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
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

saberrider

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 457
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

Unread post11 Mar 2017, 19:45

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

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post14 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
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

saberrider

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 457
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

Unread post15 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.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post15 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.

Return to F-16 Procedures

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests