Catapult failure

[captain_dalan]

should have picked the viggen to try that with, since its designed for stol

Good idea, i might try it later on this evening.

 

Late EDIT: The landing carriage did hold. I can't tell you what my sink rate was (as i was focused on other things), but i did slam all 3 wheels at the same time at what was at least 3.5 degree glide slope at over 280 km/h. And forgot to pop up the air brakes....... no matter, the gears held even after i overshoot and went into the meadows... :P

Edited April 20, 2017 by captain_dalan

[RaceFuel85]

I read in a book (Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye - Bye Baby) a Tomcat pilot recount a story about being given a wave off just as he was about to trap, while still airborne, only to find he had in fact caught a wire and it pulled his jet to a stop (still airborne), slamming it down onto the deck. If I remember correctly he said the jet was checked over after and found to be fine.

 

Grumman built a few airframes for the sole purpose of dropping them like that to see what would happen. It's one tough bird.

 

Yep.

 

If that had happened to a Hornet they would have just parted it out and pushed it off the edge of the deck..the engine struts would have gone up through the intake trunks and engine bays.

[Robert31178]

"If that had happened to a Hornet they would have just parted it out and pushed it off the edge of the deck..the engine struts would have gone up through the intake trunks and engine bays."

 

Perhaps, or this particular Tomcat was built on a Wednesday, as they way. I saw a documentary once when I was a youngster and they showed the Hornet being drop tested. The mains on the Hornet were capable of handling the weight of the fully loaded plane at a rate of over 30 feet/second.

[KiraTheCat]

The F-86 landed the same way right, boards out and 80%-ish throttle?

 

Yes, I believe so. This was because the 1950's era engines still had a long spool up time. The solution was to put as much drag on the aircraft as possible, so that you could carry as much power as possible on approach, thus not needing to worry quite so much about spool up times. Need speed? Close the speed-brakes. Instant speed, without having to wait for the engine(s) to wind up.

 

1:04 here clearly shows the speed brakes deployed prior to runway landing in the FJ2, the Navy equivalent of the F-86 Sabre.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoB3ViKhCs8

 

The same procedure was continued even after engines got more reliable and faster on the uptake. Good habits die hard? Either way, I'm sure it was difficult to unlearn having power available when looking at that postage stamp of a flight deck, especially at night.

 

As an aside, I know a retired 747 guy who says that's exactly what they did on approaches. Everything out (gear, flaps, the works), THEN start your approach. Their rationale was that if you had everything out beforehand, then you weren't changing the configuration, and thus flying characteristics, of the aircraft mid-way through an approach. Solid reasoning.

 

Hmmm, crash barrier. An excellent suggestion, ghostdog688.

Edited April 25, 2017 by KiraTheCat

[Reflected]

Yes ,the Tomcat dirtied up on downwind (gears, flaps, airbrake, hook, DLC) so that by the time it reached the abeam position it was in landing configuration and on speed. The P&W engine of the A wasn’t too powerful, and took a long time to spool up.

 

The DLC will be a massive help when landing on carriers. It’s like on gliders – instant sink rate change. They’re ~half extended by default, and you can retract or fully extend them with a spring-loaded thumbwheel. Very convenient for glideslope corrections, although they won’t permanently solve an underpowered, low situation.