Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3555 times:
A trivial question perhaps but I wonder if the F111, F14, Tornado etc would ever have a reason to take off or land with the wings not in the full forward position ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
legs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
The first thing that comes to mind is a wing sweep actuator failure, though there's probably a couple of other things like control circuitry or feedback mechanism failures that will stop you from sweeping the wings.
I know the F-111 flight manual had charts for landing speeds at different wing sweeps, and according to some of the pilots back in the day it wasn't a huge issue to land with the wings swept back a bit. Obviously, its going to be faster and depending on how swept the wings are the spoilers may well be locked out so you'll use a lot of runway and work the brakes pretty hard.
As far as taking off, they'd probably use way too much runway for it to ever used normally, maybe a ferry flight with only minimal fuel would be the only way to even get off the ground.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3526 times:
The first thing that comes to mind is a wing sweep actuator failure, though there's probably a couple of other things like control circuitry or feedback mechanism failures that will stop you from sweeping the wings.
I know the F-111 flight manual had charts for landing speeds at different wing sweeps, and according to some of the pilots back in the day it wasn't a huge issue to land with the wings swept back a bit. Obviously, its going to be faster and depending on how swept the wings are the spoilers may well be locked out so you'll use a lot of runway and work the brakes pretty hard.
As far as taking off, they'd probably use way too much runway for it to ever used normally, maybe a ferry flight with only minimal fuel would be the only way to even get off the ground.
Thanks but I didn't mean if there was a mechanical problem.
My question, as strange as it seems is whether any of these swing wing Aircraft would take off or land with the wing's not full forward (slightly less)
[Edited 2012-03-24 23:14:27]
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
legs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3493 times:
Operationally, I can't see a situation that would dictate taking off or landing with the wings swept. I'd imagine the F-14 and the Tornado are similar to the F-111 in that as soon as the wings are pulled back from full forward, the high lift devices are locked out and can't operate.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3449 times:
I think my rather unusual question is still not clear.
I did not mean taking off or landing with the wings fully swept.
I was referring to a situation were they might take off or land with the wings slightly less than the full forward position.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
legs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3421 times:
I can only talk about the F-111, but takeoffs and landings would be pretty achievable at 26 degrees of sweep (17 is full forward). Though like I said, past this point the flaps and slats are inhibited, so any further back is essentially out of the question.
However, full forward was normal operating procedure. Short of a mechanical malfunction, Im almost positive it didnt happen otherwise.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
I'm not sure about the 111 however I know the 14 was flight tested with the wings in less than full forward & sweep asymmetry. There's a pix of a test 14 with one wing full forward & the other fully swept.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
I know on the FB-111, and possibly on the other "long wing" F-111 models the leading edge slats, trailing edge flaps, and the spoilers were fully functional back to 26 degrees of sweep. IIRC, the Mig-23 had a similar feature, but I don't know about the F-14.
But I also seem to recall if the outboard wing hardpoints (the ones that did not swivel as the wings swept aft) you had to take-off with the wings set to 17 degrees (full open) and then sweep back to 26 degrees after take-off.
Thats right, the 4 outer wing points were fixed at 26 degrees, but were the only ones where the entire pylon was jettisoned, not just the payload. Wing sweep aft of 26 degrees was locked out by a switch that the pilot could toggle on the wing-sweep control handle.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
I never saw and F-14 have it's wing sweep system fail in the air. A lot of redundancies were built into the system. The pilot could move the wings electrically with a switch on the throttle. If that failed he could control it manually with a handle next to the throttle that was mechanically linked to the system. If a hydraulic system failed the actuator with the operational hyd system would drive the other one.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
I don't ever remember hearing of any F-111 model or any F-14 ever having a wing sweep failure in flight. I'm not saying it never happened, I am saying I never heard of one happening.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 207 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
