View Single Post
  #50  
Old January 4th 07, 03:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Ski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

"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