TIL the air force experimented with bouncy landing runways to eliminate the weight of landing gear.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/december/landing-aircraft-carrier-without-wheels
216 points · 19 comments · view on lemmy.world
19 Comments
ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world · 93 pts · 1y
and the aircraft manufacturer for such runways would be called Boing.
frezik@midwest.social · 60 pts · 1y
Important to note this is the Royal Air Force. Unlike the US, the Royal Air Force covers both land and naval based aircraft.
It's a surprisingly good idea for carrier aircraft. The landing gear on carrier planes has to be extra durable because carrier landings are rough. Getting rid of landing gear would save a lot of weight and a big source maintenance.
Worked pretty well. The only reason it wasn't pursued was because carrier aircraft do land on regular runways, and nobody wants to convert every single runway to a bouncy version.
TheRedSpade@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
The only reason? So they had a solution for that massive amount of friction too?
bus_factor@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1y
Soapy water! And a filled kiddie pool at the end of the runway to stop.
frezik@midwest.social · 3 pts · 1y
Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zZGi0Y1EPmo
You can see here how the arresting wire--which carriers have used anyway for a long time--tends to be the thing that takes up most of the speed. The plane doesn't slide against the runway so much as bounces a few times and stops.
There must be heat built up in the arresting wire system, of course, but no more than a traditional plane with landing gear doing the same. In fact, there is probably more energy transferred to the deck and the airplane skin than with rolling wheels, so the arresting wire system should have less kinetic energy turned into heat. All that heat is spread out more.
Also, not all of the energy is transferred as heat, either. Some of the momentum will make the boat go a little faster.
glinncor@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
How would the planes taxi after landing
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 1y
Sounds like a pain in the ass
d00ery@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
I think that's a little incorrect. The Fleet Air Arm falls under the Royal Navy.
Though it seems that they have merged and split since original inception of the Royal Flying Corp and Royal Navy Air Service
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Flying_Corps
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm#today
MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 1y
Is that the true issue with Boeing? Their planes need a bouncing runway when landing?
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1y
No, they let suits and business majors take over for actual engineers who know what they're doing.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
To frame it another way; they were enshittified by the infinite-profit-growth fallacy and corruption of capitalism.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Basically
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
No. The issue with boeing is that they're poorly constructed due to corrupt ownership/management.
MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1y
So, they’re not supposed to go Boing Boing Boing when landing….
faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1y
That's only for RyanAir
Stillwater@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1y
Seems logical
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Just don't have any emergency landings, during a war.
d00ery@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Vice Admiral Engen (U.S. Navy test pilot)
HelluvaKick@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Gear 5 pilots get full freedom smh
teamevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y