F16 landing in on grass not on tarmac.

Operating an F-16 on the ground or in the air - from the engine start sequence, over replacing a wing, to aerial refueling procedures
User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 505
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

by saberrider » 11 Mar 2017, 19:45

It is possible, ever done by pilots since in the operational status ?But with landing gear down not belly landing.


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
Location: Under an engine somewhere.

by That_Engine_Guy » 14 Mar 2017, 02:09

Modifications were 'tested' for towing and taxi, but I don't think flight trials were ever conducted. I don't see something like this being able to withstand the stresses generated by spinning at 180 knots. Then there is the matter of clearance within the landing gear wells. They're a tight fit in the first place. Perhaps this would have worked with some sort of lightweight composite track with 'under-sized' tires? The whole thing would have needed to be balanced. Can't imagine the vibration of that arrangement at takeoff/landing wheel speeds.

The next question is this; Why would you WANT to land in the grass where a soft spot or FOD could ruin your aircraft? I'd think it much easier to cordon off a stretch of local highway, clean it nicely of obstructions, (signs, poles, etc) sweep for FOD, and open a new auxiliary airfield!

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 201140.PDF
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
"The FloTrak fitted to a General Dynamics F-16 main wheel." ~ FLIGHT International, 1 May 1982
Untitled.jpg (148.48 KiB) Viewed 9548 times
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 505
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

by saberrider » 15 Mar 2017, 14:19

That_Engine_Guy wrote: I don't see something like this being able to withstand the stresses generated by spinning at 180 knots. Then there is the matter of clearance within the landing gear wells. They're a tight fit in the first place. Perhaps this would have worked with some sort of lightweight composite track with 'under-sized' tires? The whole thing would have needed to be balanced. Can't imagine the vibration of that arrangement at takeoff/landing wheel speeds.

The next question is this; Why would you WANT to land in the grass where a soft spot or FOD could ruin your aircraft? I'd think it much easier to cordon off a stretch of local highway, clean it nicely of obstructions, (signs, poles, etc) sweep for FOD, and open a new auxiliary airfield!

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 201140.PDF

But contact speed is under 140knots and the plane is lighter .So many landings ended in the grass .With lower pressure in the landing gear it is better than big mouth eating dirt.


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

by johnwill » 15 Mar 2017, 17:54

Those units were never intended for flight, but were tested as a means to tow the airplane over soft ground if necessary. They didn't work very well plus the nose gear was not designed for the high towing forces required.



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests