A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Landing speeds for naval aircraft?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 18th 06, 09:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
DDAY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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

Ads
  #2  
Old November 18th 06, 09:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Greasy Rider @ invalid.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
postulated :

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.


The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.


  #3  
Old November 18th 06, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
postulated :

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.


The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.


Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing
approach speeds.
  #4  
Old November 19th 06, 01:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
postulated :

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.


The swing wing was a maintenance nightmare.


Also flaps and slats were improved to be similarly effective at reducing
approach speeds.


Not exactly true. The F-14 had the lower approach speed by about 10 knots.
The major advantage to the swing wing is that it allows a design to have
good loiter and range characteristics plus excellent high speed capability.
Neither the Bug nor the Rhino can match the Turkey in these performance
parameters.

While high speed is apparently no longer a major design consideration,
loiter and range remain desirable. The Navy, when it hung its future on the
F-18, adapted to the aircraft's limitations in these areas by reducing or
eliminating deck cycles/times and learning to live with its performance
shortcomings.

R / John


  #5  
Old November 19th 06, 07:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
W. D. Allen[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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.

WDA

end


"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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 891 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


  #6  
Old November 19th 06, 08:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
DDAY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

----------
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
  #7  
Old November 22nd 06, 09:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
W. D. Allen[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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
k.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!


  #8  
Old November 23rd 06, 10:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

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?



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!


  #9  
Old November 23rd 06, 10:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default 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


  #10  
Old November 23rd 06, 10:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

Sorry,
To clarify,

Landing speeds are not the only consideration.

Lift on takeoff is the major consideration.

Can you imagine a Tomcat with TF-30's trying to take off with wings
swept? About 8000 ft maybe on a good day!

(granted with 110-400's and wings extended about 2500 ft)


On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:25:43 -0800, 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?



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
ink.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!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:40 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 December 2nd 04 08:00 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 3rd 04 12:41 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.