If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
postulated : 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. The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY" postulated : 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. The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare. Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing approach speeds. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message ... Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote: On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY" postulated : 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. The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare. Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing approach speeds. Not exactly true. The F-14 had the lower approach speed by about 10 knots. The major advantage to the swing wing is that it allows a design to have good loiter and range characteristics plus excellent high speed capability. Neither the Bug nor the Rhino can match the Turkey in these performance parameters. While high speed is apparently no longer a major design consideration, loiter and range remain desirable. The Navy, when it hung its future on the F-18, adapted to the aircraft's limitations in these areas by reducing or eliminating deck cycles/times and learning to live with its performance shortcomings. R / John |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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. WDA end "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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 891 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
----------
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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 k.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! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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? 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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
Sorry,
To clarify, Landing speeds are not the only consideration. Lift on takeoff is the major consideration. Can you imagine a Tomcat with TF-30's trying to take off with wings swept? About 8000 ft maybe on a good day! (granted with 110-400's and wings extended about 2500 ft) On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:25:43 -0800, 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? 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 ink.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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |