F15 Arrested Landing at Portland.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Must have know the braking system (hydraulics?) had problems. Why else would you need to tail hook a landing on a long runway?
 
Perhaps lack of actuator function for thrust reversers?
(As far as needing arrestor cable/hook)
 
The vista jets have drag chutes, note the long pod below the vertical tail.

[Linked Image]


Typical F-16's do not like this T-bird.
[Linked Image]


Images courtesy of F16.net
 
The F-15 has an arresting hook for typical AF base gear, like the BAK-12. BAK-12 will stop an airplane in roughly 1000 feet, depending on engagement speed and aircraft weight. It's used when an airplane has a problem with hydraulics, brakes, Nose-wheel steering, or landing gear.

Dual-use airports, like PDX, will have BAK-12 if they're supporting fighter squadrons. Dedicated AFB with fighter squadrons will have it installed as well.

I've taken an arrested landing at NAS Oceana using the Navy's E-28 gear, which is very similar to the BAK-12. We had a tire blow on takeoff and the arrested landing was precautionary.

I thought it interesting that the F-15 was reported to be airborne for 4 hours before the landing. So, I think the problem must have been known on, or shortly after, takeoff. That's about the limit for an F-15 to stay airborne with the two drop tanks that this airplane had. A blown tire for example...
 
Originally Posted by Bottom_Feeder
Since when to F-15s have tailhooks?


Since day one.

Doesn't make them carrier-capable. The deceleration rate of the BAK-12 is very mild.

In an F-15 carrier landing, that little hook would be ripped right out of the airframe a few milliseconds after the landing gear was crushed.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
An F-16 out of Luke Air Force Base attempted an emergency landing at Lake Havasu City Airport last Spring, after an engine failure. It didn't go so well. But the pilot walked away after ejecting. The plane was pretty much junk.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/...a-departs-prepared-surface-pilot-ejects/


F-16 is single engine , isn't it ? Loose an engine on a single engine plan and it kind of messes up your day .

Loose 2 engines on a 2 engine plane and it messes up your day , too . Ask Sullenberger .
 
Originally Posted by Cup of Joe
It's a fighter jet. No need for thrust reversers.


The Swedes would beg to differ with you.
 
Originally Posted by FastLane
I think a lot of fighters have tail hooks. Canadian CF-18's do.


Because the CF-18 is a very slightly modified USN aircraft.

A CF-18 could be flown aboard a carrier. It's structurally no different from a USN F/A-18A/B.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
In an F-15 carrier landing, that little hook would be ripped right out of the airframe a few milliseconds after the landing gear was crushed.


So I take it the F-18 landing gear is more beefier?
 
Originally Posted by das_peikko
Originally Posted by Astro14
In an F-15 carrier landing, that little hook would be ripped right out of the airframe a few milliseconds after the landing gear was crushed.


So I take it the F-18 landing gear is more beefier?


It's not just landing gear.

The entire structure of the airplane has to be built for carrier operations. The cat launch, the arrested landing, stress every part of the airplane. You can't just beef up the landing gear, you would be left with an airplane that isn't strong enough to handle the stress and the airframe would be damaged by the load that the landing gear imposes.

Take a catapult launch. An airplane goes from 0-180 Knots in 2 seconds at max gross weight.

So, that's about 90 m/sec, right? In 2 seconds. V=at. t=2 So, a is about 45m/sec2. G=9.8m/sec2 About a 4 G pull then...

So, working it back, that 65,000# F/A-18E has a load of about 250,000 pounds on the nose strut. You can't just beef up the nose strut on an F-15, or the nose strut would be pulled out of the airframe. The whole frame must be built to take that kind of load.

There is a similar load on the tailhook on landing.

Then there is the vertical load on the gear and airframe from the landing. Airliners and USAF airplanes are built for a maximum sink rate of about 600FPM on landing. USN airplanes are built for a maximum 1800 FPM. Three times the vertical velocity. That's NINE times the stress. The structure must be able to handle that.

In testing, Grumman dropped the F-14 airframe, loaded with weights, to test that kind of load. I've seen that kind of load on an airplane from a less than perfect landing. That kind of load on an F-15 would result in complete destruction of the airplane.

In this video, they show an F-14 airframe dropped from about 20 feet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top