New Flight Control Improves F-35C Handling Carrier Approach

[spazsinbad]

'neurotech' said above: "...Not much. Pilots have crash landed after ripping off the landing gear, and the weight reduction is minimal...." Exactly the weight loss is minimal - however the possibility of damage during a no undercarriage landing is not minimal. It all depends on the design of the aircraft. Many aircraft in the past (I'm thinking of the MIRACLE Mirage IIIO were not allowed a no U/C landing. So every landing ashore requires a maintenance cycle? Seems to be a silly proposition all round.

[neurotech]

'neurotech' said above: "...Not much. Pilots have crash landed after ripping off the landing gear, and the weight reduction is minimal...." Exactly the weight loss is minimal - however the possibility of damage during a no undercarriage landing is not minimal. It all depends on the design of the aircraft. Many aircraft in the past (I'm thinking of the MIRACLE Mirage IIIO were not allowed a no U/C landing. So every landing ashore requires a maintenance cycle? Seems to be a silly proposition all round.

That was partly me being funny. A 767 did a successful belly up landing but totaled the jet. A 777 at Heathrow landed short and ripped the main gear off, totaled as well. I remember an experienced Mirage pilot said the no U/C procedure is;
Step 1) Eject! Eject!
Step 2) There is no step 2.
After a pilot or two successfully landed, probably on a center drop tank, they changed the procedures to allow an emergency landing.

[spazsinbad]

'neurotech' I have outlined the 'unintentional' underwing drop tank Miracle landing earlier - at Tullamarine - which changed the RAAFieCHAPpy minds about 'Miracles landing on empty drop tanks' earlier. I don't know if it was ever done again - don't think so. I'll find the link here - hmmm - perhaps info mentioned not here, so I'll post the info soonish

Here 'tis: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... iio#236812