- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
And lastly, they can see if they are good enough to be “ just a civilian pilot”
AirForce Vs Navy Landing Fighter jets
- Thread starter burbguy82
- Start date
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.
Here's an F-16 (I think Turkish Air Force):
Here's the nose gear of a Super Hornet:
Simulator suggest the F16 might be able to land on a Carrier but not fold it's wings...
Well, that was a terrible landing. Lined up left all the way, fast all the way.
So, you found a video of a simulator flown by a below average pilot and suggest that this fantasy actually translates to the real world?
The landing gear would not survive, and that hook would not survive, so neither would the airplane or the pilot.
Do tailhooks get replaced after a certain number of traps?
Yes. In my experience in A-4s & A-7s, hooks are replaced after 100 traps. Other aircraft may have differing criteria, I don't know.
Army Warrant officers are not required to have a college degree. They are required to have relatively high GT scores.
This is so the Army can take in relatively young, very bold young men to do the kind of missions required. They complete nine weeks of Basic Combat Training as a Private, then the Warrant Officer School, then 12-18 months flight training.
Based on personal experience in the 7th Cavalry and their performance in conflicts since, this program works. For example, the pilots that flew the SEAL team into Bin Ladin’s compound were from the 160th SOAR. They just don’t talk about it (except one, a little. CW5 Doug Englen).
In this video of a carrier landing, you can see the constant throttle manipulation by the pilot.... Especially as he nears touchdown. Do these turbojet engines have that quick of a throttle response?
I always thought there was a time lag when power was applied, to when it was actually received? This because it takes time for the engine itself to, "spool up".
From around the 0:40 second mark, up to when he applies full throttle just before touchdown, he's all over the place with the throttles.
I always thought there was a time lag when power was applied, to when it was actually received? This because it takes time for the engine itself to, "spool up".
From around the 0:40 second mark, up to when he applies full throttle just before touchdown, he's all over the place with the throttles.
On older airplanes, they replaced the whole hook after a certain number of traps.
On newer airplanes, the hook point is a replaceable item. Just the metal end that contacts both the deck and the cable gets replaced. Somewhere, I have an F-14 hook point, it’s about 10lbs of steel.
Here is a worn one for sale. When new, they are much thicker at the bottom. But the hook is held down, hard, by an accumulator, so that it won’t skip and it doesn't take long for it to wear when it is slammed into the non-skid surface of the deck and dragged along. Kind of like the world’s biggest 36 grit sandpaper pad.
https://live.amoskeagauction.com/lot-details/index/catalog/51/lot/28522/F-14-Lot
Yes, you do move the throttle a lot, and yes, the engines do respond that quickly. They’re “spooled up” and running at a high RPM.
The F/A-18 (in all its various forms) has a LOT of drag when in the landing configuration. Those huge trailing edge flaps and drooped ailerons allow it to fly slow enough to land, but crate a great deal of drag. Because the drag is so high, the thrust has to be high, so the engines are in the high RPM range and respond instantly.
Older airplanes, like the A-6 or F-14, that had high lift wings, didn’t have that much drag when landing, so, their landing configuration included extended speed brakes. It was part of the F-14 landing checklist, for example “Speed Brakes…extended”. That extra drag from the extended speed brakes allowed the engines to be in a higher RPM range and offer better throttle response.
The F-14 still had poor throttle response in the landing configuration - both because the wing was so efficient and because the engines were still at a modest RPM even with speed brakes extended.
As an illustration of the differences in airframe - an F-14, at 54,000 lbs landing weight, actually used slightly less fuel/min in the landing configuration than a 32,000 F/A-18C.
All that said - this guy is rough on the throttles. Some guys are smooth. Some aren’t. This guy is rough. I’ve flown the airplane, and this is not the best technique.
So... Is it safe to say modern fighter jet engines will respond faster going from half to full throttle, because they're already at a somewhat high RPM, than they would going from flight idle, to say half throttle?
In addition to all the previous commenters, look at how rough the seas are. This was not a light wind day, so I’m not surprised to see him jockeying the throttles.
