F16 landing in on grass not on tarmac.
It is possible, ever done by pilots since in the operational status ?But with landing gear down not belly landing.
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'
TEG
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 201140.PDF
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'
TEG
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 201140.PDF
- Attachments
-
- "The FloTrak fitted to a General Dynamics F-16 main wheel." ~ FLIGHT International, 1 May 1982
- Untitled.jpg (148.48 KiB) Viewed 9547 times
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
— Richard Collins
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'
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
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
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.
4 posts
|Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest