Tornado - fast belly landing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

- Michael

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?


Not necessarily, plenty of aircraft
have been repaired after wheels up landings.

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

- Michael



Given the injuries sufered by many pilots in ejections
I'm not convinced it would be a safer option.

Keith

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

- Michael


I suspect that the aircrew were given the choice.

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Hard to tell....

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado makes
it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
roll over.

____________
José Herculano

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:22:17 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?


Not necessarily, plenty of aircraft
have been repaired after wheels up landings.

I remember reading of a Flanker that did a gear up landing
unintentionally (at an airshow no less) and all they did was jack it
up, drop the gear, and away it went the next day. IIRC the damage was
minimal.

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Hard to tell....

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more
expensive
option?

Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado
makes
it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
roll over.

I believe, you're wrong. It's actually designed for it. It was tested (on
grass as far as I remember) during development.

A few years a Danish F-16 pilot did a wheels up landing on a runway. It was
shown on national TV (in Denmark). It didn't roll over - all it did was to
put one of the wing tips to the ground when it eventually stopped.

Søren Tjørnov


____________
José Herculano

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Hard to tell....

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more
expensive
option?

Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado
makes
it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
roll over.

____________
José Herculano

Presumably the pilot has to come in flapless, fast and as shallow as
possible.

You wouldn't want much angle of attack on it. ISTR reading that the space
shuttle can't do a belly landing for that reason; i.e. the nose slapping
down would kill the crew.

- Michael

Really depends on the type of aircraft. That flat belly on the Tornado makes
it a natural for a safe belly landing with minimum fuel onboard. Don't
believe anyone would try that on an F-16, the bird would almost certainly
roll over.

Not necessarily. The pilot still has some control authority down to 100 kts or
less. I was involved in the repair of an A-7 that haqs landed gear up several
years back and likewise witnessed the bellyt lanfing of an A-6. Bot landed
safely and were returned to flight after some major sheetmetal work.

The F-4 would land gear up with external tanks mounted. Jack the plane, drop
the gear and tanks, and go fly again.

Steve

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3292551.stm

What do you think, would the airframe be a write-off?

Would the USAF do this or just eject as the safer, although more expensive
option?

- Michael

The problem with belly landings in high performance airplanes isn't that
they can't be done, but rather the amount of room needed to do it
successfully factored into an equation that allows enough room to do it with
the touchdown speeds necessary and the odds of not hitting something during
the attempt. Generally, it's considered a fool's move. That being said, it's
entirely possible to do it, and it's indeed been done when good terrain
choice was obvious to the pilot, or circumstances were such that altitude or
seat/canopy malfunction precluded a safe ejection.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

In article ,
"news.uunet.dk" wrote:


I believe, you're wrong. It's actually designed for it. It was tested (on
grass as far as I remember) during development.

I doubt that gear up landings have very much to do with the design on
any aircraft. The gear-up landing your refering to with the F-16 was
the prototype (I think, it was that red/white/blue one) and was done
because the gear failed to extend, not to test the aircrafts gear up
landing performance.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html