Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Landings With Retracted Wing On F14 Type AC  
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6194 times:

Can an aircraft (type F14,Tornado,Flogger,etc...) land with its wings fully retracted and if so does it happen sometimes .
If yes how high would the landing speed be (I guess it would be higher than normal landing speed).

Just some questions to settle an argument I had with one of my friends.


[edit post]
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6178 times:

Nope! They had one jam back in 1982 and they keep going up to refuel the thing because it can't land.

Doing annual flight physicals on the pilot is a little tougher!

Seriously I don't know but someone will jump in soon. I once talked to a guy who'd landed an F-8 Crusader with the wing in the DOWN position and it rolled farther than he actually had pavement to roll on. Might be similar?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

My guess is it could be landed on a long enough runway. You would have less lift and no flaps. The touchdown speed would be very high and the tyres might not survive. The wing would act something like Concorde's (i.e. a slender delta). Angle of attack would be high, so the pilot wouldn't have much of a view.

Does the F-14 have reverse thrust? Probably not, in which case the landing roll would be extremely long.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6150 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SlamClick:

Do you mean that the F-8 landed with the wings folded (that would be UP) or the variable incidence feature inactive (that would be DOWN)? I've seen a photo of a F-8 flying with the wings folded...

Jetlagged:

The only fighter/attack aircraft that has thrust reversers is the Panavia Toronado.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6133 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I've spoken to an F-14 pilot about this. He said they review the approach and landing procedures for such an event regularly, and occasionally fly approaches simulating just such a malfunction. Apparently, approach speeds are in the neighborhood of 200kts.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6127 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 3):
Do you mean that the F-8 landed with the wings folded (that would be UP) or the variable incidence feature inactive (that would be DOWN)? I've seen a photo of a F-8 flying with the wings folded...

Guess I did not make that clear. He meant the variable incidence - in the down position.

The only effect I can readily see from that is that the body would have a higher angle during low-speed flight. I don't see how it would affect approach speeds, but that is what he told me.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6117 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Regarding the F-8 landing with the wing configured for high-speed flight, I suspect tailstrikes would be an issue upon touchdown.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6100 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 5):
The only effect I can readily see from that is that the body would have a higher angle during low-speed flight. I don't see how it would affect approach speeds, but that is what he told me.

F-8 wing incidence in the down position would give you a lot less aerodynamic braking, so a longer landing roll. In flight drag would also be less, but that would only affect the power setting, unless the flap deflection is limited by the wings beings down.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 3):
The only fighter/attack aircraft that has thrust reversers is the Panavia Toronado

How about the SAAB Viggen? I recall seeing one taxi backwards at an airshow. The F-117 has a thrust reverser which can by used in flight.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
They had one jam back in 1982 and they keep going up to refuel the thing because it can't land.

Do you know what eventually happened to it?

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jetlagged:

You got me on the Viggen - you are quite right. I think it and the Toronado are the only two.

The F-117 does not have a thrust reverser. They have enough problems holding together the exhaust nozzle (which transitions from round to flat) without adding the complexity of a reverser.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 9):
The F-117 does not have a thrust reverser. They have enough problems holding together the exhaust nozzle (which transitions from round to flat) without adding the complexity of a reverser.

My mistake, I saw a reference to F-117 having a thrust reverser. I just re-checked it and found it actually related to the F117 engine on the C-17 transport! I forgot an F number could refer to a fan engine. I should have read the whole article before diving in. Sorry.  footinmouth 



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineAA173HEAVY From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
Do you know what eventually happened to it?

Harry

They flew it into the back of a Globemaster and brought it down safely.

[Edited 2005-03-21 05:55:52]


Insert some famous meaningful quote here
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

the only problem would be that thier landing speed would be quite higher. i'm not certain, but the a/c can't fly under certain airspeeds with that wing in that position. if they could pull it off the only other problems would be a: is there enough runway, b: would the tires hold during touchdown, and c: would the brakes not melt?

great question though. maybe you'd get a better answer in the milav forum.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

If it's a military field (talking about U.S. fighter jets now), you could always try to use the arrestor hook, albeit at the risk of having it ripped off the fuse... The IDF/AF F-15 that came down on one wing (and touched down at something like double the usual speed) had its hook ripped off and was only stopped by a net at the end of the runway IIRC.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is not possible for the Mig-23/27 aircraft. I know of a couple of incidents where Mig-23 pilots forgot the wing at 72 degrees and crashd upon landing. At 45 degrees intermediate setting there have been succesful landings. I also know of a couple of 72 degree takeoffs which resulted in a takeoff speed of around 500 km/h which is around 280 knots(?). If an aircraft does in fact land at that speed i suspect severe landing gear failure.

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5141 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 15):
I know of a couple of incidents where Mig-23 pilots forgot the wing at 72 degrees and crashd upon landing.

If the pilot truly "forgot" to put the wing forward then we might assume that he tried to fly it as if the wings were forward and simply stalled. I would expect with the wings back, if you used the procedure for that configuration the outcome should be okay.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5135 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 15):
If an aircraft does in fact land at that speed i suspect severe landing gear failure.

Why? Touching down smoothly at such a high rate of speed would place less stress on the gear than a hard landing with a side load at normal touchdown speeds. At the speeds you mention, I'd be far more concerned about tire failure than landing gear failure.


2H4


P.S. - Is there such a thing as non-severe landing gear failure?  Wink





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently onlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8232 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5111 times:

The F-14 wing fully retracts somehwere around mach .94 I think. Seems to me, given this, a landing with them folded would be damn tough.

[Edited 2005-03-21 22:12:20]


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes I meant tire failure not landing gear. Oops.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

SovietJet why would a pilot takeoff with the wings back at 72'? Are you saying it was an oversight on his part? I can't imagine a scenario where a pilot would knowingly takeoff with his wings swept back that far. And 280 knots seems like an awful lot to ask of an aircraft tire designed for much lower speeds. By looking at your profile I'm sure you know what you are talking about when it comes to MiG's but these 2 things are confounding me.

N766UA, maybe the F-14's wings automatically retract around Mach .94, but the pilot can always manually put the wings whereever he wants them. I've seen them fly with wings full swept and even the canards out (back when they still worked) at speeds much closer to 200 knots than .94 mach.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5057 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have an article from a Bulgarian magazine called "Krile" translated "Wings". They in turn translated a Russian article about this story. I will give you a short rough translation of this Mig-23 incident.

The first person to take off in a Mig-23 with wings at 72 was Evgeniy Chelombitko on April 19th 1976. This happened at Starokonstantinov airbase where the Mig-23 entered service in 1973. On this day he is supposed to fly a practice sortie and intercept another Mig-23M flown by liutenant Yalimov. Moving the wing to 16 degrees is in the pre-flight checklist however during this period there is major contruction of hangars for the new Mig-23s. In order to lower the risk of hitting contruction machinery during taxiing it was temporarily accepted that all Mig-23s would taxi with wings at 72 and put them at 16 right before turning onto the runway (i.e. at the "tech post" where a couple of ground personnel check the aircraft before it takes off. I personally have seen this as routine at my uncle's former Mig-23 base and current Mig-29/21 base. In fact I was at the truck stationed there so I could watch the planes take off and land from closer.) Anyways the weather during that day was bad with a lower cloud altitude of 400m. The first Mig took off and it was Chelombitko's turn. he was ordered to wait for a Yak-28 that was landing. This was becoming cumbersome since the other Mig was getting farther and farther away and the need to take off was becoming greater. The technicians checked the plane meanwhile and gave a thumbs-up without noticing the wing. Chelombitko in turn was concentrated on sighting the landing Yak and forgot to move the wing. Finally the Yak lands and he proceeds onto the runway. He puts the flaps in takeoff configuration(25 degrees) but doesn't check the display where it confirms whether they are down or not and where there is also a red light which glows "Move wing". Full afterburner is applied as soon as the Yak leaves the runway. The Mig is unarmed and he expects a quick takeoff roll around 500-600m long on a 2400m runway. As soon as he starts the takeoff roll he notices that the plane doesn't "loosen up" and the runway is felt harder than usual. At V1 he pulls the nose up 10-12 degrees which is the standard AOA at which the Mig-23 takes off at. The plane doesn't lift off and continues with the nose wheel off the ground. The intruments are becoming really hard to read since the rough ride is making everything jump in front of him everytime the plane hits the crack between concrete slabs. He increases the AOA to 15-16 degrees. He checks the AOA and afterburner and everything is OK. At this point he increases the AOA to 18-20 degrees at around 450km/h. To the right he notices that he passed a building marking that there is only 500m of runway left. Meanwhile at the control tower no one can see the position of the wing since the plane is too far. No command is given from the control tower. Another controller from a point closer sees the wing but doesn't know what to say since an aborted takeoff would result in an overrun at this great of a speed. In the end nothing is said to the pilot. Chelombitko is frantically looking for the cause of this problem and checks the flaps again seeing that the lever is moved to takeoff. At that point he notices on the display that his wing is at 72. Meanwhile the plane slowly, very slowly lifts off. At around 10m he passes the edge of the runway. Technicians at a small command post 1km from the runway see the plane hurling at them at 500km/h with a 20 degree angle of attack and the fire from the afterburner raising a huge cloud of dust and creating two big vortices behind the plane. Chelombitko movesthe wing to 16 and as soon as it starts moving he feels the sudden lift. The control tower then tells him to check the wing to which he replies that it is at 16. Chelombitko takes off at around 550km/h at a maximum allowed landing gear speed of 350km/h and a normal takeoff speed of 280-290km/h. The plane lifted off just in time due to the low fuel load, no weapons and the 20 degree pitch angle which allowed the engine to contribute some vertical thrust. After takeoff the flight was stable due to the huge speed and the rotation of the landing gear which acted as gyroscopes. After the plane lands no damage is found. He continues with the practice sortie and lands normally. Unfortunately(or fortunately) the next day a Yak-28 lands with the gear up. The pilot of the Yak was reviewed first and in all likelihood all of the commander-general's anger was laid upon the Yak pilot and he was grounded however Chelombitko is made a squad commander soon after the incident. In 1978 at Siaulai airbase captain Krivoshlik takes off with the wing at 72(runway 3500m). Landing with the wing at 45 degrees was first done by a rookie Mig-23 pilot(M. Trebugov) in the Far East in 1976. He noted that the plane felt heavy and sluggish but still landed succesfully. In East Germany a pilot on approach at 45 degrees accidentally moved the wing to 72 instead of 16 and crashed 5km short of the runway at a speed of 350km/h.

Again this was a short rough translation and is not as detailed or well written as it is in the magazine.


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Thank you Sovietjet, very interesting stuff there. At least now the reason for the wing being swept makes sense.

Learn something new everyday  Smile



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5012 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 20):
maybe the F-14's wings automatically retract around Mach .94, but the pilot can always manually put the wings whereever he wants them.

Indeed. In fact, I've read about F-14 pilots overriding the wing sweep, keeping the wings retracted at slow speeds as a dogfighting tactic. The enemy, seeing the swept wings, is understandably fooled into thinking the F-14 is travelling at a high rate of speed. He compensates, blowing past the F-14, while the F-14 lines up on his six and takes care of business.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Apparently, the Tornado is capable of landing with swept wings, although landing speed will be in the order of 200-210 kts (I believe that's the GR1/GR4 - the ADV may be slightly different).

Because of the safety margin, it is expected that the tyres/brakes would survive the landing, but it is likely that they would have to be changed straight afterwards (once they've cooled down, obviously...). Needless to say, this is dependent on having sufficient runway to stop.



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4968 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 18):
The F-14 wing fully retracts somehwere around mach .94 I think. Seems to me, given this, a landing with them folded would be damn tough.

Although the maximum wingsweep is designed for high Mach number flight, that does not mean it will give you no lift at takeoff or landing speeds. The problem is that you won't be able to deploy slats or flaps. It will be tough, but the designers should have anticipated this eventuality and a procedure should be in place which could be practiced in the simulator.

A Tornado shouldn't have difficulty stopping because it has reverse thrust. Presumably the Mikoyan and Grumman designers also thought about the problem of wingsweep failure and came up with a better solution than ejection.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
25 Vzlet : Thanks for that article, SovietJet. Per my observation, Czech MiG-23s routinely taxied with wings fully swept. On the base at Ceske Budejovice, there
26 Post contains images LY744 : Figures. I guess cheating is the only way you can win a dogfight in an F-14. Now where'd I put that flame suit? LY744.
27 HaveBlue : Figures. I guess cheating is the only way you can win a dogfight in an F-14. Now where'd I put that flame suit? This coming from a guy whose country p
28 Post contains images Falcon790 : Good one ! I know this is a little off topic but thought it would be interesting to say. Once I was talking to an Iranian F-5 pilot who flew several
29 Post contains images LY744 : Well I guess the big thumbs up smiley wasn't enough to alert some people to the presence of humour in my aforementioned reply. BTW, as for the fake c
30 MD-90 : Canards?
31 Post contains links and images HaveBlue :
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Landings With Retracted Wing On F14 Type AC
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Experimental Wing On EW-067LL posted Fri Sep 10 2004 18:22:37 by Lorm
What's With This Engine on the A 340? posted Thu May 20 2004 14:39:51 by Tappan
Transparent Part Of Wing On A319!? posted Tue May 4 2004 10:16:19 by Fd728
Parked With Thrust Reversers On? posted Sun Aug 3 2003 03:55:36 by BigPhilNYC
Tail Tank On Different Type 744 posted Thu Jul 11 2002 11:10:20 by Tsufang@ci
Landings With Other Planes posted Tue Jul 24 2001 21:10:05 by Mrman_3k
Why The Avro RJ/ BAE 146 Have Wing On Top? posted Mon Jan 15 2001 04:57:26 by TurboTristar
Russian A/c With Western Add-on's. posted Fri Jan 5 2001 04:17:01 by Pty
AC 744 With No Port Wing Tip? posted Tue Aug 19 2003 18:12:17 by MadViking
Tri-motor - What's That On The Wing? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:50:53 by TimePilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format