Tornado - fast belly landing

[MichaelJP]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

- Michael

[Keith Willshaw]

"MichaelJP" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
>
> What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>

Not necessarily, plenty of aircraft
have been repaired after wheels up landings.

> Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> option?
>
> - Michael
>
>

Given the injuries sufered by many pilots in ejections
I'm not convinced it would be a safer option.

Keith

[BUFF]

"MichaelJP" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
>
> What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>
> Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> option?
>
> - Michael
>

I suspect that the aircrew were given the choice.

[José Herculano]

> What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Hard to tell....

> Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> option?

Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado makes
it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
roll over.

____________
José Herculano

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:22:17 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"MichaelJP" > wrote in message
. ..
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
>>
>> What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>>
>
>Not necessarily, plenty of aircraft
>have been repaired after wheels up landings.

I remember reading of a Flanker that did a gear up landing
unintentionally (at an airshow no less) and all they did was jack it
up, drop the gear, and away it went the next day. IIRC the damage was
minimal.

[news.uunet.dk]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> > What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>
> Hard to tell....
>
> > Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more
expensive
> > option?
>
> Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado
makes
> it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
> believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
> roll over.

I believe, you're wrong. It's actually designed for it. It was tested (on
grass as far as I remember) during development.

A few years a Danish F-16 pilot did a wheels up landing on a runway. It was
shown on national TV (in Denmark). It didn't roll over - all it did was to
put one of the wing tips to the ground when it eventually stopped.

Søren Tjørnov

>
> ____________
> José Herculano
>
>

[MichaelJP]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> > What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>
> Hard to tell....
>
> > Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more
expensive
> > option?
>
> Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado
makes
> it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
> believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
> roll over.
>
> ____________
> José Herculano

Presumably the pilot has to come in flapless, fast and as shallow as
possible.

You wouldn't want much angle of attack on it. ISTR reading that the space
shuttle can't do a belly landing for that reason; i.e. the nose slapping
down would kill the crew.

- Michael

[SteveM8597]

>
>Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado makes
>it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
>believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
>roll over.

Not necessarily. The pilot still has some control authority down to 100 kts or
less. I was involved in the repair of an A-7 that haqs landed gear up several
years back and likewise witnessed the bellyt lanfing of an A-6. Bot landed
safely and were returned to flight after some major sheetmetal work.

The F-4 would land gear up with external tanks mounted. Jack the plane, drop
the gear and tanks, and go fly again.

Steve

[Dudley Henriques]

"MichaelJP" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
>
> What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>
> Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> option?
>
> - Michael

The problem with belly landings in high performance airplanes isn't that
they can't be done, but rather the amount of room needed to do it
successfully factored into an equation that allows enough room to do it with
the touchdown speeds necessary and the odds of not hitting something during
the attempt. Generally, it's considered a fool's move. That being said, it's
entirely possible to do it, and it's indeed been done when good terrain
choice was obvious to the pilot, or circumstances were such that altitude or
seat/canopy malfunction precluded a safe ejection.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dale]

In article >,
"news.uunet.dk" > wrote:


> I believe, you're wrong. It's actually designed for it. It was tested (on
> grass as far as I remember) during development.

I doubt that gear up landings have very much to do with the design on
any aircraft. The gear-up landing your refering to with the F-16 was
the prototype (I think, it was that red/white/blue one) and was done
because the gear failed to extend, not to test the aircrafts gear up
landing performance.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
>The problem with belly landings in high performance airplanes isn't that
>they can't be done, but rather the amount of room needed to do it
>successfully factored into an equation that allows enough room to do it with
>the touchdown speeds necessary and the odds of not hitting something during
>the attempt. Generally, it's considered a fool's move. That being said, it's
>entirely possible to do it, and it's indeed been done when good terrain
>choice was obvious to the pilot, or circumstances were such that altitude or
>seat/canopy malfunction precluded a safe ejection.
>Dudley Henriques

When I first started in the business, I was amazed at the number of
cautions regarding belly landing. For most high performance jets the
flight manual suggests bailout/ejection as preferable in all
situations.

Then one day it dawned on me...."Eureka", I cried!

Consider what happens to your standard land vehicle, i.e. passenger
automobile, when it leaves the paved surface at sixty miles per hour.
The results are usually pretty disasterous.

Now factor in that the auto is steel frame and reinforced doors, motor
in front, etc. Aircraft are light skinned, monocoque, motor continuing
forward through the cockpit, etc.

Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)

Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.

Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
thingie....

[BackToNormal]

BUFF > wrote:

> "MichaelJP" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
> >
> > What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
> >
> > Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> > option?
> >
> > - Michael
> >
>
> I suspect that the aircrew were given the choice.

I saw a Vampire do a bellyflop way back when. Pilot was given the option
of grass or concrete, and took the latter. Sweet touchdown, and very
gentle stop. Played merry hell with one of the (wooden) bulkheads, but
it was flying soon after. Pilot was back up there that same afternoon.

ronh


--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
> >
> >The problem with belly landings in high performance airplanes isn't that
> >they can't be done, but rather the amount of room needed to do it
> >successfully factored into an equation that allows enough room to do it
with
> >the touchdown speeds necessary and the odds of not hitting something
during
> >the attempt. Generally, it's considered a fool's move. That being said,
it's
> >entirely possible to do it, and it's indeed been done when good terrain
> >choice was obvious to the pilot, or circumstances were such that altitude
or
> >seat/canopy malfunction precluded a safe ejection.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> When I first started in the business, I was amazed at the number of
> cautions regarding belly landing. For most high performance jets the
> flight manual suggests bailout/ejection as preferable in all
> situations.
>
> Then one day it dawned on me...."Eureka", I cried!
>
> Consider what happens to your standard land vehicle, i.e. passenger
> automobile, when it leaves the paved surface at sixty miles per hour.
> The results are usually pretty disasterous.
>
> Now factor in that the auto is steel frame and reinforced doors, motor
> in front, etc. Aircraft are light skinned, monocoque, motor continuing
> forward through the cockpit, etc.
>
> Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
> 140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)
>
> Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.
>
> Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
> thingie....

You actually cried EUREKA??? I've ALWAYS wanted to do that, but I was afraid
one of those balloon thingies would form over my head; pick me up and I'd
float away. :-)))))

I'm with you all the way on the belly landings. Even in the Mustang I was
always worried; not so much about the landing speed if I had to put it down
with the gear up, but the radiator scoop. Man, that thing was like an open
maw down there. High performance jets will do you in in a heartbeat fooling
around with this stuff!!
I think it was Tom Sneva, the Indy driver who said this. Some idiot reporter
asked him right after he smacked the wall at 200 plus whether or not he
thought about crashing very much. I think his answer was something like,
" Have you ever seen a human body after it impacts through a crash in an
aluminum can at 200mph? Well I have. Hell man, if we actually took the time
to sit down and think about what happens, I doubt if any of us would even
get in one of these damn things more or less race it". :-)
I think then the reporter asked him if he had an second thoughts about the
crash he just went through. Sneva said, "Listen up here.
If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd ALL have a Merry
Christmas!!!"
You gotta love Sneva!!! Many is the time I'd have loved to say this to a
reporter!! :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:00:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Then one day it dawned on me...."Eureka", I cried!
>>
>
>You actually cried EUREKA??? I've ALWAYS wanted to do that, but I was afraid
>one of those balloon thingies would form over my head; pick me up and I'd
>float away. :-)))))
>
>Dudley Henriques

Actually, I have it on good authority that the last guy to REALLY cry
"EUREKA" was Archimedes. He yelled it to distract his wife who was
PO'd about all the water on the bathroom floor.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:00:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Then one day it dawned on me...."Eureka", I cried!
> >>
> >
> >You actually cried EUREKA??? I've ALWAYS wanted to do that, but I was
afraid
> >one of those balloon thingies would form over my head; pick me up and I'd
> >float away. :-)))))
> >
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Actually, I have it on good authority that the last guy to REALLY cry
> "EUREKA" was Archimedes. He yelled it to distract his wife who was
> PO'd about all the water on the bathroom floor.

No wonder she was ****ed at him. Didn't he realize that with the tub full to
the brim like that, when he put his fat ass in there the water was going to
spill out all over the place? :-)))) Actually, I guess he didn't because
word has it.......at least in Navy circles anyway, that when he got in, the
biggest "idea balloon" in history formed right over his head as he sat in
the tub waiting for the wife bashing, and ship building has never been the
same since!!!!
:-)
Dudley

[OXMORON1]

Dudley asked:
>You actually cried EUREKA??? I've ALWAYS wanted to do that, but I was afraid
>one of those balloon thingies would form over my head; pick me up and I'd
>float away. :-)))))

I think the first time that I thought it all the way through, my response was
"OH SH*T", then I thought about about the warning that I recieved about the
knee clearance on the B-57 ballastic seat and my second thought on the subject
was "I'M SCREWED". Then considering the alternate way out on the A model B-57
was through the side entrance door my thought changed to "I could have gone
into the infantry"

Oxmoron1
MFE

[Dudley Henriques]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley asked:
> >You actually cried EUREKA??? I've ALWAYS wanted to do that, but I was
afraid
> >one of those balloon thingies would form over my head; pick me up and I'd
> >float away. :-)))))
>
> I think the first time that I thought it all the way through, my response
was
> "OH SH*T", then I thought about about the warning that I recieved about
the
> knee clearance on the B-57 ballastic seat and my second thought on the
subject
> was "I'M SCREWED". Then considering the alternate way out on the A model
B-57
> was through the side entrance door my thought changed to "I could have
gone
> into the infantry"
>
> Oxmoron1
> MFE

I remember thinking the same thing climbing into an A4. I stuck my legs down
those tunnels and said to myself, "I don't give a **** WHAT the f**c
McDonnell Douglas says, if I have to get out of this GD thing, my legs are
staying down there for sure!!!"
:-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
> >

> Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
> 140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)
>
> Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.
>
> Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
> thingie....
>

I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.

It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
and the impact was gentle.


Keith

[Dudley Henriques]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
> > Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
> > 140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)
> >
> > Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.
> >
> > Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
> > thingie....
> >
>
> I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.
>
> It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
> on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
> They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
> and the impact was gentle.

Just be advised that a planned wheels up in a high performance jet on a
prepared surface is one thing. A belly landing off in the boonies is quite
another.
The crew in this case seems like they had a plan. I might have tried this
one myself :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Sergio]

"SteveM8597" avait écrit le 05/12/2003 :

> The F-4 would land gear up with external tanks mounted. Jack the plane, drop
> the gear and tanks, and go fly again.

Same happened with some Skyhawks.

--
Sergio

[Dave Kearton]

"Sergio" > wrote in message
r...
> "SteveM8597" avait écrit le 05/12/2003 :
>
> > The F-4 would land gear up with external tanks mounted. Jack the plane,
drop
> > the gear and tanks, and go fly again.
>
> Same happened with some Skyhawks.
>
> --
> Sergio
>



Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to track
down, so scrapping was a safer option.


Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
Adelaide.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Ken Duffey]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
> > > 140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)
> > >
> > > Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.
> > >
> > > Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
> > > thingie....
> > >
> >
> > I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.
> >
> > It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
> > on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
> > They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
> > and the impact was gentle.
>
> Just be advised that a planned wheels up in a high performance jet on a
> prepared surface is one thing. A belly landing off in the boonies is quite
> another.
> The crew in this case seems like they had a plan. I might have tried this
> one myself :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

The runway was also carpeted with foam.....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:56:05 -0000, "MichaelJP" > wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm
>
>What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?
>
>Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
>option?
>
>- Michael
>

Depends on the airplane. Based on the shape, sonme can be safely
bellied in, some can't. The pilots are told which...

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

[Ron]

>Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
>was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
>Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to track
>down, so scrapping was a safer option.
>
>
>Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
>Adelaide.

There is T-38 on display out front of the 80th FTW, Sheppard AFB. Sometime in
the early 80s, the IP and student punched out of it, a couple miles or so from
the runway..It hit in a flat attitude, coming to a stop not too terribly
damaged, at least visibly. I believe the spar was damaged in the initial
impact, to where it was thougth the aircraft should not fly again.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Don Harstad]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.
>
> It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
> on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
> They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
> and the impact was gentle.
>
>
> Keith
>
I saw a Blue Angles F-4 do a gear-up landing at the airport in Cedar Rapids,
IA, about 1970 or so. He did the same thing...he rode it out until the
plane began to slew off the runway, and then he ejected. He made it look
pretty easy... and I also remember that the Blue Angles ground crew jumped
into a station wagon and beat the fire/rescue people to him.

Oh, one other factor was that he lit the afterburners when he realized that
his wheels were up, and gave himself quite a push down the runway.

Don H.

[Dave Kearton]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...




> >Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
> >was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
> >Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to
track
> >down, so scrapping was a safer option.



Just correcting my initial guess , Tullamarine (Melbourne Airport) Oct
'74.



> >
> >
> >Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
> >Adelaide.
>
> There is T-38 on display out front of the 80th FTW, Sheppard AFB.
Sometime in
> the early 80s, the IP and student punched out of it, a couple miles or so
from
> the runway..It hit in a flat attitude, coming to a stop not too terribly
> damaged, at least visibly. I believe the spar was damaged in the initial
> impact, to where it was thougth the aircraft should not fly again.
>
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter


Must be a popular thing to do.

Another Mirage III, A3-36 lost the engine on final to RAAF Darwin in
1986. Pilot noticed the lack of noise and unfamiliar pattern of lights
on the panel, promptly stepped out and changed the aircraft's w&b.
The Mirage floated down to a comparitively soft landing in the mud flats
before the runway.


I saw the airframe 2 years later and the most damage was done by souvenir
hunters, who used axes, angle grinders and some sort of thermonuclear
device to remove bits - including the fin.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:34:13 -0900, Dale > wrote:

> In article >,
> "news.uunet.dk" > wrote:
>
> > I believe, you're wrong. It's actually designed for it. It was tested (on
> > grass as far as I remember) during development.
>
> I doubt that gear up landings have very much to do with the design on
> any aircraft. The gear-up landing your refering to with the F-16 was
> the prototype (I think, it was that red/white/blue one) and was done
> because the gear failed to extend, not to test the aircrafts gear up
> landing performance.

Part of the gear extended. It was only one main that wouldn't come
down and lock.

The joke that went around after this was "What's red, white, and blue
and eats grass?"

I know there was some damage to the inlet, but I don't remember
whether they FODded the engine or not. Anyway, the airplane was back
in the air fairly quickly.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tex Houston]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> Part of the gear extended. It was only one main that wouldn't come
> down and lock.

> Mary


Probably a worse situation than all down or all up.

Tex

[Ron]

>Must be a popular thing to do.
>
>Another Mirage III, A3-36 lost the engine on final to RAAF Darwin in
>1986. Pilot noticed the lack of noise and unfamiliar pattern of lights
>on the panel, promptly stepped out and changed the aircraft's w&b.
>The Mirage floated down to a comparitively soft landing in the mud flats
>before the runway.
>
>
>I saw the airframe 2 years later and the most damage was done by souvenir
>hunters, who used axes, angle grinders and some sort of thermonuclear
>device to remove bits - including the fin.
>

I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
trucked out and flown again.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Hog Driver]

> Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
> option?
>
> - Michael

The A-10 was designed for ease of repair after a belly-landing. The wheels
stick out of the bottom of the gear pods, and differential braking is still
available.

When sitting on its belly, the GAU-8 (the 30mm cannon in the nose) is
protected from damage by having the bottom of the vertical stabs ground off
(the Hog becomes a tail-sitter with the gear still up) instead of the nose
digging in and taking the brunt of the damage. Hogs that have landed this
way have been lifted up with a crane, the gear pried down, bottoms of the
vertical stabs fixed and back into flying condition in no time.

Additionally, should only the nose gear come down, it is a better option to
actually land with the gear fully retracted. I think there are other
non-desirable landing configurations, but I don't have the checklist in
front of me right now.

In case you were wondering, belly landings with dual-engine flameout are not
recommended in the A-10, even though the jet has manual reversion flight
controls (necessary for control once the engine-driven hydraulic pumps are
not operating). The -1 says to get out of the jet and give it back to the
taxpayers if you can't get the motors restarted before the minimum
controlled (2,000' AGL) or uncontrolled (4,000' AGL) ejection altitudes. If
you pull the handles and the seat doesn't work, you have the rest of your
life to figure it out.

[[email protected]]

(Ron) wrote:

>>
>
>I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
>trucked out and flown again.
>
>Ron

Must be damned hard on that pilot's sense of self-worth eh?...
:)
--

-Gord.

[Bob McKellar]

" wrote:

> (Ron) wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
> >trucked out and flown again.
> >
> >Ron
>
> Must be damned hard on that pilot's sense of self-worth eh?...
> :)
> --
>
> -Gord.

Not really. It was in "an uncontrollable flat spin". The ejection itself allowed
a recovery by pushing down the nose, but at the cost of losing the carbon based
stick actuator.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

Bob McKellar

[[email protected]]

"Hog Driver" > wrote:

>
>Additionally, should only the nose gear come down, it is a better option to
>actually land with the gear fully retracted. I think there are other
>non-desirable landing configurations, but I don't have the checklist in
>front of me right now.
>

The Canadian C-119 (and probably others too) have a big hairy
warning in the dash one about 'never landing on the mains only'.
Apparently it's supposed to roll up into a little ball if you do.
Also it's forbidden to attempt a ditching...sure death they say.
I sure wouldn't argue with the manufacturer.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Bob McKellar > wrote:

>
>
" wrote:
>
>> (Ron) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
>> >trucked out and flown again.
>> >
>> >Ron
>>
>> Must be damned hard on that pilot's sense of self-worth eh?...
>> :)
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Not really. It was in "an uncontrollable flat spin". The ejection itself allowed
>a recovery by pushing down the nose, but at the cost of losing the carbon based
>stick actuator.
>
>http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm
>
>Bob McKellar

Ok :)
--

-Gord.

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:33:10 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) allegedly uttered:

(Ron) wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
>>trucked out and flown again.
>>
>>Ron
>
>Must be damned hard on that pilot's sense of self-worth eh?...
>:)

The pilot can't land it, so the plane does the landing for him? Talk
about being scared to go into the O Club!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Ditch]

>I remember thinking the same thing climbing into an A4. I stuck my legs down
>those tunnels and said to myself, "I don't give a **** WHAT the f**c
>McDonnell Douglas says, if I have to get out of this GD thing, my legs are
>staying down there for sure!!!"
>:-)))
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

I thought the same thing when I flew the T-33. I remember being told that if I
have to eject, pull my feet back until they hit these little stops on the floor
and that should provide enough space to clear the panel. Before I pulled the
pins, I did just that and saw I had about an inch to an inch and a half of
space between where my knees would go and the panel.
I didn't care about the bad stuff I had heard about 1st generation ejection
seats, I just didn't want to lose my legs below the kneecaps!!


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Ken Duffey]

Ron wrote:

> >Must be a popular thing to do.
> >
> >Another Mirage III, A3-36 lost the engine on final to RAAF Darwin in
> >1986. Pilot noticed the lack of noise and unfamiliar pattern of lights
> >on the panel, promptly stepped out and changed the aircraft's w&b.
> >The Mirage floated down to a comparitively soft landing in the mud flats
> >before the runway.
> >
> >
> >I saw the airframe 2 years later and the most damage was done by souvenir
> >hunters, who used axes, angle grinders and some sort of thermonuclear
> >device to remove bits - including the fin.
> >
>
> I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
> trucked out and flown again.
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

A Sukhoi Su-27 of the Russian Knights aerobatic team landed on the runway at
Bratislava, Czechoslovkia, during an airshow, with his wheels up.

The pilot simply forgot to lower the u/c !!!

The a/c touched down on the two empty missile pylons fitted under the engine
trunks in a shower of sparks.

The red-faced pilot climbed out unhurt (except for his pride).

The a/c was jacked up, the wheels were lowered and it flew out a few days later.

The pilot went on to become the Russian Knights team leader !!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[[email protected]]

Ken Duffey > wrote:

>
>A Sukhoi Su-27 of the Russian Knights aerobatic team landed on the runway at
>Bratislava, Czechoslovkia, during an airshow, with his wheels up.
>
>The pilot simply forgot to lower the u/c !!!
>
>The a/c touched down on the two empty missile pylons fitted under the engine
>trunks in a shower of sparks.
>
>The red-faced pilot climbed out unhurt (except for his pride).
>


And Mary wouldn't call that 'pilot error', unlike everyone else
in the world of course.
--

-Gord.

[Freddy]

"Ken Duffey" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in
the
> > > > 140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)
> > > >
> > > > Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.
> > > >
> > > > Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
> > > > thingie....
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.
> > >
> > > It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it
down
> > > on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
> > > They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
> > > and the impact was gentle.
> >
> > Just be advised that a planned wheels up in a high performance jet on a
> > prepared surface is one thing. A belly landing off in the boonies is
quite
> > another.
> > The crew in this case seems like they had a plan. I might have tried
this
> > one myself :-)
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
> The runway was also carpeted with foam.....
>

No foam on the runway at all for the landing - not available at most uk mil
airfields. Foam in the pictures is from post-landing dousing of the ac.

[Alan Minyard]

On 05 Dec 2003 15:01:40 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:

>>
>>Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado makes
>>it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
>>believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
>>roll over.
>
>Not necessarily. The pilot still has some control authority down to 100 kts or
>less. I was involved in the repair of an A-7 that haqs landed gear up several
>years back and likewise witnessed the bellyt lanfing of an A-6. Bot landed
>safely and were returned to flight after some major sheetmetal work.
>
>The F-4 would land gear up with external tanks mounted. Jack the plane, drop
>the gear and tanks, and go fly again.
>
>Steve

On the TA-4 we used to refer to the tanks as the "aux landing gear".

Al Minyard

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:27:22 -0600, "Don Harstad"
> wrote:

> I saw a Blue Angles F-4 do a gear-up landing at the airport in Cedar Rapids,
> IA, about 1970 or so. He did the same thing...he rode it out until the
> plane began to slew off the runway, and then he ejected. He made it look
> pretty easy... and I also remember that the Blue Angles ground crew jumped
> into a station wagon and beat the fire/rescue people to him.
>
> Oh, one other factor was that he lit the afterburners when he realized that
> his wheels were up, and gave himself quite a push down the runway.

Oh, no, and I though "It takes afterburner to taxi" was the punchline
to an old joke.

I might have a slide of this, before the ejection. It's pretty ratty,
but it's definitely a Blue Angels F-4 sliding down the runway, with a
lot of flame.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mary Shafer
> writes
>Oh, no, and I though "It takes afterburner to taxi" was the punchline
>to an old joke.

Some say it's standard operational procedure for Jaguar pilots :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:27:22 -0600, "Don Harstad"
> wrote:
>
>> I saw a Blue Angles F-4 do a gear-up landing at the airport in Cedar Rapids,
>> IA, about 1970 or so. He did the same thing...he rode it out until the
>> plane began to slew off the runway, and then he ejected. He made it look
>> pretty easy... and I also remember that the Blue Angles ground crew jumped
>> into a station wagon and beat the fire/rescue people to him.
>>
>> Oh, one other factor was that he lit the afterburners when he realized that
>> his wheels were up, and gave himself quite a push down the runway.
>
>Oh, no, and I though "It takes afterburner to taxi" was the punchline
>to an old joke.
>
>I might have a slide of this, before the ejection. It's pretty ratty,
>but it's definitely a Blue Angels F-4 sliding down the runway, with a
>lot of flame.
>
>Mary

What's your take on the cause for this Mary?...seeing as how it
couldn't be (according to you) pilot error?...

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"