F-111 belly landing - old vid

Very impressive. I wish I had one of those hooks for my short field landing on my checkride!

Thanks for sharing.
 
No, I don't, but I know some folk "down under" who will. I'll let you know.

BTW, the guy with the moustache is S/L Stephen Clarke, aka "Clarkie." You may notice the 3000-hour patch on his right shoulder. He's #1 on the RAAF's F-111 flight hours list with over 3400 (I don't think anyone else broke 3000), and it makes sense they'd have him deciding just how to handle the emergency. I was there to see him meet the USAF's top F-111 hours guy, Capt. Brad Insley (almost 5100 hours) at the RAAF F-111 retirement ceremony last year. With the F-111's retirement, neither record will be ever broken.
 
Word from down under -- "The jet was a recce bird RF-111C A8-143; it was never repaired after the accident." Thanks to WgCdr Al Curr, RAAF (ret), for that info.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, I don't, but I know some folk "down under" who will. I'll let you know.

BTW, the guy with the moustache is S/L Stephen Clarke, aka "Clarkie." You may notice the 3000-hour patch on his right shoulder. He's #1 on the RAAF's F-111 flight hours list with over 3400 (I don't think anyone else broke 3000), and it makes sense they'd have him deciding just how to handle the emergency. I was there to see him meet the USAF's top F-111 hours guy, Capt. Brad Insley (almost 5100 hours) at the RAAF F-111 retirement ceremony last year. With the F-111's retirement, neither record will be ever broken.
Click to expand...

I think Pete Granger had over 3000 hours in -111s, not close to Brad's 5100 but still impressive. 79th Tigers forever!
 
Witmo said:
I think Pete Granger had over 3000 hours in -111s, not close to Brad's 5100 but still impressive. 79th Tigers forever!
Click to expand...
Dick Brown is second on the list with about 4500 hours. Don't think anyone but Brad and Dick cracked 4000.
 
On a side thought, what's the point of dumping and lighting fuel? I could be mistaken now however I vaguely recall something like that in the video's of the early attacks on Baghdad or at least bright lights going across the city in the initial attack. Is that kind of thing intentional or just the engines running in AB? If it's intentional, why would you fly along in active enemy territory holding up a big sign saying "here I am shoot me" unless it's a distraction to cause a load of serious mayhem somewhere else nearby?
 
fgcason said:
On a side thought, what's the point of dumping and lighting fuel?
Click to expand...
Spectacle for onlookers and finding lead on a starry night (aircraft lights blend with background) or a long way off at night.

I could be mistaken now however I vaguely recall something like that in the video's of the early attacks on Baghdad or at least bright lights going across the city in the initial attack. Is that kind of thing intentional or just the engines running in AB?
Click to expand...
The AB plume doesn't hold a candle to "torching," and I really don't think anyone did any torching at night in enemy territory. First, as you noted, it would be a flak magnet, and second, it's wasteful of very valuable fuel.
 
JOOC, why try to hook a wire on a gear up landing with a F-111? Seems like that's gonna result in higher impact forces compared to just sliding the plane onto the runway and I can't imagine that a jet wouldn't decel quickly enough with the gear up and no hook.
 
gismo said:
JOOC, why try to hook a wire on a gear up landing with a F-111? Seems like that's gonna result in higher impact forces compared to just sliding the plane onto the runway and I can't imagine that a jet wouldn't decel quickly enough with the gear up and no hook.
Click to expand...
I expect that bad things could happen as long as the plane is sliding. It could turn sideways, go off the edge of the runway, dig in, flip, etc.

Using the hook keeps the plane sliding straight and stops it much quicker. Not as good to the plane, I agree, but if the 'varks were already slated for retirement....

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I expect that bad things could happen as long as the plane is sliding. It could turn sideways, go off the edge of the runway, dig in, flip, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Without wheels and brakes, if it touches down at a typical 130 knots or so ground speed, it's going a long way before it grinds to a halt, and there's no directional control at all.

IIRC, they had one at Tahkli in 1972 which couldn't get the wings to sweep forward (meaning no flaps, no slats, and not much wing area), and had to land at something like 300 knots -- it ended up in the trees way off the far end of the runway, and the result was pretty ugly. Fortunately, the crew ejected as they saw they were going off the end. Of course, at 300 knots, if they'd engaged the barrier they would have ripped it out by the roots, and probably gone tumbling off to one side, so that wasn't an option, but it give you an idea why you don't want to go off the runway in a jet like that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Spectacle for onlookers and finding lead on a starry night (aircraft lights blend with background) or a long way off at night.

The AB plume doesn't hold a candle to "torching," and I really don't think anyone did any torching at night in enemy territory. First, as you noted, it would be a flak magnet, and second, it's wasteful of very valuable fuel.
Click to expand...

The problem with torching to find lead at night is as soon as the torch is over, everyone's lost their night vision for a long time unless you remembered to wear an eyepatch, BTDT.
 
Thanks Tim
Don't always have time to sift through all the posts completely!
 
Ouch, my spine cringed at the slam onto the runway when the hook caught.

To the military types, any reason why they decided to hook it? Looks like they caught the hook at the approach end and had plenty of runway ahead of them. They had pretty good control, why the hook as opposed to flying it on to the runway? Good G crush rating on those seats?

--Carlos V.
 
Unbeliever said:
Ouch, my spine cringed at the slam onto the runway when the hook caught.

To the military types, any reason why they decided to hook it? Looks like they caught the hook at the approach end and had plenty of runway ahead of them. They had pretty good control, why the hook as opposed to flying it on to the runway? Good G crush rating on those seats?

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they definitely could have done it better. I hear you can pick up a runout F-111 cheap enough to trash it. Please report back on how the unarrested belly landing goes. :wink2:
 
Unbeliever said:
To the military types, any reason why they decided to hook it? Looks like they caught the hook at the approach end and had plenty of runway ahead of them. They had pretty good control, why the hook as opposed to flying it on to the runway?
Click to expand...
See post #11.

Good G crush rating on those seats?
Click to expand...
No. The seats themselves had nothing like the shock absorbing system of the seats in a UH-60 helicopter. They have (or rather, had) a big inflatable impact attenuation bag on the bottom of the capsule to absorb the shock of a parachute descent after ejection, but that wouldn't come into play in this situation.
 
Last edited:
Unbeliever said:
Ouch, my spine cringed at the slam onto the runway when the hook caught.

To the military types, any reason why they decided to hook it? Looks like they caught the hook at the approach end and had plenty of runway ahead of them. They had pretty good control, why the hook as opposed to flying it on to the runway? Good G crush rating on those seats?

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...

It's a very heavy airplane, lot's of inertia, and you want it to stop as soon as possible or there's a good chance the friction and sparks generated by an extended slide will create a fireball by the time you come to a stop. The approach end cable is there most often for hydraulic (or gear) problems that compromise steering or braking.
 
RoscoeT said:
Yeah, they definitely could have done it better. I hear you can pick up a runout F-111 cheap enough to trash it. Please report back on how the unarrested belly landing goes. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Give the man a break, Roscoe -- not everyone has as much 'Vark experience as you, me, Witmo, and Clarkie. ;)
 
Witmo said:
It's a very heavy airplane, lot's of inertia, and you want it to stop as soon as possible or there's a good chance the friction and sparks generated by an extended slide will create a fireball by the time you come to a stop. The approach end cable is there most often for hydraulic (or gear) problems that compromise steering or braking.
Click to expand...

I always just figured the "approach" cable was there simply because it was the "departure" cable for the opposite direction.
 
Doggtyred said:
I always just figured the "approach" cable was there simply because it was the "departure" cable for the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of emergencies in which an approach end engagement is recommended, starting with single hydraulic failure* in an F-111 (BTDT), usually due to issues with directional control after touchdown. Others in my memory include things like gear extension failures in the A-6 and F-4. OTOH, departure end engagement would be more likely in the F-111 if the problem was too much speed, like a no flap/no slat situation when heavy, where touchdown speed is nearly 200 knots (about 50 knots more than the max barrier engagement speed), but directional control is not an issue (as long as you don't touch down so fast you blow a tire, which was like 220 knots max) and you have a mile or so to lose enough of that speed that you don't rip the cable out by the roots (like what happened at Tahkli). Departure end engagement was also an option on a heavy/fast rejected takeoff.

* Dual hydraulic failure in an F-111 is (or rather, was) a "squeeze and pull" emergency, since you lose all flight control actuation power and shortly thereafter the horizontal stabilator goes full trailing edge down (pitchover).
 
Last edited:
We had an uncommanded hook down one flight. Flew our low level a few feet higher so we wouldn't snag a power line :wink2:. Had to remember to touch down past the approach end cable and stop before the departure end cable. Ah, the memories...
 
Witmo said:
We had an uncommanded hook down one flight. Flew our low level a few feet higher so we wouldn't snag a power line :wink2:. Had to remember to touch down past the approach end cable and stop before the departure end cable. Ah, the memories...
Click to expand...
One thing that Navy-designed jets had which USAF-designed jets didn't was a "hook retract" mechanism. Only way to put the hook back up on the 'Vark was for a couple of folks to lift it up, and no matter what you've seen of that video with the 310 flying along over the pickup truck with the guy pulling on the landing gear, that wasn't happening with an F-111.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top