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

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!

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!

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!

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.

"M. B." wrote in message
news:1Fo9h.6234$J5.4129@trnddc04...
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.

Of course, its a function of weight and speed (squared if I remember my HS
physics correctly). The old RA-5C was pretty heavy and fast, the Whale was
just heavy. The F-14 could come aboard at 52.8 (later 54.0 IIRC, don't know
for sure, never flew the airplane with proper engines), but the speeds were
in the mid 130's.

Of course, the big deal on the Rhino (Grihno?) is bring back, so while the
airframe is relatively light, if its weight gets up there and the speed gets
into the high 140's ....

R / John

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!

The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

wrote in message
oups.com...

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!

Its a changed world. The Forrestals are now called "small decks" by
those grizzled salts that operated from them, and Rhinos are "huge".

Of course the gents who flew A-3s on the 27 charlies may have a
different perspective...


Frank Minich wrote:
The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

wrote in message
oups.com...

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!

"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

I thought is was a bit faster, mid-140's. Thanks for the info.

R / John