F-117 Landing Distance

[Charles Talleyrand]

I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.

The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.

Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
so long?

See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/17v3.pdf
rule 2.2.3 and 3.20.

[Ron]

>I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
>drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
>device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>
>The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>
>Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
>so long?

Because a 737 is designed for it, and has reversers...I would guess the 117 has
higher landing speeds too.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[S Lee]

Ron choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:

>>I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using
>>the drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an
>>arresting device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>>
>>The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>>
>>Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
>>so long?
>
> Because a 737 is designed for it, and has reversers...I would guess
> the 117 has higher landing speeds too.

I'd back the landing speeds idea, but perhaps also they'd want to lessen
the chances of losing the plane on a shorter runway?

--
__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked."

[Ragnar]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
> drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
> device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>
> The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>
> Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
> so long?

Umm, because the F-117 has poor landing/takeoff characteristics?

[Jim Baker]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
> drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
> device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>
> The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>
> Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
> so long?
>
> See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/17v3.pdf
> rule 2.2.3 and 3.20.
>
Probably the same reason as for a T-38, although no drag chute on the T-38
due to lower weight. Small/few wheels, small/few brakes.

JB

[Emilio]

The landing distance is 7400 feet according to this website:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-117.htm

As for USAF F-117 requirements, that is what's allowed. Suppose the
requirement changes to half the takeoff and landing distance, than F-117
design may change to having swing wing so that more lift can be generated at
a slower air speed. But that will add complexity and cost. Do the mission
criterion justify this added complexity and cost? Who decides? Many
requirements get tweaked as hardware gets built.

Emilio.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
> drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
> device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>
> The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>
> Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
> so long?
>
> See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/17v3.pdf
> rule 2.2.3 and 3.20.
>
>

[Ken Duffey]

When the F-117 first came to RAF Fairford in the UK a few years back it
was supported by a KC-10.

We could listen in on the tower frequency and the farce that unfolded
was comical.

First they asked that the arresting gear be deployed - so that the F-117
could land on Fairfords 10,000 ft runway.

Then someone pointed out that it was SOP for the KC-10 to land first
(presumably to make the area safe for the F-117 ??) - so they then had
to un-deploy the arresting gear, land the KC-10, re-deploy the gear then
land the F-117!!

Good job they weren't fuel critical !!!

Come to think of it - there was some haste in getting them both down!

IIRC there was some debate about whether the KC-10 could land with the
arrestor gear in place - but folded down. I think they decided that it
was too dangerous to have the KC-10 run over the grommets on the
arrester wires.

Ken

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
> drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
> device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
>
> The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
>
> Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
> so long?
>
> See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/17v3.pdf
> rule 2.2.3 and 3.20.
>
>

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> >I notice that the Air Force rules for an F-117 landing without using the
> >drag chute require a runway of at least 10,000 feet and an arresting
> >device at the end of this 10,000 foot runway.
> >
> >The minimum runway for takeoffs by rule is 8,000 foot.
> >
> >Even a 737 can do better than this. Why is the runway requirement
> >so long?
>
> Because a 737 is designed for it, and has reversers...I would guess the 117 has
> higher landing speeds too.
>

By FAA rule, you have to assume the reversers won't deploy when planning
landings. The speed thing made sense.