[quantum36]

Had an interesting flight yesterday. I landed on a flat nosewheel in a Cessna 172!
I earlier had landed at St. Elmo airport (Alabama) and then took off. Didn't see any problems. But when I touched down back at Brookely Field (KBFM).....
As normally done, I touched down on main gear first, then slowly lowered the nose....Whoa, this is not suppose to happen! Had to steer using brakes. Nonetheless, I landed safely without dinging up airplane!

[Paul53]

Nice landing. Maybe we need tire pressure monitors in planes? Always flew low wing, Cherokees and that family. Seems like a high wing would make the ride a bit more skittish due to being a bit more top heavy. Glad I never tested the theory.

[quantum36]

Originally Posted by Paul53

Nice landing. Maybe we need tire pressure monitors in planes? Always flew low wing, Cherokees and that family. Seems like a high wing would make the ride a bit more skittish due to being a bit more top heavy. Glad I never tested the theory.

Yes, it would be helpful to have pressure monitors.

Good thing it was the nose wheel, and not a main gear tire!

[CitizenOfDreams]

[sns3guppy]

There's no need of tire pressure monitors on a Cessna 172. That's what a preflight is for.

A flat tire on a 172, whether it's a nosewheel or a main gear tire, is not a big deal on landing. I had a wheel completely come apart and separate on landing in a 337 once. It pulled a little to one side, and was perfectly controllable. Not a big deal.

I've had tires fail in much heavier equipment at much higher speeds...also not a big deal.

Think of it as a learning experience. Look back at it and see if there's a reason that tire failed, and there's a way you could have seen it coming or prevented it.

Your preflight checklist does note tire pressures, doesn't it?

[hockeyrcks9901]

Originally Posted by Paul53

Nice landing. Maybe we need tire pressure monitors in planes? Always flew low wing, Cherokees and that family. Seems like a high wing would make the ride a bit more skittish due to being a bit more top heavy. Glad I never tested the theory.

High wings are slightly more stable, weight hanging below the wing rather than balancing above it.

[quantum36]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

There's no need of tire pressure monitors on a Cessna 172. That's what a preflight is for.

A flat tire on a 172, whether it's a nosewheel or a main gear tire, is not a big deal on landing. I had a wheel completely come apart and separate on landing in a 337 once. It pulled a little to one side, and was perfectly controllable. Not a big deal.

I've had tires fail in much heavier equipment at much higher speeds...also not a big deal.

Think of it as a learning experience. Look back at it and see if there's a reason that tire failed, and there's a way you could have seen it coming or prevented it.

Your preflight checklist does note tire pressures, doesn't it?

Yes, I checked tire pressure in pre-flight.

[sns3guppy]

High wings are slightly more stable, weight hanging below the wing rather than balancing above it.

That's a myth. In fact, if that were the case the 747 would be a nightmare to fly. It's not.

[X-ray 4N6]

Forget the Cessna, I want to know what kind of nose-wheel made this furrow here:

[quantum36]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

Forget the Cessna, I want to know what kind of nose-wheel made this furrow here:

Its called an "anti-mohawk".

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by hockeyrcks9901

High wings are slightly more stable, weight hanging below the wing rather than balancing above it.

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

That's a myth. In fact, if that were the case the 747 would be a nightmare to fly. It's not.

Even if it were true, we're referring to a landing in this case, not in flight.

The higher CG above the contact patch of the tire will make a high wing less stable than a low wing in the event of a tire problem. Also, a low wing (typically) has a greater distance between the mains, adding to (landing) stability.

I had a Piper Cherokee 180B several years ago. If you could keep the struts from collapsing, the "wide stance" and low CG made it handle like a go-kart on the ground - nice feature for high cross winds. That was about the only good feature of the plane - it had high fuel consumption, was slow and had a small CG envelope; although the elevator trim on the ceiling was pretty cool.

I had a Ercoupe 415D (with an O-200) as well, the natural landing stability of the wide gear, and low CG, was part of the original cross-wind landing technique - just land in a crab and let the wide, trailing link gear straighten the track on the ground (no capability of slips or skids in the original design).

[samuse]

Originally Posted by CitizenOfDreams

I actually saw something similar to this once.

My dad (crop duster) landed at an improvised runway to get loaded and the plane got stuck in some mud when he was turning around.

The farmer ran out and climbed up on a wing and started bouncing it trying to help him get some traction.

Funny stuff..

[sns3guppy]

Even if it were true, we're referring to a landing in this case, not in flight.

Until you're on the ground, a landing is in flight. Once on the ground, the issue of high-wing vs. low wing, and stability is irrelevant...so the issue always addresses inflight. It has nothing to do with being on the ground.

The higher CG above the contact patch of the tire will make a high wing less stable than a low wing in the event of a tire problem. Also, a low wing (typically) has a greater distance between the mains, adding to (landing) stability.

No, it doesn't make a high wing less stable in the event of a tire problem. Ever had a wheel fail in a high wing airplane? Ever had one fail in a low wing airplane? Neither one is a big deal.

I had a Piper Cherokee 180B several years ago. If you could keep the struts from collapsing, the "wide stance" and low CG made it handle like a go-kart on the ground - nice feature for high cross winds. That was about the only good feature of the plane - it had high fuel consumption, was slow and had a small CG envelope; although the elevator trim on the ceiling was pretty cool.

A cherokee is about like any other light airplane, crosswind or not. They make fine airplanes. The issue of high wing vs. low wing is non-existent. It lands about like any other airplane.

High fuel consumption?

I had a Ercoupe 415D (with an O-200) as well, the natural landing stability of the wide gear, and low CG, was part of the original cross-wind landing technique - just land in a crab and let the wide, trailing link gear straighten the track on the ground (no capability of slips or skids in the original design).

That was one of the main selling points of the ercoupe. It's also annoying, though splitting the controls and putting separate rudder control on them doesn't seem to do much, either.

The 747 gets landed in a crab, too. The gear straightens it right out.

The Cessna 195 employs crosswind gear. It's very annoying if taking a high speed taxiway.

[Lior]

A few years ago I landed on a punctured main wheel tire. Not the most pleasant experience ever, but except for a slight swerve upon touchdown, my mild-mannered Zenair 701 did not play up.