Funny, this looks to have happened as part of a special portion of Top Gun where pretty much anyone can show up and fight the students going through the training, 1 v 1. Extras just end up fighting each other or instructors.

Obviously this lame ass ruined the historically awesome time had by all fighting 1v1 against whatever you meet at the merge.

Or maybe he was just scared like ending up like this F-22, getting peppered.

The tail codes have me confused (which is not hard). In the photo in the OP's Daily Mail article, it's "TY," but those trees do not look like NAS Fallon. Different belly landing?

What nhtagmember posted at 12:03 on Nov 21 shows "AK" and a background of what is more likely Fallon.

Alex, I'll take AK for $1000.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Funny, this looks to have happened as part of a special portion of Top Gun where pretty much anyone can show up and fight the students going through the training, 1 v 1. Extras just end up fighting each other or instructors.

Obviously this lame ass ruined the historically awesome time had by all fighting 1v1 against whatever you meet at the merge.

Or maybe he was just scared like ending up like this F-22, getting peppered.

The old "No Airspeed, No Ammo, Nowhere to land and I gotta take a piss!" lucky gun cam shot.

Nice try, AirSquid.


But, I digress...

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
The tail codes have me confused (which is not hard). In the photo in the OP's Daily Mail article, it's "TY," but those trees do not look like NAS Fallon. Different belly landing?

What nhtagmember posted at 12:03 on Nov 21 shows "AK" and a background of what is more likely Fallon.

Alex, I'll take AK for $1000.

Sigmund - I saw the different tail codes too as I just read the last 2 pages.

TY is for Tyndall AFB FL, and AK is for Elmendorf AFB AK. So yeah, those are different aircraft in those pictures.

Man, that'll roach out the skid plates and bust up the brush guards.

Oh wait. Not a pound for air to ground. nvm.

Also, there's no way this aircraft slid on its belly for over a mile (6,514 feet). I'd say an 1/8th of a mile, tops.

JP

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

I know nothing about planes. But I would think that an F22 would have enough power to power out of it. Are you saying that no amount of throttle would have saved him?

Obviously not.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
Somebody's going to be flying cargo planes full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong.

It's not so bad, after a while. The rubber dog shit never complains. The catering isn't bad. And the stop in Anchorage is nice.

quote:

Originally posted by jprebb:
Also, there's no way this aircraft slid on its belly for over a mile (6,514 feet). I'd say an 1/8th of a mile, tops.

JP

The number does sound a bit suspect, though the aircraft flight terminated 9,400' from the departure point. Of this, the article cites 6,400' as "skidding," but not enough information is provided. Were this correct, it means that rotation occurred at 3,000' or less, which is a ridiculously short distance, even if light, but given that the aircraft was airborne for a period, accelerating past 120 before returning to the ground. It's possible at lot of that distance was covered by the transition, and it's most likely the pilot didn't reduce to idle but tried to keep it off the ground until certain it wouldn't fly, and burned up a lot of runway in the process under takeoff thrust, probably dragging a lot of airframe in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by jprebb:
Also, there's no way this aircraft slid on its belly for over a mile (6,514 feet). I'd say an 1/8th of a mile, tops.

JP

A mile is very normal for such an incident.

I have seen T-37, T-38 make belly landings, (Columbus AFB in mid 80's) and other than the tweet, being much less mass and touchdown was about 100 kts, go about an 1/8 mile, the T-38 touchdown was about 180 with no flaps, and made about a mile.

Both the T-38 and the F-22 have very flat and smooth lower surfaces the surface area that is providing friction is vary large. Actually much greater than the footprint of the gear at full stopping coefficient of friction.

Why wouldn’t you take off a full power all the time?? Asking cause I don’t know shit about flying airplanes

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
Why wouldn’t you take off a full power all the time?? Asking cause I don’t know shit about flying airplanes

A turbine engine has speed and temperature limits; temperature is critical. Reducing power for takeoff extends engine life considerably.

Reduced power takeoffs are normal for many turbine powered aircraft, including most airline operations.

After takeoff, climb thrust is set, which may be a reduction in power, or an increase, depending on the selected takeoff thrust.

Presently all my takeoffs are at reduced thrust, except when conditions warrant a max power takeoff; in that case, it's written up in a maintenance log and noted as a required max power takeoff. Max power takeoffs are required periodically.

Max power takeoffs are required on shorter runways; in part to get off the ground in a shorter distance, but primarily to reach a decision speed sooner, in the event a rejected takeoff is needed, to allow additional room to stop.

And I didn't know that AF fighters have an emergency tailhook!

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
And I didn't know that AF fighters have an emergency tailhook!

Not the A-10!

F-15's have them, it was one of the many things that had to be serviced somewhat regularly.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
And I didn't know that AF fighters have an emergency tailhook!

Given that most fighters don't have reverse capability for thrust, but only wheel brakes and aerodynamic braking, emergency stopping means consists of barriers and wires. A hook to stop the aircraft is cheap insurance when other means have failed, or insufficient runway remains for wheel brakes to stop the aircraft. In time of system failure resulting in an inability to steer or brake, then barriers or wires may be the only means of arresting the ground roll, and the only other alternative, to eject.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
And I didn't know that AF fighters have an emergency tailhook!

The tailhooks are not for emergency use. They're used as a tiedown for engine runs above 80% RPM.

I can only personally speak on the F-15 and F-16, but I'm assuming the same for the F-22.

Engine runs on the flightline were only allowed up to 80% RPM. That's fine for most leak and ops checks.
Anything higher, like mil power or AB (afterburner) runs, the aircraft is towed to a special area with a dedicated tiedown that the hook is attached to.

The idea being not to rely on the aircraft brakes being able to hold during what could be relatively lengthy high power engine runs.

density altitude is a funny thing

not last summer, but during one of the really hot days here in Tucson, it hit about 114 or perhaps a bit more

the 162nd Fighter Wing had to stand down the F-16's as the runways weren't long enough to allow a safe takeoff

the same thing over at DM with the A10's and some others

the elevation here is about 2600' give or take a few but it never occurred to me that an F16 would run out of power and runway

tgtshuter. They most certainly are designed and intended to be used as emergency arrest device.

Tie down was a secondary and after the fact in earlier aircraft. The use for hold back may well have become the norm in tech data and use, but the primary purpose was emergency arrest.

Arresting hooks are used for emergencies, both in the USAF and Navy / Marine Corps.

Obviously Navy / Marine Corps hooks are rated for carrier landings, but all types are used for field arrested landings, which allow for a longer runout but are often called for if an aircraft has control-ability issues, braking issues, or landing gear issues. Helps prevent planes from flipping over, run off the runways, etc, etc.

I haven't done many field arrestments, maybe two or three for brakes or potential gear issues.

Example of a USAF F16 using it's hook while landing.





Video

I have a buddy in the Air Force who just swapped jobs. His previous role was in a Civil Engineering unit, and one of his primary responsibilities was working on these cable arresting systems.

During my career among other things, I was in Aircraft Repair and Reclamation.

In addition to flight control, landing gear, throttle, canopy systems systems troubleshooting, removal, installation rigging and ops checking we recovered crashed aircraft, and also responded to many takeoff and landing incidents, and alway those where the runway or taxiway needed to be cleared.

We were also involved alongside of CE of the maintenance and testing of the BAK arresting systems, and one of the most enjoyable was the full on testing where we had an F-4 do a "rejected take off roll", bang burners, get to V-1 pull the throttles and drop the hook and snag the barrier.

We were close enough to hear the brakes that are used to "play out" the cable as the aircraft hits it. The system used aircraft brake stacks on ether side of the runnway, and as the aircraft engaged the cable, the spinning up of the brakes were directly proportional to the application of the barrier brakes.

So it would spin up rapidly and then clamp down.

The nearest thing to it is how an engine dyno applies load as the engine RPM is increased and the change in pitch, or similar to a "tractor pull" where the load on the sled moves forward, and the harder the "pull" the harder it works against the load.

And having witnessed a number of various aircraft catch the cable and a two catch the "fence" (woven straps like a checker pattern that is raised) it is used if the cable fails to stop or for aircraft that have no hook.

Stuff you got to do and they paid you to do it when you were young.

What a country.

I stand corrected and humbly apologize.

Might be my memory isn’t so good. I spent 4 years on F16s and 8 years on F15 flight line and don’t recall knowing about restraint systems being used.

I’ll go stand in the corner now...