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
  #41  
Old December 10th 06, 07:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
J.McEachen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

A-3B CLEO was 49k max landing, 117kias
A-3B non-CLEO was 47k, 117kias

Later A-3B's with Cambered Leading Edge wing, noted by slats inboard of
the engines. After 1965 most A-3's were versions: tankers, ECM,
photo-recon, or the overweight EKA-3B (or ERA-3B?) which couldn't
operate from a carrier. But that was after my time (Forrestal was 5
years old, had a starboard side mirror, God's gift to the fleet with a
600psi steam plant, and the Whale was a strategic bomber.)
Joel McEachen VAH-5


Ian MacLure wrote:
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

Ads
  #42  
Old December 10th 06, 02:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


WaltBJ wrote:
Only buzzed carriers, being an AF pilot, but our basic fence speed in
the F4D (Phantom, that is)was 122 KIAS plus 2 knots per 1000# over
empty/clean. But we could shave that speed 4 knots or so with a
slippery runway (Da Nang in the monsoon!) . FWIW with zero crosswind
you could plant a F104A, full flaps, at 135. If the F102 had had 8 foot
long gear legs we could have landed it at about 115; but with the
factory gear you'd drag a foot or so off the tailpipe. BTW hows come
only a couple responders mentioned airspeed, and one of them sounded
pretty high? Lots of reserve fuel in case of repeated bolters? Surely
y'all had a basic airspeed to add to in case of extra fuel, external
loads, etc. Or did you fly AOA and ignore IAS?
Walt BJ


AOA and making sure you weren't heavier than than max trap fuel..5.1 in
the later F-4s, 5.7 with tank 7 full in the earler F-4J...GIB made sure
the airspeed was 'proper' but 15 units AOA(?)...

  #43  
Old December 11th 06, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Frank Minich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

Sorry to jump in late.

wrote in message
ups.com...

WaltBJ wrote:
Only buzzed carriers, being an AF pilot, but our basic fence speed in
the F4D (Phantom, that is)was 122 KIAS plus 2 knots per 1000# over
empty/clean. But we could shave that speed 4 knots or so with a
slippery runway (Da Nang in the monsoon!) . FWIW with zero crosswind
you could plant a F104A, full flaps, at 135. If the F102 had had 8 foot
long gear legs we could have landed it at about 115; but with the
factory gear you'd drag a foot or so off the tailpipe. BTW hows come
only a couple responders mentioned airspeed, and one of them sounded
pretty high? Lots of reserve fuel in case of repeated bolters? Surely
y'all had a basic airspeed to add to in case of extra fuel, external
loads, etc. Or did you fly AOA and ignore IAS?


Yep, flew AOA and ignored IAS, once positive that the AOA wasn't stuck.
In the RA5C, I never flew a pass that wasn't auto-throttle - didn't want
paddles to
have a heart attack. Auto-throttle maintained AOA, not IAS.

I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.

As to how much fuel one had at 50,000 pounds, that depended on the recon
equipment installed.

Frank


  #44  
Old December 17th 06, 04:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley Henriques


  #45  
Old December 17th 06, 02:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley Henriques


An often arbitrary measurement of fuselage angle of attack. Sometimes
actual degrees based on the aircraft's ADL/WL (F-18), Sometimes
approximating degrees, sometimes not. The system used either a vane which
fared into the wind or a cylinder or cone with two slots machined into it
(it would rotate into the free stream to equalize the pressure in the two
slots). The angle of rotation is detected by a transducer which sends the
signal to the AOA indicator(s). Usually the front cockpit indicator drives
the cockpit indexers, approach lights (for the LSO) and any stall warning
associated with AOA.

The T-45 AOA formula is Indicated AOA = (Actual AOA + 8.93) / 1.025. No
****. I teach this stuff. One unit AOA deviation from optimum approach AOA
(17 units and approx 8.5 degrees) is 3 knots. A very precise way of
monitoring airspeed and attitude for a carrier landing.

R / John


  #46  
Old December 18th 06, 06:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

In article , "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).


Dudley
we haven't heard from you lately. How ya been?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #47  
Old December 18th 06, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

Hi Harry;

Been fine and thanks for asking.
Just decided after six years of dealing with some of the personalities on
RAM that when a newsgroup begins to change your OWN personality, it's time
to take some time away and regroup so to speak. :-))
Dudley


"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but
arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending
on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).


Dudley
we haven't heard from you lately. How ya been?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur



  #48  
Old December 18th 06, 11:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley Henriques


Nope, just the place you flew when on speed...ya know, make the needle
be where it was supposed to be...Don't know know how, just why....

  #49  
Old December 18th 06, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


wrote in message
ups.com...

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Frank Minich" wrote in message
...
Sorry to jump in late.


I always understood the AOA units were somehow calibrated but
arbitrary,
so the 139 KIAS was the nominal speed that corresponded to on-speed AOA
with full flaps and 50,000 pounds max-trap weight.


Units should be either a percentage of the lift coefficient curve for the
wing or a percentage of the AOA vane as determined by the OBC depending
on
the type if I remember....but I'm getting old :-)).

Dudley Henriques


Nope, just the place you flew when on speed...ya know, make the needle
be where it was supposed to be...Don't know know how, just why....


Not sure I understand the reply. If I remember right, the AOA for the Turkey
ran from 0 to 30 units. This represented the probe range of between -10 and
+40 degrees. That's a probe percentage readout . Optimum approach donut
was........Lord I need a memory here :-) 14.5 to 15.5 on amber?????????.

I could be mistaken. It's been 30 years!! :-))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley
Henriques





  #50  
Old January 4th 07, 03:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Ski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default 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

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 09:27 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.