A RAAF Mirage wheels up landing story worth reading
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
a "fool proof" system to prevent unintentional wheels-up landings
a "fool proof" system to prevent unintentional wheels-up landings
BUMPF............
I flew ARDU Mirages, amongst other types, from Avalon in the early '70's. Don't recall ever being speed restricted.
Tulla was being built during part of that time, but I recall doing a PFL (Mirage) shortly after it opened. A Mirage PFL included best glide speed about 300kt, slowing to gear extension speed 240kt then accelerating to max speed gear down, 270kt, IIRC. The time taken for clearances was such that I never bothered again. Certainly didn't practice diversions to Tulla in any of the 7 aircraft types I flew there.
Tulla was being built during part of that time, but I recall doing a PFL (Mirage) shortly after it opened. A Mirage PFL included best glide speed about 300kt, slowing to gear extension speed 240kt then accelerating to max speed gear down, 270kt, IIRC. The time taken for clearances was such that I never bothered again. Certainly didn't practice diversions to Tulla in any of the 7 aircraft types I flew there.
Centaurus, Jimmy the Tread, natures gentleman and great entertainment at dining in nights. Served with him, 3Sqn, Sabres, Butterworth, mid '60's.
Regarding your Mirage pax ride, I had never thought much about the sort of experience it was for those accustomed to more gentile aircraft types.
Looking back, being in the circuit in a Mirage could be a fairly unnerving experience.
From early downwind there was heavy airframe buffet which intensified as the speed was reduced around base turn. Base turn was 60 degrees AOB, could be more if one underestimated the wind - in this case it may be necessary to light the afterburner just to maintain base speed. The airconditioning was always noisy, but in the circuit this was drowned out by all sorts of intake noises from rapidly changing airflow noises to the loud bangs as the auxulliary air intakes cycled. Great fun, wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Regarding your Mirage pax ride, I had never thought much about the sort of experience it was for those accustomed to more gentile aircraft types.
Looking back, being in the circuit in a Mirage could be a fairly unnerving experience.
From early downwind there was heavy airframe buffet which intensified as the speed was reduced around base turn. Base turn was 60 degrees AOB, could be more if one underestimated the wind - in this case it may be necessary to light the afterburner just to maintain base speed. The airconditioning was always noisy, but in the circuit this was drowned out by all sorts of intake noises from rapidly changing airflow noises to the loud bangs as the auxulliary air intakes cycled. Great fun, wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Last edited by zzuf; 29th Aug 2016 at 06:43. Reason: typo
Originally Posted by zzuf
From early downwind there was heavy airframe buffet which intensified as the speed was reduced around base turn. Base turn was 60 degrees AOB, could be more if one underestimated the wind - in this case it may be necessary to light the afterburner just to maintain base speed. The airconditioning was always noisy, but in the circuit this was drowned out by all sorts of intake noises from rapidly changing airflow noises to the loud bangs as the auxulliary air intakes cycled. Great fun, wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Talk about taking things out of context. Have you read the article?
No matter how complex the aircraft, for over 30 years BUMPF was the last check I did to myself.
It's not, really. I think he might've got the wrong end the stick for some reason, when it comes to touchdown RODs.
A proper no-flare carrier-style landing's going to be a good 700+ fpm. When he talks about the 'devastating' effects of a 50 fpm touchdown - well, that's less than a foot per second. I'd be thrilled if I could manage that all the time. Good article otherwise though.
Still not sure where all the stress about 250 below ten thousand is coming from. In my time (somewhat later) we never considered it applicable to military fast jets.
A proper no-flare carrier-style landing's going to be a good 700+ fpm. When he talks about the 'devastating' effects of a 50 fpm touchdown - well, that's less than a foot per second. I'd be thrilled if I could manage that all the time. Good article otherwise though.
Still not sure where all the stress about 250 below ten thousand is coming from. In my time (somewhat later) we never considered it applicable to military fast jets.
360 feet per minute causes the need for a heavy landing inspection on a scarebus. 200 feet per minute is pretty firm. When doing zero flight time in the sim, extra practice would be required if you were to thump them in at that rate (sim panel shows distance from threshold, centre line and ROD at touchdown).
Have checked the on board CMS after a firm landing and have seen 150 to 190 feet per min, not sure how accurate that is though.
Was lucky enough to have a few back seat rides in the miracle. Hats off to those who flew them, as I was still at the departure threshold at mission end.
Have checked the on board CMS after a firm landing and have seen 150 to 190 feet per min, not sure how accurate that is though.
Was lucky enough to have a few back seat rides in the miracle. Hats off to those who flew them, as I was still at the departure threshold at mission end.
Last edited by donpizmeov; 30th Aug 2016 at 07:16.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First I do agree with Tower Dog - after such a mishap, no real need for a 3-pages essay where you create more questions than excuses. Interestingly, did he keep his position after such an event ? In my Air Force, in such a case (where by the way there had been no malign intent or intentional breach of orders) it was a couple of months still in the squadron, then... surprise, an assignment to fly single-prop trainers somewhere (or the right seat of a transport heavy - thus making your life easier in the future to join the airlines ! Always can find a good thing from a bad thing )
For those who flew at Butterworth, there was no sarcasm intended. Those comments had been reported to me by a RSAF F5 pilot, who had been hearing that from an Israeli exchange pilot. You cannot judge an entire Air Force by a one-day DACT (even if everybody has been doing it, either US, French, Germans, Belgians, Italians...) - maybe it was a young pilot, or a bad day for another one, who knows ?
I got my first OPS qualifications on the Mirage III before converting to other types more modern and with better flying qualities. Like the F104, it was an airframe designed at the end of the 50s, with Mach 2 in mind and zoom intercept of high-level Soviat bombers. Coming back to land was a little bit of stress during the first 200 hrs (I logged 700+hrs on it)
Every time I had back-seaters who were not familiar with the type I didn't try to impress or scare them, instead I used to put them in confidence to enjoy the ride. Much too easy to make the guy (or the lady) puke to come back and say "how strong are those guys!" Too easy.
For those who flew at Butterworth, there was no sarcasm intended. Those comments had been reported to me by a RSAF F5 pilot, who had been hearing that from an Israeli exchange pilot. You cannot judge an entire Air Force by a one-day DACT (even if everybody has been doing it, either US, French, Germans, Belgians, Italians...) - maybe it was a young pilot, or a bad day for another one, who knows ?
I got my first OPS qualifications on the Mirage III before converting to other types more modern and with better flying qualities. Like the F104, it was an airframe designed at the end of the 50s, with Mach 2 in mind and zoom intercept of high-level Soviat bombers. Coming back to land was a little bit of stress during the first 200 hrs (I logged 700+hrs on it)
Every time I had back-seaters who were not familiar with the type I didn't try to impress or scare them, instead I used to put them in confidence to enjoy the ride. Much too easy to make the guy (or the lady) puke to come back and say "how strong are those guys!" Too easy.
Transport aircraft structural design standards for landing:
Maximum landing weight: 10 ft/second,
Maximum take-off weight: 6 ft/second,
Landing attitude close to most critical for structural damage.
Maximum landing weight: 10 ft/second,
Maximum take-off weight: 6 ft/second,
Landing attitude close to most critical for structural damage.
Originally Posted by recceguy
Those comments had been reported to me by a RSAF F5 pilot, who had been hearing that from an Israeli exchange pilot.
Originally Posted by recceguy
Coming back to land was a little bit of stress during the first 200 hrs (I logged 700+hrs on it)
Originally Posted by recceguy
Interestingly, did he keep his position after such an event?
