Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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