Damn...That just happened.
Welcome to thick skin.
Welcome to thick skin.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Another "praise the Raptor" article
- Thread starter Lonestar155
- Start date
Hahah, that's what I was thinking. Sorry UpstateSouthpaw, I tried. I'm going back over to this side of the room now...
You might just be a damn fine JO one day.
CWJones411
IRR
I think we should re-examine and re-argue the old "jet on a treadmill" problem.
(Too soon?)
(Too soon?)
Holy Crap! But is that at all a good test as to whether an aircraft's landing gear could survive a carrier landing? I'd figure that in a powered descent, you wouldn't have the same kind of vertical velocity as you would in a free-fall drop test (free-fall in this context meaning uncontrolled and un-powered, not falling in a frictionless environment).
High school physics. Velocity in the X-axis does not affect velocity in the Y axis. If you're looking to design landing gear to withstand a landing at 1400fpm, would it not make sense to calculate how far of a drop it takes for the jet to reach 1400fpm, and then just drop the jet?
I'm not an engineer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I did take basic Newtonian mechanics to get commissioned . . .
The whole point of "landing," no matter how hard you do it, is that your component of velocity in the y direction is slower than a free fall. That's why airplanes land whilst going forwards, because the forward velocity produces lift which counters the airplane's desire to free fall otherwise. In other words, your rate of acceleration is less than 32.2 ft/s^2, thus a "drop test" would cover seem to cover most scenarios. Not to mention that I think the engineers who did this drop test knew what they were doing -- otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a hold of the plane in the first place.
Bunk, is that a sarcastic remark?
uch_125:
Down is down. The vertical component is the same. A drop that ends up at 1400 ft/min has the same energy as a constant 1400 ft/min descent.
FYI, just looked in my Prowler NATOPS. Max allowable sink rate at normal landing weight (45,500#) is 1400 ft/min. You can land heavier (up to 51,000#) and flare it but you only get 600 ft/min descent.
Normal rate of descent at the boat is about 600 ft/min and you don't flare. And if the deck is pitching, that upward motion is added to your downward. No AF designed airplane could take that abuse.
There is a story about a no flap/no slat at the boat (about 1100 ft/min descent) where the pilot centered the high ball in close. Put the gear through the wing root.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
AA, just to give you an idea of the descent rates needed to land on the boat, somewhere in the ballpark of 600 fpm is needed for some aircraft and that don't take into effect a deck coming up to meet you, or a gooned up correction in close (chopping power and falling like rock).
There is no flaring.
Edit- and like Steve said, certain emergencies will have even higher.
I can't find the max for below 46,500 pounds for the E-2, but above that we have to be less than 500fpm.
There is no flaring.
Edit- and like Steve said, certain emergencies will have even higher.
I can't find the max for below 46,500 pounds for the E-2, but above that we have to be less than 500fpm.
Which is why you never lead a low, always lead a high, and never recenter a high ball in close. Violating those rules leads to the aforementioned large corrections.
I think we should re-examine and re-argue the old "jet on a treadmill" problem.
(Too soon?)
Die.
CenterMass
Member
Looks like hornet variant got scond kill on F-22...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
Today was Electronic Awareness Warfare Appreciation Day at Andrews AFB. The base hosted a sort of petting zoo for high-tech jamming systems. I noticed a Boeing EA-18G parked on the side, and struck up a conversation with the pilot.
As we chatted about interference cancellation systems, I couldn't help but notice an odd decal decorating the side of the fuselage. I asked the pilot: What's that aircraft decal on the fuselage?
"That's an F-22," he said.
Well, why is it there?
"Because this is the EA-18G that killed an F-22," he explained.
Um, really?
Alas, after that bombshell, the conversation quickly dried up. I did learn the EA-18G kill was courtesy of a well-timed AIM-120 AMRAAM shot. And I learned the simulated combat exercise took place at Nellis AFB. How the EA-18G escort jammer got the shot, and whether its jamming system played a role in the incident were not questions the pilot was prepared to answer.
For the spotters, the aircraft pictured above is EA-1, the first of two Lot 27 F/A-18Fs converted into flying prototypes for the EA-18G program.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html