The International Cessna 170 Association

This is a bit of tongue-in-cheek....(not meant to be critical of your post 15A):

15A wrote:I love those Connies. They look so elegant!
When I lived in Pompano Fla. in the mid 70's, one was parked at Boca Raton. I got to walk thru it. AMAZING !
Then, a Connie was on final approach for Fort Lauderdale Executive and ran out of gas! That guy planted it in a 3 acre field, surrounded by houses, gear up, with very little damage. Didn't hit anything! What a pilot!

Why? For running out of gas?

15A wrote: This was the same time era when Elvis would keep 'Lisa Marie' (707) at Exec.

Lisa Marie was not a 707...it was/is a Convair 880: http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/lisa_ma ... _jet.shtml

I don't know much about the numbers on heavy iron such as the Connie in the video, but getting her into a 2700 ft rw looks to be quite a feat even if featherweighted. Could they reverse the props on Connies to assist in breaking? I'll bet getting her our of 2700 ft might also be a challenge. Maybe some of you guys that flew them could comment on this. And yes, the Connies were the best looking airliners ever (IMPO)

Yes, 'What a pilot'!!!
Granted, it shouldn't have happened, but he put that ship in that little patch diagonally without injury. He ferried it from South America and was "only" a couple miles short...
I think at one time or another, we've all just squeaked one in on a prayer.
And back then, anything that had 4 jet engines on it was a 707! To me anyhow

JOe, I believe we're talking about two different Connies, right? Your first post said the "out of gas" airplane was geared-up/out of fuel in a field... and the video posted later by Steve shows a healthy Connie deliberately flown in to an airport for static display. (I just wanted to clarify which pilot we're praising.)

Yes... we've all run close of fuel. I've done so more than once. I was just thinking of the difference between a pilot who is short on gas and makes a precautionary landing....versus the pilot who fails to take precautionary action and ends up dead-sticking into a field. I see a vast difference between skill and judgment...and personally require both for one to warrant praise.

Most airplanes will get into fields much shorter than they require for takeoff. We all know a 170, properly flown, will land, over obtacles, in less than 600 feet. The factory specs for a HS125 claim it needs 4100' minimum for landing distances, yet I've demonstrated a measured 1900 including the distance to the airfield boundary to the actual stop. (Wouldn't want to do that w/pax onboard tho'....that was a sales-demo flight to a chief-pilot who needed to be reassured about an airplane which had no thrust-reversers.)
I would think a Connie deliberately landed gear up could use far less than 2700 as long as a panicked pilot didn't forget that stopped props and no hyds for flaps and no gear would have less drag than normal and attempt it too fast.

But I guess if everyone walked away....

It looks like the Greenwood pilot could have had it completely stopped in about 3/5ths of that 2700' runway. No blown or scorched tires! That IS a good one!

Here's a "belly landing" Connie...with added features!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfIzR1bi ... re=related

Well, it's getting too technical for me! But you're right, if everyone can walk away...
Everything aside, that last video was neat!

The possible discovery of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra has been in the news lately. Here's one example from the BBC. So who knows what aircraft she is pictured with in their photo?

It’s a Stearman-Hammond-Y-1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearman-Hammond_Y-1

Pete,
That was quick! I’m impressed. I’d never heard of this plane. Rather humorous that “KLM purchased a Y-1 (PH-APY) for use in training their pilots in tricycle undercarriage.” Instead of a tailwheel endorsement, apparently their pilots needed a tricycle endorsement.