Tornado - fast belly landing

"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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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....

"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

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.