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

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

John Carrier wrote:
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

yep, F-8s, at night on 27 chucks....better yee than me...Altho I really
miss not flying single seat Fighters. never knew how much fun it was
until I got into the A-4 and F-16...

SNIP

Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
two
of them.

R / John

yep, F-8s, at night on 27 chucks....better yee than me...

It ah ... built character.

Altho I really
miss not flying single seat Fighters. never knew how much fun it was
until I got into the A-4 and F-16...

The F-8 really made you feel like god in the cockpit. But for the sweetness
of the flying experience, an A-4F was my favorite ride. And it could
confound many a "better" airplane in a fight.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote...

Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
two of them.

Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!

John Weiss wrote:
"John Carrier" wrote...

Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on
two of them.

Indeed! The A-6 took up a LOT of space on Lady Lex!

Gotta ask if anybody that reads this NG CQ'ed onboard Lex..I did, in
1973...still had a mirror...

Or anybody serve onboard Lex, when she was still a CVA??

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