AirForce Vs Navy Landing Fighter jets
- Thread starter burbguy82
- Start date
I didn't watch the video, Navy pilots FTW.
It is 7 seconds long
OK now lets see both land on a carrier.
LOL.... My bet is that the F18 was practicing carrier landings.
It is likely that one would land and the other would not. Not a good video for sure. I assume a nice soft graceful landing is nothing more than luck on a carrier. To many variables, and a much shorter target.
Yall might not be friends for long talking like that.I've watched @Astro14 land both the 757 and 767, I suspect he did a secret stint in the Air Force
I've watched @Astro14 land both the 757 and 767, I suspect he did a secret stint in the Air Force
Wouldn’t a navy landing damage the gear of an airliner? I’m pretty sure he’s said that he could do a silky smooth flared landing.
You can't flare an airliner like you would a small airplane, as a prolonged flare holding it off to just touch the wheels will yield a 5 star tail strike in the airliner. In the 75/76 you pitch up about 1/2 degree to arrest the decent rate and arrive on the runway holding that attitude.
@Astro14 and @Just a civilian pilot will set me straight if needed
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Carrier landings ( no flare ) in a commercial airliner = hard landing inspection.
It’s rare, but I have seen two aircraft that ( not my flights ) had to have the landing gear replaced.
My company says we have to even report “ suspected hard landings “.
It’s rare, but I have seen two aircraft that ( not my flights ) had to have the landing gear replaced.
My company says we have to even report “ suspected hard landings “.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
No risk of a tail strike on the Airbus A321 ( less margin ) unless you flared way too high ( but that would result in an “ unstable “ call from the PM and low energy GA ).
The limiting factor for landings on ( assuming you flare at the correct height …below 30 feet ) the A321 is “ floating “ issues ( and the PM will ease back on the stick as it floats ). Floating past the TDZ is considered unstable and that call is made by the PM and a low energy GA is initiated ( never done one, except in the sim ).
Last edited:
Because it is compressed about 4x.
Which makes the difference more apparent.
And it also means that the F-16 used up half the runway fishing for a smooth touchdown, so the spindly little landing gear wouldn’t break…
I am a graduate of many USAF schools, including Air Command and Staff College.I've watched @Astro14 land both the 757 and 767, I suspect he did a secret stint in the Air Force
My first airliner was the 747-400.
Touching down smoothly in that airplane was a piece of cake for someone who spent their whole career wrestling a 54,000# F-14 onto a moving Carrier deck within inches of glideslope.
Precision matters.
is the gear on lets say an F-16 "less substantial per ton" than an FA18? Perhaps ue the the requirement of harsher landing conditions?
Absolutely.
is the gear on lets say an F-16 "less substantial per ton" than an FA18? Perhaps ue the the requirement of harsher landing conditions?
The extra structural weight for that landing gear, launch bar, and fuselage strength typically puts USN aircraft at a performance disadvantage to USAF aircraft.
Better thrust/weight without all that extra weight.
Not always true. Famously, the F-4 A-7, and F-111 were built for the Navy landing landing requirements but served well in the USAF.
Landing on, or launching from, a carrier truly would break an airplane like an F-16 or F-15. They would not survive.
It is a harsh and demanding environment.
So, it’s not a case of “add a Tailhook to a ____ and you can fly it off a carrier”.
The airplane had to have been designed and built for the structural loads and environment from the beginning.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
It is very well known that if a pilot doesn't have what it takes to be selected as a U.S. Army Aviator, being selected as a U.S. Air Force Aviator is a good second choice.
Here is some old footage of the F-14 undergoing drop tests.
This is more than double the sink rate, and thus several times the load, to which regular airplanes are designed.
The whole structure of the airplane has to be designed for this.
Launch is no easier. Zero to 180 MPH in about two seconds requires around 3G acceleration. EMALS is smoother than steam, which did not have a uniform load throughout the stroke, but you’re still getting from standing start to flying speed from the catapult shuttle pulling on the launch bar.
So, with a 66,000 combat loaded Super Hornet, the launch bar, an extendable bar on the nose landing gear, is undergoing a few hundred thousand pounds of load and has to be designed to handle the shocks and non-linear acceleration with a solid engineering safety margin.
Again, hook, say, an F-16 nose gear up to that - and, well, the nose gear will go flying, but everything else will still be sitting there on the deck.
This is more than double the sink rate, and thus several times the load, to which regular airplanes are designed.
The whole structure of the airplane has to be designed for this.
Launch is no easier. Zero to 180 MPH in about two seconds requires around 3G acceleration. EMALS is smoother than steam, which did not have a uniform load throughout the stroke, but you’re still getting from standing start to flying speed from the catapult shuttle pulling on the launch bar.
So, with a 66,000 combat loaded Super Hornet, the launch bar, an extendable bar on the nose landing gear, is undergoing a few hundred thousand pounds of load and has to be designed to handle the shocks and non-linear acceleration with a solid engineering safety margin.
Again, hook, say, an F-16 nose gear up to that - and, well, the nose gear will go flying, but everything else will still be sitting there on the deck.
Last edited:
