Using a Chute to stop
 

I know this image shows the chute out just for show but in real life when would it be used....emergency only?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255637/M/

they are used by some operationaly, mainly due to the long landing runs some aircraft require.

Are chutes rated as in create say 50% extra drag. Must be some calculation for say if they have to divert to a shorter runway than usually with a heavier payload?

Isn't the chutes used for aircraft with a much higher landing/approach speed such as the F-4 Phantom, Jaguar and some of the Ruskie jets?

Would the Tornado need a chute if it didn't have thrust reverser buckets?

Brake chutes are routinely used by numerous aircraft (Typhoon is the newest one); the Tonka would certainly need a brake chute if it didn't have TR - a swept wing landing could require an approach speed of approx 220 knots (only a little slower than than LL nav in a Tincano!)

Can also be used for technical reasons...For instance, the Hunter FGA9s of 208 Squadron based at Nairobi's Embakazi airport in 1960 were obliged to use the chute for every landing. This was because the landing TAS was rather high due to the 5800 feet airfield elevation and the runway was very smooth. The combination of these two things led to excessive maxaretting from the wheel brakes and this jumping up and down of the brake pressure led to excessive main undercarriage "leg walking" with increased wear...So, we had to use the chute for all landings at base, to prevent this extra wear.

Alternitavely you can pop it before you hit the deck!

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...7/IMG_4145.jpg

Drag chutes are very commonly used for mil fastjets. They take the wear and tear from the brakes and are easier and cheaper to gather up (a couple of blokes with asbestos gloves and a Landreover) than to be constantly changing worn out brakes. All of the V bombers used chutes as did the Phantom, Jaguar, Lightning et al.

Would suspect Tornado too would have one if not for the buckets.

Scamptonboy, you reminded me that some F4 mates used to pop the chute prior to touchdown too, in order to achieve a shorter landing rollout. Then they started flying final approach at 21AOA, instead of the usual 19. Finally, it all came to a head on APC at Akronelli, when 2 F4 QFIs (both CFS A1s, naturally) tried both the 21AOA approach and popping the chute early - needless to say, they landed short and hard, luckily with only bruised egos....

20Legend, the F-117s don't deploy the chute "just for show" but to get a good share of their overall braking from it, the same with the B-52.

This was true for the Victor and I am not sure about the Valiant but not all the time in the Vulcan.

The Vulcan use aerodynamic braking which saved the hastle of chute recovery, repacking, replacing etc. From time to time we had a mandatory stream simply to get the b:mad:r out of its box for routine servicing and repacking.

It was also mandatory to stream on runways of less than 6000 feet unless there was a cross-wind and probability of weather cocking. 'twas a rare short runway landing where we didn't have a crosss wind :)

Mind you, while airfields have their main runway into wind this does not mean that the strongest winds are along the main runway axis juts that that is the direction of the prevailing wind.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255677/M/
Evidence of the Typhoon using a chute!

must be some clever people out there who design all this kit!

Pah, don't you believe it.

Braking chutes came in with the B-47, which actually had two chutes - a small one, deployed in the air, which allowed the pilot to keep the thrust level up on finals (otherwise, the engines wouldn't respond fast enough for a go-around, and the '47 had no airbrakes) and a big one to stop on the ground.
The 117 has a relatively high landing speed owing to 67.5 degrees sweep, no wing curvature and other wackiness, and uses the chute pretty routinely. They had black chutes when they entered service but this was abandoned because Victoria's Secret complained about them hogging worldwide supplies.
The F-16 was designed without a chute but the Norwegians insisted because they operate from icy runways - hence the Norwegian jets (and some others) have a big, boxy fairing at the tail root. The Norwegians also want a chute on the JSF and will have to pay through the nose for it when LMT figures out where to put it.
Other fighters use effective aerobraking instead of a chute - big speedbrakes, differential control surface actuation &c.
The 'phoon has a chute option, I think, because of operator insistence/wet-icy runways &c. But it also has big fan-cooled wheelbrakes (don't have to wait as long for brakes to cool between sorties) an airbrake and the canards, which can be used to dump the aircraft on the wheelbrakes.
By the way, early Caravelle airliners had braking chutes.

SE210 Caravelle was one civvie jet that used a 'chute...no TR and poor brakes
watp,iktch

Arado 234 with the Luftwaffe in 1943.

http://www.airpages.ru/img/ar234b.jpg

What materials are the chutes made out of?
Is that true about Victoria Secrets? How many chutes are many a year!!
Also when is a chute deemed no longer useable? after so many deployments?

A Stoppem/Dragnium blend.

No. Twas Agent Provocateur. Victoria's Secrets don't operate in the States.

Many, many.

When the poor Ops SAC who has to collect it can put his whole fist through the holes.

Did the Valiant have a 'chute? Can't recall seeing it, or any pics. The Victor's was supposedly the largest parachute ever made.

The Valiant most definitely did not have a chute, just hydraulics and big wheels. The Victor chute was 45 feet in diameter and usually used because the brakes were poor. I believe the Vulcan used the same one. My idea of hell was packing a chute into the hopper on a wet and windy winters night at Leuchars for a QTR on Tansor.