Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

[DDAY]

What are the carrier landing speeds for:

The F-14 Tomcat?

The F-18A Hornet?

The F-18E/F Super Hornet?




I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address the
commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
technology is being abandoned.

I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early 1980s,
appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.

What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.




D

[Greasy Rider @ invalid.com]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
> postulated :

>What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
>popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
>say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
>requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
>the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.

[Jim Carriere]

Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
> > postulated :
>
>> What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
>> popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
>> say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
>> requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
>> the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
> The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.

Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing
approach speeds.

[John Carrier]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
>> > postulated :
>>
>>> What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology
>>> really
>>> popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you
>>> can
>>> say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
>>> requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer
>>> fit
>>> the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>>
>> The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.
>
> Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing
> approach speeds.

Not exactly true. The F-14 had the lower approach speed by about 10 knots.
The major advantage to the swing wing is that it allows a design to have
good loiter and range characteristics plus excellent high speed capability.
Neither the Bug nor the Rhino can match the Turkey in these performance
parameters.

While high speed is apparently no longer a major design consideration,
loiter and range remain desirable. The Navy, when it hung its future on the
F-18, adapted to the aircraft's limitations in these areas by reducing or
eliminating deck cycles/times and learning to live with its performance
shortcomings.

R / John

[W. D. Allen[_1_]]

Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
complexity or maintenance.

WDA

end


"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
> What are the carrier landing speeds for:
>
> The F-14 Tomcat?
>
> The F-18A Hornet?
>
> The F-18E/F Super Hornet?
>
>
>
>
> I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address
> the
> commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
> technology is being abandoned.
>
> I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
> swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
> few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
> B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early
> 1980s,
> appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.
>
> What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
> popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you
> can
> say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
> requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
> the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
>
>
>
> D
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 891 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, "W. D. Allen"
> wrote:

> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
> complexity or maintenance.

Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
of acceptable.

I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many years.



D

[W. D. Allen[_1_]]

The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings due to
lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are typically
located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural design
problem.

WDA

end

"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
> ----------
> In article >, "W. D. Allen"
> > wrote:
>
>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
>> complexity or maintenance.
>
> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
> of acceptable.
>
> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
> years.
>
>
>
> D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[fudog50]

Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
mean traps?

Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?



On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> wrote:

>The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings due to
>lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are typically
>located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural design
>problem.
>
>WDA
>
>end
>
>"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> ----------
>> In article >, "W. D. Allen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
>>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
>>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
>>> complexity or maintenance.
>>
>> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
>> of acceptable.
>>
>> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
>> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
>> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
>> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
>> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
>> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
>> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
>> years.
>>
>>
>>
>> D
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
>It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
>Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>

[fudog50]

Stick with the original arguement-

"requirements changed and the swing-wing no longer fits
the existing problem set"

No military scenarios exist currently that would make it an option for
the cost.

Vector thrust has taken the place of swing wing.




On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
> wrote:

>What are the carrier landing speeds for:
>
>The F-14 Tomcat?
>
>The F-18A Hornet?
>
>The F-18E/F Super Hornet?
>
>
>
>
>I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address the
>commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
>technology is being abandoned.
>
>I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
>swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
>few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
>B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early 1980s,
>appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.
>
>What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
>popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
>say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
>requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
>the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
>
>
>
>D

[fudog50]

Sorry,
To clarify,

Landing speeds are not the only consideration.

Lift on takeoff is the major consideration.

Can you imagine a Tomcat with TF-30's trying to take off with wings
swept? About 8000 ft maybe on a good day!

(granted with 110-400's and wings extended about 2500 ft)


On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:25:43 -0800, fudog50 >
wrote:

>Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
>mean traps?
>
>Here is a topic for discussion.....
>
>The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
>taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
>intended.
>
>The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>
>Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
>have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
>
>
>
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> wrote:
>
>>The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings due to
>>lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are typically
>>located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural design
>>problem.
>>
>>WDA
>>
>>end
>>
>>"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>> ----------
>>> In article >, "W. D. Allen"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
>>>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
>>>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
>>>> complexity or maintenance.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
>>> of acceptable.
>>>
>>> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
>>> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
>>> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
>>> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
>>> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
>>> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
>>> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
>>> years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
>>It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
>>Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>>Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>>

[M. B.]

> Here is a topic for discussion.....
>
> The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
> taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
> intended.
>
> The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>
> Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
> have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
>


I've heard the arresting gear is being overhauled on USS Reagan IOT support
Operational Test for Growler.

[John Carrier]

"M. B." > wrote in message
news:1Fo9h.6234$J5.4129@trnddc04...
>> Here is a topic for discussion.....
>>
>> The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
>> taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
>> intended.
>>
>> The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>>
>> Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
>> have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
>>
>
>
> I've heard the arresting gear is being overhauled on USS Reagan IOT
> support
> Operational Test for Growler.

Of course, its a function of weight and speed (squared if I remember my HS
physics correctly). The old RA-5C was pretty heavy and fast, the Whale was
just heavy. The F-14 could come aboard at 52.8 (later 54.0 IIRC, don't know
for sure, never flew the airplane with proper engines), but the speeds were
in the mid 130's.

Of course, the big deal on the Rhino (Grihno?) is bring back, so while the
airframe is relatively light, if its weight gets up there and the speed gets
into the high 140's ....

R / John

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
> > postulated :
>
> >What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
> >popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
> >say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
> >requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
> >the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
> The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.

Altho very complicated, wing sweep mechanism issues, onboard the CV,
was nothing compared to the 'nightmares' of avionics, engines, slat
tube breaking, etc. In 2 cruises, I don't remember any of the jets were
ever down for wingsweep. If it was, it was the CADC/computer that was
gooned up, not the mechanism itself. In a painfully diffucult jet to
maintain, wingsweep was a non issue.

[[email protected]]

fudog50 wrote:
> Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
> mean traps?
>
> Here is a topic for discussion.....
>
> The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
> taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
> intended.
>
> The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>
> Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
> have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?

I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
bugs start to wear things out now?


>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> > wrote:
>
> >The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings due to
> >lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are typically
> >located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural design
> >problem.
> >
> >WDA
> >
> >end
> >
> >"DDAY" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >> ----------
> >> In article >, "W. D. Allen"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
> >>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
> >>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
> >>> complexity or maintenance.
> >>
> >> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
> >> of acceptable.
> >>
> >> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
> >> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
> >> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
> >> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
> >> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
> >> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
> >> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
> >> years.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> D
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> >It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
> >Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> >Try SPAMfighter for free now!
> >

[Frank Minich]

The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> fudog50 wrote:
> > Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
> > mean traps?
> >
> > Here is a topic for discussion.....
> >
> > The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
> > taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
> > intended.
> >
> > The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
> >
> > Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
> > have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
>
> I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
> Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
> of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
> faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
> bugs start to wear things out now?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings
due to
> > >lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are
typically
> > >located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural
design
> > >problem.
> > >
> > >WDA
> > >
> > >end
> > >
> > >"DDAY" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >> ----------
> > >> In article >, "W. D.
Allen"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason
swept
> > >>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are
no
> > >>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the
mechanization
> > >>> complexity or maintenance.
> > >>
> > >> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the
definition
> > >> of acceptable.
> > >>
> > >> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a
sleek
> > >> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
> > >> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering
building
> > >> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to
have
> > >> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large
ventral
> > >> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other
than
> > >> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
> > >> years.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> D
> > >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> > >I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> > >It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
> > >Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> > >Try SPAMfighter for free now!
> > >
>

[[email protected]]

Its a changed world. The Forrestals are now called "small decks" by
those grizzled salts that operated from them, and Rhinos are "huge".

Of course the gents who flew A-3s on the 27 charlies may have a
different perspective...


Frank Minich wrote:
> The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
> Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.
>
> Frank
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > fudog50 wrote:
> > > Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
> > > mean traps?
> > >
> > > Here is a topic for discussion.....
> > >
> > > The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
> > > taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
> > > intended.
> > >
> > > The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
> > >
> > > Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
> > > have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
> >
> > I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
> > Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
> > of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
> > faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
> > bugs start to wear things out now?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings
> due to
> > > >lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are
> typically
> > > >located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural
> design
> > > >problem.
> > > >
> > > >WDA
> > > >
> > > >end
> > > >
> > > >"DDAY" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >> ----------
> > > >> In article >, "W. D.
> Allen"
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason
> swept
> > > >>> wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are
> no
> > > >>> longer used. The performance increase was not worth the
> mechanization
> > > >>> complexity or maintenance.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the
> definition
> > > >> of acceptable.
> > > >>
> > > >> I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a
> sleek
> > > >> concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
> > > >> wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering
> building
> > > >> such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to
> have
> > > >> three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large
> ventral
> > > >> one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other
> than
> > > >> that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
> > > >> years.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> D
> > > >
> > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > >I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> > > >It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
> > > >Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> > > >Try SPAMfighter for free now!
> > > >
> >

[[email protected]]

fudog50 wrote:
> Stick with the original arguement-
>
> "requirements changed and the swing-wing no longer fits
> the existing problem set"
>
> No military scenarios exist currently that would make it an option for
> the cost.
>
> Vector thrust has taken the place of swing wing.

As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class. Vectored thrust and
swing wing don't do the same thing at all. Better wings and engines and
digital flight controls have 'replaced' swing wing. Remember when the
Turkey was designed, by whom and why...Swing wing was already stuck in
the designers and $ people heads via the AArdvark...needed a CV capable
Phoenix carrier, Grumman was the USN's darlings...hence the F-14, by
Grumman...
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
> > wrote:
>
> >What are the carrier landing speeds for:
> >
> >The F-14 Tomcat?
> >
> >The F-18A Hornet?
> >
> >The F-18E/F Super Hornet?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address the
> >commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
> >technology is being abandoned.
> >
> >I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
> >swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
> >few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
> >B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early 1980s,
> >appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.
> >
> >What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
> >popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
> >say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
> >requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
> >the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >D

[John Weiss[_1_]]

> wrote...
>
> As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
> speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
> come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.

I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!

[[email protected]]

John Weiss wrote:
> > wrote...
> >
> > As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
> > speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
> > come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.
>
> I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
> carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
> Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!

If ya flew Turkeys onboard FID, like I did, it was a small deck.
Particularly after landing abord IKE, America and Nimitz...

Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
always felt like it was 'small'...

[John Carrier]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> John Weiss wrote:
>> > wrote...
>> >
>> > As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
>> > speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
>> > come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.
>>
>> I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
>> carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
>> Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!
>
> If ya flew Turkeys onboard FID, like I did, it was a small deck.
> Particularly after landing abord IKE, America and Nimitz...
>
> Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
> 'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
> always felt like it was 'small'...

Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on two
of them.

R / John

[John Carrier]

"Frank Minich" > wrote in message
...
> The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
> Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.
>
> Frank

I thought is was a bit faster, mid-140's. Thanks for the info.

R / John

[[email protected]]

John Carrier wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > John Weiss wrote:
> >> > wrote...
> >> >
> >> > As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
> >> > speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
> >> > come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
> >> carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
> >> Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!
> >
> > If ya flew Turkeys onboard FID, like I did, it was a small deck.
> > Particularly after landing abord IKE, America and Nimitz...
> >
> > Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
> > 'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
> > always felt like it was 'small'...
>
> Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on two
> of them.
>
> R / John

yep, F-8s, at night on 27 chucks....better yee than me...Altho I really
miss not flying single seat Fighters. never knew how much fun it was
until I got into the A-4 and F-16...

[John Weiss[_1_]]

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
> two of them.

Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!

[John Carrier]

SNIP

>> Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
>> two
>> of them.
>>
>> R / John
>
> yep, F-8s, at night on 27 chucks....better yee than me...

It ah ... built character.

Altho I really
> miss not flying single seat Fighters. never knew how much fun it was
> until I got into the A-4 and F-16...

The F-8 really made you feel like god in the cockpit. But for the sweetness
of the flying experience, an A-4F was my favorite ride. And it could
confound many a "better" airplane in a fight.

R / John

[[email protected]]

John Weiss wrote:
> "John Carrier" > wrote...
> >
> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
> > two of them.
>
> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!

Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
1973...still had a mirror...

Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??

[John Carrier]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> John Weiss wrote:
>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>> >
>> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
>> > two of them.
>>
>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>
> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
> 1973...still had a mirror...
>
> Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??

Once in T-2's, once in TA-4's, once in F-8's ... including the obligatory
six night passes for the qual.

R / John

[[email protected]]

On 2 Dec 2006 06:37:12 -0800, wrote:

>
>John Weiss wrote:
>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>> >
>> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
>> > two of them.
>>
>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>
>Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
>1973...still had a mirror...

Ayup. T-28C from VT-5 in March, '69. TS-2A from VT-28 in June, '69.

>Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??

Not quite THAT old! ;-)

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[B.C. MALLAM]

On 12/2/06 8:37 AM, in article
om, "
> wrote:

>
> John Weiss wrote:
>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>>
>>> Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
>>> two of them.
>>
>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>
> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
> 1973...still had a mirror...
>
> Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??
>
Did night CQ off San Diego in S2F early 60s


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Weiss[_1_]]

> wrote...
>
> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
> 1973...still had a mirror...

In '75 in the T-2 and A-4, and in '81 in the A-6.

[Ian MacLure]

fudog50 > wrote in
:

> Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
> mean traps?
>
> Here is a topic for discussion.....
>
> The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
> taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
> intended.
>
> The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>
> Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
> have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?

I would simply draw your attention to several designs that could
have been or were operated off Enterprise class & later carriers.
A3, F4, A5 & F111. All heavier (30-40+ tons) than the Rhino or Growler.

I think the rough aim point for approach speeds is something like
` 140Kts +/-.

IBM

[Ian MacLure]

wrote in
oups.com:

[snip]

> Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
> 'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
> always felt like it was 'small'...

Well it is a WWII design.
Much modified to be sure but WWII nonetheless.
Straight deck until 1955-57.
I expect if you told the guys building it that the ship would
one day be landing on aircraft heavier than a B-17 they'd have
though you were nuts.

IBM

[Ian MacLure]

"John Carrier" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> The F-8 really made you feel like god in the cockpit. But for the
> sweetness of the flying experience, an A-4F was my favorite ride. And
> it could confound many a "better" airplane in a fight.

Maybe its just A4 driver attitude but I've met a number of A4
folk who claimed they'd take on anything you cared to throw at
them in that airplane.

IBM

[Red Rider]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> John Weiss wrote:
>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>> >
>> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
>> > two of them.
>>
>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>
> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
> 1973...still had a mirror...
>
> Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??
>

Hummmm. young whippersnappers. T2J-1 with VT-5 on the USS Antietam, CVS-36.
The only time I was ever on the Lex was for quals in an F8U-2 (1961) off San
Clemente Island.

[John Carrier]

"Red Rider" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> John Weiss wrote:
>>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>> >
>>> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps
>>> > on
>>> > two of them.
>>>
>>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>>
>> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
>> 1973...still had a mirror...
>>
>> Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??
>>
>
> Hummmm. young whippersnappers. T2J-1 with VT-5 on the USS Antietam,
> CVS-36.
> The only time I was ever on the Lex was for quals in an F8U-2 (1961) off
> San Clemente Island.

F8U-2 (AKA F-8C)? To borrow from Moon Vance, what we have here is a
memorial service that never happened.

R / John

[Red Rider]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Red Rider" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> John Weiss wrote:
>>>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>>> >
>>>> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps
>>>> > on
>>>> > two of them.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!
>>>
>>> Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
>>> 1973...still had a mirror...
>>>
>>> Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??
>>>
>>
>> Hummmm. young whippersnappers. T2J-1 with VT-5 on the USS Antietam,
>> CVS-36.
>> The only time I was ever on the Lex was for quals in an F8U-2 (1961) off
>> San Clemente Island.
>
> F8U-2 (AKA F-8C)? To borrow from Moon Vance, what we have here is a
> memorial service that never happened.
>
> R / John
>
Yes, the accident rate was a little high at times, about three times as high
as that of the Phantom when it came along.

It didn't become the F-8C until Sept '62, just in time to confuse everybody
for the Cuban training exercise.

[John Carrier]

SNIP

>>> Hummmm. young whippersnappers. T2J-1 with VT-5 on the USS Antietam,
>>> CVS-36.
>>> The only time I was ever on the Lex was for quals in an F8U-2 (1961) off
>>> San Clemente Island.
>>
>> F8U-2 (AKA F-8C)? To borrow from Moon Vance, what we have here is a
>> memorial service that never happened.
>>
>> R / John
>>
> Yes, the accident rate was a little high at times, about three times as
> high as that of the Phantom when it came along.

High enough that airpac started putting out two mishap rates to look
somewhat competitive with airlant: Mishap rate and Mishap rate less F-8s.
The longest mishap free period in the aircraft's history for a squadron was
21 months IIRC.

> It didn't become the F-8C until Sept '62, just in time to confuse
> everybody for the Cuban training exercise.

And the K with a rewing and hard points. Got a few hours in that one.

R / John

[Red Rider]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> SNIP
>
>>>> Hummmm. young whippersnappers. T2J-1 with VT-5 on the USS Antietam,
>>>> CVS-36.
>>>> The only time I was ever on the Lex was for quals in an F8U-2 (1961)
>>>> off San Clemente Island.
>>>
>>> F8U-2 (AKA F-8C)? To borrow from Moon Vance, what we have here is a
>>> memorial service that never happened.
>>>
>>> R / John
>>>
>> Yes, the accident rate was a little high at times, about three times as
>> high as that of the Phantom when it came along.
>
> High enough that airpac started putting out two mishap rates to look
> somewhat competitive with airlant: Mishap rate and Mishap rate less F-8s.
> The longest mishap free period in the aircraft's history for a squadron
> was 21 months IIRC.
>
>> It didn't become the F-8C until Sept '62, just in time to confuse
>> everybody for the Cuban training exercise.
>
> And the K with a rewing and hard points. Got a few hours in that one.
>
> R / John
You know I always felt safe and in control in the F8, but I was young,
foolish, full of **** and vinegar, and thought I was bullet proof, bad
things only happened to other people. What the hell did I know? But I did
manage to log a landing for every takeoff, although it got close a few
times, I never lost confidence in the aircraft.

[WaltBJ]

Only buzzed carriers, being an AF pilot, but our basic fence speed in
the F4D (Phantom, that is)was 122 KIAS plus 2 knots per 1000# over
empty/clean. But we could shave that speed 4 knots or so with a
slippery runway (Da Nang in the monsoon!) . FWIW with zero crosswind
you could plant a F104A, full flaps, at 135. If the F102 had had 8 foot
long gear legs we could have landed it at about 115; but with the
factory gear you'd drag a foot or so off the tailpipe. BTW hows come
only a couple responders mentioned airspeed, and one of them sounded
pretty high? Lots of reserve fuel in case of repeated bolters? Surely
y'all had a basic airspeed to add to in case of extra fuel, external
loads, etc. Or did you fly AOA and ignore IAS?
Walt BJ

[Mike Kanze]

Peter,

John is right - the flying turkeyleg does consume a bunch of real estate on a 27-Charlie.

I never actually hit the LEX myself, but in 1971 I was overhead LEX in the back seat of a T-2C with a VT-7 det, watching the VMA(AW)-224 CQ goon show prior to their 1972 CORAL MARU cruise. The last time any of 224's senior leadership had seen the back end of the boat was in the training command. Nearly all of the Bengals' JOs wore Wings Of Lead, having gone through USAF flight training as an expediency to get them into the cockpits quickly for the VN war, and none had ever CQed.

After VA-95 stood up in 1972, the Lizards took over the Bengals' slot in the CVW-15 lineup. We wound up spending most of the pre-cruise rehab period aboard the CORAL MARU scraping off all the Semper Fi stuff and red/yellow paint out of our squadron spaces.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"TSA (Transportation Security Administration): Thousands Standing Around."

- Thomas P. M. Barnett

> wrote in message ups.com...

John Weiss wrote:
> "John Carrier" > wrote...
> >
> > Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
> > two of them.
>
> Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!

Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
1973...still had a mirror...

Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??

[[email protected]]

Ian MacLure wrote:
> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
> > 'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
> > always felt like it was 'small'...
>
> Well it is a WWII design.
> Much modified to be sure but WWII nonetheless.
> Straight deck until 1955-57.
> I expect if you told the guys building it that the ship would
> one day be landing on aircraft heavier than a B-17 they'd have
> though you were nuts.
>
> IBM

Midway was wide, not much longer than any of them...so in the groove,
it always looked 'small'...plus 3 wires, smaller hook to ramp for the
F-4 than others....small....BUT when flying Turkeys off the 'FID", that
seemed small also....When I got some traps on Kenneerdy, Ike,
Nimitz...Turkey..they seemed huge but they also didn't have an airwing
aboard.

I think part of it was when they parked A/C on the left side of the
landing area...not on the Forrestal class but all the others.

[J.McEachen]

A-3B CLEO was 49k max landing, 117kias
A-3B non-CLEO was 47k, 117kias

Later A-3B's with Cambered Leading Edge wing, noted by slats inboard of
the engines. After 1965 most A-3's were versions: tankers, ECM,
photo-recon, or the overweight EKA-3B (or ERA-3B?) which couldn't
operate from a carrier. But that was after my time (Forrestal was 5
years old, had a starboard side mirror, God's gift to the fleet with a
600psi steam plant, and the Whale was a strategic bomber.)
Joel McEachen VAH-5


Ian MacLure wrote:
> fudog50 > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
>>mean traps?
>>
>>Here is a topic for discussion.....
>>
>>The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
>>taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
>>intended.
>>
>>The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.
>>
>>Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
>>have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?
>
>
> I would simply draw your attention to several designs that could
> have been or were operated off Enterprise class & later carriers.
> A3, F4, A5 & F111. All heavier (30-40+ tons) than the Rhino or Growler.
>
> I think the rough aim point for approach speeds is something like
> ` 140Kts +/-.
>
> IBM

[[email protected]]

WaltBJ wrote:
> Only buzzed carriers, being an AF pilot, but our basic fence speed in
> the F4D (Phantom, that is)was 122 KIAS plus 2 knots per 1000# over
> empty/clean. But we could shave that speed 4 knots or so with a
> slippery runway (Da Nang in the monsoon!) . FWIW with zero crosswind
> you could plant a F104A, full flaps, at 135. If the F102 had had 8 foot
> long gear legs we could have landed it at about 115; but with the
> factory gear you'd drag a foot or so off the tailpipe. BTW hows come
> only a couple responders mentioned airspeed, and one of them sounded
> pretty high? Lots of reserve fuel in case of repeated bolters? Surely
> y'all had a basic airspeed to add to in case of extra fuel, external
> loads, etc. Or did you fly AOA and ignore IAS?
> Walt BJ

AOA and making sure you weren't heavier than than max trap fuel..5.1 in
the later F-4s, 5.7 with tank 7 full in the earler F-4J...GIB made sure
the airspeed was 'proper' but 15 units AOA(?)...

[Frank Minich]

Sorry to jump in late.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> WaltBJ wrote:
> > Only buzzed carriers, being an AF pilot, but our basic fence speed in
> > the F4D (Phantom, that is)was 122 KIAS plus 2 knots per 1000# over
> > empty/clean. But we could shave that speed 4 knots or so with a
> > slippery runway (Da Nang in the monsoon!) . FWIW with zero crosswind
> > you could plant a F104A, full flaps, at 135. If the F102 had had 8 foot
> > long gear legs we could have landed it at about 115; but with the
> > factory gear you'd drag a foot or so off the tailpipe. BTW hows come
> > only a couple responders mentioned airspeed, and one of them sounded
> > pretty high? Lots of reserve fuel in case of repeated bolters? Surely
> > y'all had a basic airspeed to add to in case of extra fuel, external
> > loads, etc. Or did you fly AOA and ignore IAS?

Yep, flew AOA and ignored IAS, once positive that the AOA wasn't stuck.
In the RA5C, I never flew a pass that wasn't auto-throttle - didn't want
paddles to
have a heart attack. Auto-throttle maintained AOA, not IAS.

I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.

As to how much fuel one had at 50,000 pounds, that depended on the recon
equipment installed.

Frank

[Dudley Henriques]

"Frank Minich" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry to jump in late.

> I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
> so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
> with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.

Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley Henriques

[John Carrier]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank Minich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sorry to jump in late.
>
>> I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
>> so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
>> with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.
>
> Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
> wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
> the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).
>
> Dudley Henriques

An often arbitrary measurement of fuselage angle of attack. Sometimes
actual degrees based on the aircraft's ADL/WL (F-18), Sometimes
approximating degrees, sometimes not. The system used either a vane which
fared into the wind or a cylinder or cone with two slots machined into it
(it would rotate into the free stream to equalize the pressure in the two
slots). The angle of rotation is detected by a transducer which sends the
signal to the AOA indicator(s). Usually the front cockpit indicator drives
the cockpit indexers, approach lights (for the LSO) and any stall warning
associated with AOA.

The T-45 AOA formula is Indicated AOA = (Actual AOA + 8.93) / 1.025. No
****. I teach this stuff. One unit AOA deviation from optimum approach AOA
(17 units and approx 8.5 degrees) is 3 knots. A very precise way of
monitoring airspeed and attitude for a carrier landing.

R / John

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

> "Frank Minich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry to jump in late.
>
> > I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
> > so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
> > with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.
>
> Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
> wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
> the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley
we haven't heard from you lately. How ya been?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Harry;

Been fine and thanks for asking.
Just decided after six years of dealing with some of the personalities on
RAM that when a newsgroup begins to change your OWN personality, it's time
to take some time away and regroup so to speak. :-))
Dudley


"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Frank Minich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Sorry to jump in late.
>>
>> > I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but
>> > arbitrary,
>> > so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
>> > with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.
>>
>> Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
>> wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending
>> on
>> the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).
>
> Dudley
> we haven't heard from you lately. How ya been?
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Frank Minich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry to jump in late.
>
> > I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
> > so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
> > with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.
>
> Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
> wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
> the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).
>
> Dudley Henriques

Nope, just the place you flew when on speed...ya know, make the needle
be where it was supposed to be...Don't know know how, just why....

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Frank Minich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Sorry to jump in late.
>>
>> > I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but
>> > arbitrary,
>> > so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
>> > with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.
>>
>> Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
>> wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending
>> on
>> the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Nope, just the place you flew when on speed...ya know, make the needle
> be where it was supposed to be...Don't know know how, just why....

Not sure I understand the reply. If I remember right, the AOA for the Turkey
ran from 0 to 30 units. This represented the probe range of between -10 and
+40 degrees. That's a probe percentage readout . Optimum approach donut
was........Lord I need a memory here :-) 14.5 to 15.5 on amber?????????.

I could be mistaken. It's been 30 years!! :-))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley
Henriques


>

[Ski]

"D"

I think you really tackled a BIG subject here - the complete history of fighter aerodynamics taken from the viewpoint of the 'swing-wing'.

If it is aircraft carrier machines then the attitude of the landing aircraft (AOA & necessary hook to landing gear distance) means a lot and then how fast you need to go (or how slow you can go) to achieve that speed based on your weight and drag computed against the component of the wind speed over flightdeck (ship) - gives you most of the formula. But if the ship is doing 100 knots you can land perhaps at 250 knots - and in that you can see that the speed range of the landing configuration has to be worked into things.

Ever wonder why the F-106 was such a dream to fly - same speed all the time - just drop the gear and get close to the ground. The shuttle, however, may have more in common with the F-106 then anything else.

Now let's hope that some test pilot from Pax jumps in with al the details but you also want to deal with handling issues ad how the engines work in that environment also. Pulling and adding power can be a nice experience or something forcing you to accept disaster.

I suspect that swing wing technology for fighters and bombers; don't forget the Mirage G, B-2, Tu-22M, and Blackjack, all had a common thread in enabling takeoffs and landing on existing airfields that were usually under 10,000 feet or so. The use of an automatic maneuvering wing (F-14) brought the concept into the high tech world of fighter comparisons but where the F-14 could out fly an F-4 on similar maneuvers it was quickly learned that when you fly using your own advantages the superiority of any one machine dampens just a bit - the secret is getting the better machine to fly your game.

One of the greatest expenditure of millions of dollars throughout all of these programs - and in a way has carried over into the V-22 world - was how do you mechanize the throttles. Think about it - more power / throttle forward but wings forward means more drag and slower. But throttle back slows speed yet wings back implies higher speed to fly with less drag. Big debate that went for decades aircraft to aircraft - country by country.

F-111: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever back (auto arrangement possible) to drop back wings
F-14: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever forward (auto arrangement possible) to drop back wings
MiG-23/27: More speed - Throttle forward - wing lever back with locks to drop back wings
Tu-22m/Tu-160: More speed - Throttle forward - wing lever back with locks to drop back wings
B-2 Bomber: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever forward (auto arrangement) to drop back wings

Definitely the fighter pilot mentality in the fray.

The shuttle could probably be rebuilt much better and instead of wings small retractable winglets might be in order now that material strength and heat tolerance is at high levels and the flight control ability is many times better.

Would you build a new Tomcat with swing wings - a Tomcat yes, but a new aircraft the same mission no.

Just some discussion







"DDAY" > wrote in message k.net...
> What are the carrier landing speeds for:
>
> The F-14 Tomcat?
>
> The F-18A Hornet?
>
> The F-18E/F Super Hornet?
>
>
>
>
> I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address the
> commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
> technology is being abandoned.
>
> I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
> swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
> few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
> B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early 1980s,
> appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.
>
> What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
> popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
> say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
> requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
> the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
>
>
>
> D
>