Tornado - fast belly landing

"Sergio" wrote in message
r...
"SteveM8597" avait écrit le 05/12/2003 :

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

Same happened with some Skyhawks.

--
Sergio




Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to track
down, so scrapping was a safer option.


Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
Adelaide.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:29:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


Add in that the landing speed, under optimal conditions will be in the
140 mph or faster range (remember to convert knots to MPH.)

Now, go back and take that car into the boonies at that speed.

Survivable? I think I'll try out this new-fangled explosive seat
thingie....


I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.

It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
and the impact was gentle.

Just be advised that a planned wheels up in a high performance jet on a
prepared surface is one thing. A belly landing off in the boonies is quite
another.
The crew in this case seems like they had a plan. I might have tried this
one myself :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

The runway was also carpeted with foam.....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:56:05 -0000, "MichaelJP" wrote:

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


Depends on the airplane. Based on the shape, sonme can be safely
bellied in, some can't. The pilots are told which...

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to track
down, so scrapping was a safer option.


Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
Adelaide.

There is T-38 on display out front of the 80th FTW, Sheppard AFB. Sometime in
the early 80s, the IP and student punched out of it, a couple miles or so from
the runway..It hit in a flat attitude, coming to a stop not too terribly
damaged, at least visibly. I believe the spar was damaged in the initial
impact, to where it was thougth the aircraft should not fly again.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...


I just listened to an interview with the RAF aircrew.

It seems they have zero zero seats so the plan was to try and put it down
on the runway but punch out it it started to slew off onto the grass
They reported that the landing was actually quite straightforward
and the impact was gentle.


Keith

I saw a Blue Angles F-4 do a gear-up landing at the airport in Cedar Rapids,
IA, about 1970 or so. He did the same thing...he rode it out until the
plane began to slew off the runway, and then he ejected. He made it look
pretty easy... and I also remember that the Blue Angles ground crew jumped
into a station wagon and beat the fire/rescue people to him.

Oh, one other factor was that he lit the afterburners when he realized that
his wheels were up, and gave himself quite a push down the runway.

Don H.

"Ron" wrote in message
...




Although when a RAAF Mirage III belly landed at Melbourne in 1973 (??) it
was written off, even though the damage was comparitively minor.
Apparently, the stresses on the airframe woud prove too squirrelly to
track
down, so scrapping was a safer option.



Just correcting my initial guess , Tullamarine (Melbourne Airport) Oct
'74.





Surprisingly, it dodged the scrapper's torch and is on display in
Adelaide.

There is T-38 on display out front of the 80th FTW, Sheppard AFB.
Sometime in
the early 80s, the IP and student punched out of it, a couple miles or so
from
the runway..It hit in a flat attitude, coming to a stop not too terribly
damaged, at least visibly. I believe the spar was damaged in the initial
impact, to where it was thougth the aircraft should not fly again.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter


Must be a popular thing to do.

Another Mirage III, A3-36 lost the engine on final to RAAF Darwin in
1986. Pilot noticed the lack of noise and unfamiliar pattern of lights
on the panel, promptly stepped out and changed the aircraft's w&b.
The Mirage floated down to a comparitively soft landing in the mud flats
before the runway.


I saw the airframe 2 years later and the most damage was done by souvenir
hunters, who used axes, angle grinders and some sort of thermonuclear
device to remove bits - including the fin.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:34:13 -0900, Dale wrote:

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.

Part of the gear extended. It was only one main that wouldn't come
down and lock.

The joke that went around after this was "What's red, white, and blue
and eats grass?"

I know there was some damage to the inlet, but I don't remember
whether they FODded the engine or not. Anyway, the airplane was back
in the air fairly quickly.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
Part of the gear extended. It was only one main that wouldn't come
down and lock.

Mary


Probably a worse situation than all down or all up.

Tex

Must be a popular thing to do.

Another Mirage III, A3-36 lost the engine on final to RAAF Darwin in
1986. Pilot noticed the lack of noise and unfamiliar pattern of lights
on the panel, promptly stepped out and changed the aircraft's w&b.
The Mirage floated down to a comparitively soft landing in the mud flats
before the runway.


I saw the airframe 2 years later and the most damage was done by souvenir
hunters, who used axes, angle grinders and some sort of thermonuclear
device to remove bits - including the fin.


I rather like the F-106 that landed in snow intact after the ejection, and was
trucked out and flown again.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

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

- Michael

The A-10 was designed for ease of repair after a belly-landing. The wheels
stick out of the bottom of the gear pods, and differential braking is still
available.

When sitting on its belly, the GAU-8 (the 30mm cannon in the nose) is
protected from damage by having the bottom of the vertical stabs ground off
(the Hog becomes a tail-sitter with the gear still up) instead of the nose
digging in and taking the brunt of the damage. Hogs that have landed this
way have been lifted up with a crane, the gear pried down, bottoms of the
vertical stabs fixed and back into flying condition in no time.

Additionally, should only the nose gear come down, it is a better option to
actually land with the gear fully retracted. I think there are other
non-desirable landing configurations, but I don't have the checklist in
front of me right now.

In case you were wondering, belly landings with dual-engine flameout are not
recommended in the A-10, even though the jet has manual reversion flight
controls (necessary for control once the engine-driven hydraulic pumps are
not operating). The -1 says to get out of the jet and give it back to the
taxpayers if you can't get the motors restarted before the minimum
controlled (2,000' AGL) or uncontrolled (4,000' AGL) ejection altitudes. If
you pull the handles and the seat doesn't work, you have the rest of your
life to figure it out.