tasks to get the airplane in takeoff configuration while rolling on the runway and then taking off, it seems to me to be a small part of go-around practice. I admit I should do more go-arounds in more configurations, although I think I have done a lot over the years in hundreds of off-airport site evaluations, landings, and almost-landings when things got a little sporty. If I'm practicing landings at an airport, I just don't do touch & goes. I probably should do some occasionally to stay sharp and for the reasons stated by CamTom. I certainly agree that it's strange for a flight school to prohibit touch & goes, at least in nose wheel airplanes.

I'm genuinely interested in others' perspective on this.

7GC,
I think we should train and be prepared for the unexpected, to the extent we can anticipate the unexpected.

Because I have emphasized the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach that puts us down slowly and softly on the numbers consistently, I have favored going around early or just landing.

If we touchdown slowly and softly on the numbers and then see a deer 1,000' down the runway, we should continue the landing and stop. If we are rounding out and see the deer 1,000' down the runway, the choices are not so good.