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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
fudog50 wrote in
: 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 would simply draw your attention to several designs that could have been or were operated off Enterprise class & later carriers. A3, F4, A5 & F111. All heavier (30-40+ tons) than the Rhino or Growler. I think the rough aim point for approach speeds is something like ` 140Kts +/-. IBM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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"! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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'... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Landing speeds for naval aircraft?
"D"
I think you really tackled a BIG subject here - the complete history of fighter aerodynamics taken from the viewpoint of the 'swing-wing'. If it is aircraft carrier machines then the attitude of the landing aircraft (AOA & necessary hook to landing gear distance) means a lot and then how fast you need to go (or how slow you can go) to achieve that speed based on your weight and drag computed against the component of the wind speed over flightdeck (ship) - gives you most of the formula. But if the ship is doing 100 knots you can land perhaps at 250 knots - and in that you can see that the speed range of the landing configuration has to be worked into things. Ever wonder why the F-106 was such a dream to fly - same speed all the time - just drop the gear and get close to the ground. The shuttle, however, may have more in common with the F-106 then anything else. Now let's hope that some test pilot from Pax jumps in with al the details but you also want to deal with handling issues ad how the engines work in that environment also. Pulling and adding power can be a nice experience or something forcing you to accept disaster. I suspect that swing wing technology for fighters and bombers; don't forget the Mirage G, B-2, Tu-22M, and Blackjack, all had a common thread in enabling takeoffs and landing on existing airfields that were usually under 10,000 feet or so. The use of an automatic maneuvering wing (F-14) brought the concept into the high tech world of fighter comparisons but where the F-14 could out fly an F-4 on similar maneuvers it was quickly learned that when you fly using your own advantages the superiority of any one machine dampens just a bit - the secret is getting the better machine to fly your game. One of the greatest expenditure of millions of dollars throughout all of these programs - and in a way has carried over into the V-22 world - was how do you mechanize the throttles. Think about it - more power / throttle forward but wings forward means more drag and slower. But throttle back slows speed yet wings back implies higher speed to fly with less drag. Big debate that went for decades aircraft to aircraft - country by country. F-111: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever back (auto arrangement possible) to drop back wings F-14: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever forward (auto arrangement possible) to drop back wings MiG-23/27: More speed - Throttle forward - wing lever back with locks to drop back wings Tu-22m/Tu-160: More speed - Throttle forward - wing lever back with locks to drop back wings B-2 Bomber: More speed - Throttles forward - wing lever forward (auto arrangement) to drop back wings Definitely the fighter pilot mentality in the fray. The shuttle could probably be rebuilt much better and instead of wings small retractable winglets might be in order now that material strength and heat tolerance is at high levels and the flight control ability is many times better. Would you build a new Tomcat with swing wings - a Tomcat yes, but a new aircraft the same mission no. Just some discussion "DDAY" wrote in message k.net... 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 |
|
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 |