Tornado - fast belly landing

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

"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

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.

"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.

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

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

"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

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

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

"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