Why can't you flare an F14?

[Szoke]

I know you never flare landing on a carrier, and I know you shouldn't even flare landing on runway. But is there a reason why you shouldn't flare landing on normal runway? I tried to look it up everywhere but can't seem to find the answer. I know there has to be one (right? )

[IronMike]

There is no reason to flare, as you land on speed, that is by AOA, while in other aircraft you might not even think about your AOA (too much) - it ofc matters - which means you land already at the perfect combination of pitch angle and speed. You can see that how gently she touches down when you are on speed and below -500 FPM. Nothing prevents you from flaring btw, but it is more likely that you will screw up your on speed, and also she has a large rear.

On a boat the on speed AOA additionaly provides the most favorable angle for the hook to grab the wire. Because landing on the boat is your primarily expected and perishable skill, doing it on land how you do it on the boat (including flying a Case I even if landing on land), is a good way to prevent said skill from perishing, too.
 

Also: welcome to the forums! I hope you enjoy yourself here.

Edited May 4, 2023 by IronMike

[Zabuzard]

You can flare, it reduces the stress on the landing gear. Its just that it will also increase the runway length you need until you come to a full stop and the chance of doing mistakes in such a critical situation is of course much higher (pull up too early or to heavy and you crash). And the brakes are not really that strong, so there is a risk that you run out of runway and land in the grass.

For a carrier landing, it means that you would likely miss the wires. It is much harder to aim your touchdown point if you perform a flare at the end.

The landing gear is strong enough to land without a flare, so theres no need for it.

[Despayre]

57 minutes ago, IronMike said:

... and also she has a large rear.

...

Did you just call my girl fat?!

[fat creason]

56 minutes ago, Despayre said:

Did you just call my girl fat?!

I think you mean THICC

[cheezit]

 

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

 and also she has a large rear.

 

1 hour ago, Despayre said:

Did you just call my girl fat?!

 

The Tomcat was introduced in 1974, and delivered to Iran from 1976-1978.

 

In 1978, the Persian-British singer-songwriter Freddy Mercury released the single "Fat Bottom Girls".

 

[Bremspropeller]

There are other factors at play, like tyre pressure (possibly deflated a bit for shore-only ops) and hydroplaning-issues.

Some aircraft were more subceptable than others. The A-7 with hi pressure tyres supposedly needed unflared-landings to prevent hydroplaning on wet runways and unfavourable winds. I also seem to remember a tendency for tyre blow-outs on flared landings for hi pressure A-7 tyres. Not 100% sure if I put that memory into the correct file-cabinet, though.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Dannyvandelft]

Funny that this thread popped up. The other day I had a runway landing, and it was so smooth, on speed and without a flare, that when the weight came on wheels and the DLC deactivated, she took off again so used to keeping the power on, on deck that I never cut the throttles on a land runway

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Temetre]

Fells like flaring would make it a lot more difficult to land precisele? Normal carrier aproach is almost gliding in a straight line and hit the deck at an acceptable speed. If you try to flare, you make curve out of the line, and its gonna be way more complicated to judge.

Probably better to have a bit more wear on airframe and landing gear, than to have more risky and less predictable carrier landings. Even with the US Navy, that usually is very concerned about maintenance effort and cost.

 

Btw reminds me of a funny clip from an air show, where the air force pilots makes a super smooth landing inclusive flairing, while the Navy pilot just precisely slams down his F-35 xD 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

Iranians do it pretty smoothly with flaring and airbraking, so do I on shore, just to keep my other aircraft landing skills.

[Temetre]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb draconus:

Iranians do it pretty smoothly with flaring and airbraking, so do I on shore, just to keep my other aircraft landing skills.

I think the Navy does it to keep the training consistent? Better to learn one way of doing things than two, espeically if the fliers are rarely ever land-based.

If your Iranian and got no carriers, theres no reason to train harder landings. Doubly so with limited replacement parts and maintenance capability.

[grant977]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:31 AM, Dannyvandelft said:

Funny that this thread popped up. The other day I had a runway landing, and it was so smooth, on speed and without a flare, that when the weight came on wheels and the DLC deactivated, she took off again so used to keeping the power on, on deck that I never cut the throttles on a land runway

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

I know what you mean I have to make a mental note when landing ashore every time not to go mil at the touch.

[Szoke]

Wow, thank you all for the replies, it really is a great forum, didn't expect this much answer!

I know the theory on carrier landings with the wires and the hook, the reason I was confused was because on the shore landing training, the instructor says 'remember, you never flare an F14 on landing'. It would seem logical to me to flare on shore based landing, because it's less stress on the aircraft  -  even if it's designed for it, the instructor didn't say that 'you don't have to flare', he said 'you NEVER flare'. I was thinking it may have a high possibility of tail strike or something? I am just looking for a technical reasoning like a child ("tell me why I can't").

On speed AOA at the moment of touchdown didn't seem that essential to me, because there are no wires to catch, so in theory you could get away with flying proper on speed AOA during the approach, then just before touchdown you start to bleed off speed with flaring and as with "normal" airplanes, and the moment the aircraft stalls is precisely the moment of the touchdown, and you don't have to lose that much speed while the wheels are on the ground, less brake usage. So that's why I was asking if there is a technical reason why you shouldn't.

 

The training and practicing of a perishing skill makes sense, but still the phrasing the instructor used made me thinking.

 

Thank you everyone for the replies!

[Temetre]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb Szoke:

The training and practicing of a perishing skill makes sense, but still the phrasing the instructor used made me thinking.

Its probably about psychology. Landing an aircraft on a carrier is a highly stressful job, so some rules you really wanna beat those rules into pilots heads. If a pilot remembers "You dont have to flare" means he has to make a mental decision, when its "you never flare", then he doesnt even have to think about it and just does it.

Seems to be a general logic behind military drills? Teach people certain actions to do under stress without thinking. Because under stress your ability to make decisions degrades, slows you down, and add to the stress. Also goes into the "train how you fight" thing. If you trained to flare on a runway, and dont on a carrier, its hard to make the switch.

 

But no, there is no technical reason, and keeping airframes in good shape is indeed an important part of the job of a pilots job. The US navy is actually very concerned about airframe-lifetime, which is likely why the F-14 got its G-limit reduced to 6.5 (though they were allowed to over-g in combat), despite being an incredibly tough aircraft by most accounts, moreso than F-15s. And why the F-18 has a more aggressive and universal G-limiter than many other planes. Probably part of why the F-35 B+C is lower G than the A, besides weight reasons. Compared,

Yet when it comes to carrier landings, the Navy didnt compromise and has its pilots never flare. Its just too risky to do otherwise, I suppose. Just imagine landing an aircraft while the carrier is engaged in combat scenarios, maybe even with minor battle damage, that must be insanely stressfull!

Edited May 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Callsign JoNay]

I flare my Tomcat sometimes. It's no big deal and not difficult to control in the rollout with that little extra bit of speed. You don't even need anti skid because it aerobrakes so well with the spoilers, flaps, and stabs deflected.

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Szoke:

I am just looking for a technical reasoning like a child ("tell me why I can't").

Oh btw, didnt even notice that bit. Thats not being a child, thats just critical thinking and curiosity. And theres probably a lot of thought behind the phrasing.

Those are positive qualities, just not quite if youre 10 seconds shy of hitting the deck.^^

vor 22 Minuten schrieb Callsign JoNay:

I flare my Tomcat sometimes. It's no big deal and not difficult to control in the rollout with that little extra bit of speed. You don't even need anti skid because it aerobrakes so well with the spoilers, flaps, and stabs deflected.

Makes me wonder if some pilots IRL flared their carrier landings. And if they got reprimanded for it.

Probably hard to get rid of habits like that, considering many pilots probably didnt just start flying for the Navy and carriers.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Probably hard to get rid of habits like that...

Not at all. I have hundreds of flight hours in DCS in both F-15 and F-14 and would never thought of flaring on carrier landing.

[Xtorris]

Jester uses all of my flares. /s 

[Temetre]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Not at all. I have hundreds of flight hours in DCS in both F-15 and F-14 and would never thought of flaring on carrier landing.

I know people who have to fight the urge to flare on every single carrier landing xD

[9thHunt]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:59 AM, Despayre said:

Did you just call my girl fat?!

well, she does weigh fifty-four thousand pounds at max trap.

Edited May 8, 2023 by 9thHunt

[Despayre]

1 hour ago, 9thHunt said:

well, she does weigh fifty-four thousand pounds at max trap.

 

Ya, but she's a lean fifty-four thousand.

[draconus]

42 minutes ago, Despayre said:

Ya, but she's a lean fifty-four thousand.

All muscles

[FR4GGL3]

On 5/4/2023 at 7:18 PM, cheezit said:

The Tomcat was introduced in 1974, and delivered to Iran from 1976-1978.

 

In 1978, the Persian-British singer-songwriter Freddy Mercury released the single "Fat Bottom Girls".

Yeah and if you land this "big fat Fanny" with Flaps and Slats, Airbrake, DLC and Hook, she really let it all hang out.

 

If you listen to the song, you really think about playing it all the time by going round the boat. And simply don't flare her. It doesn't look good.

[jojyrocks]

On 5/5/2023 at 6:13 PM, Temetre said:

I think the Navy does it to keep the training consistent? Better to learn one way of doing things than two, espeically if the fliers are rarely ever land-based.

If your Iranian and got no carriers, theres no reason to train harder landings. Doubly so with limited replacement parts and maintenance capability.

 

 

Iranians do it and even some USN demo pilots do it and even aerobrake the landing.

 

Finnish air force does it with their Hornets too, flare and aerobrake a bit. In DCS flight modelling on that is a bit off as it is impossible to land with aerobraking on Hornet.

 

With the F14, you need to land with a bit of power to aerobrake on Runway.

 

So, it is possible and doable.

 

Not flaring thing is meant only when you land on carrier.

Edited May 11, 2023 by jojyrocks

[eatthis]

you can flare, its slightly tricky if youre not used to it or more used to the fbw because she has sooooooo much lift she tends to just fly away if youre not careful lol