Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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.

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
nk.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 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

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 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

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"!

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'...

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

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

"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