If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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"! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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'... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |