Discussion:
More photos of F-111 wheels up landing
(too old to reply)
David Bromage
2006-07-20 01:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Got forwarded these URLs.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Cheers
David
Sunny
2006-07-20 06:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Nice one, that bloody site is chock full of ads and pop re-direct crap
Post by David Bromage
Got forwarded these URLs.
http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205070lo3.jpg
http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203081kr8.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203085rh3.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203090qn4.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205084fs9.jpg
Cheers
David
David Bromage
2006-07-20 06:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Nice one, that bloody site is chock full of ads and pop re-direct crap
Doens't your browser block popups? Mine does.

Cheers
David
sdf
2006-07-20 12:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Nice one, that bloody site is chock full of ads and pop re-direct crap
Firefox, Sunny.
Thomas Houseman
2006-07-20 10:48:56 UTC
Permalink
"David Bromage" <***@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> wrote in message news:44bedc0b$***@clarion.carno.net.au...
Got forwarded these URLs.

http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205070lo3.jpg
http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203081kr8.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203085rh3.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203090qn4.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205084fs9.jpg

Cheers
David
------------------------

Great Shots!

T.
Major Kong
2006-07-20 18:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?

Regards.


----------------------
Post by David Bromage
Got forwarded these URLs.
http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205070lo3.jpg
http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203081kr8.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203085rh3.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174203090qn4.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00018174205084fs9.jpg
Cheers
David
Ken S. Tucker
2006-07-20 18:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
Regards.
Good question, my guess would be to hook
kangaroo's for low level flight practice :-).
Ken
matt weber
2006-07-22 01:10:51 UTC
Permalink
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It was
always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that the
final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called for,
and the
F111B died.

However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them, it was
not well known until one of the VIP transports with Henry Kissinger
aboard had to use it..... In an F111, if for example the wings jam at
deep sweep, or you have serious hydraulic failure, you are likely to
run out of runway..... So like a number of relatively valuable
aircraft have arrester hooks just in case....

I suspect putting the arrester hook from the F111B on the Air Force
versions was a no brainer.
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
Regards.
Good question, my guess would be to hook
kangaroo's for low level flight practice :-).
Ken
JPH
2006-07-22 02:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them, it was
not well known until one of the VIP transports with Henry Kissinger
aboard had to use it..... In an F111, if for example the wings jam at
deep sweep, or you have serious hydraulic failure, you are likely to
run out of runway..... So like a number of relatively valuable
aircraft have arrester hooks just in case....
Are you sure the 135's had them? In all my years in Control Towers and
watching many barrier and cable engagements, I've never noticed a C-135
with a tailhook, even though some landed with heavy loads and hot
brakes. Not saying that they don't have them, but I don't ever recall
seeing one.
Maybe the refueling boom could substitute for a tailhook?
The VIP transports were usually VC-137's.

John
matt weber
2006-07-22 21:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Because of the events at the time, Kissinger had to travel on a C135.
A C137 would have raised eyebrows arriving in Paris, or in this case,
at FRA (which had arrester gear, and that's why the C135 went there).
Kissinger would often leave a party on a Friday Evening with a pretty
young lady, and not be seen again until Monday. Everyone assummed...

He actually went to Paris, and spent the time talking to the North
Viet Namese. The C135 fiasco nearly spilled the beans. Kissinger left
the Aircraft at FRA, and got on the borrowed Falcon compliments of the
President of France, who was also lead to believe it was an affair of
the 'Heart', to keep the cover.......

So a KC135 might not have had an arrester hook, but a C135 probably
would. On the KC135, you can the weight down to essentially OEW if you
have too...
Post by JPH
Post by matt weber
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them, it was
not well known until one of the VIP transports with Henry Kissinger
aboard had to use it..... In an F111, if for example the wings jam at
deep sweep, or you have serious hydraulic failure, you are likely to
run out of runway..... So like a number of relatively valuable
aircraft have arrester hooks just in case....
Are you sure the 135's had them? In all my years in Control Towers and
watching many barrier and cable engagements, I've never noticed a C-135
with a tailhook, even though some landed with heavy loads and hot
brakes. Not saying that they don't have them, but I don't ever recall
seeing one.
Maybe the refueling boom could substitute for a tailhook?
The VIP transports were usually VC-137's.
John
beasley
2006-07-22 03:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
I suspect putting the arrester hook from the F111B on the Air Force
versions was a no brainer.
In fact the entire landing gear on RAAF's F111C were built for the B's. Our
landing gear is much stronger design than the other models as it was
designed for carrier use.
Daryl Hunt
2006-07-23 04:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It was
always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that the
final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called for,
and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back and it
had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a thing.
Trevor Fenn
2006-07-23 20:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It
was always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that
the final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called
for, and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back and
it had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a thing.
C135, not KC135
Daryl Hunt
2006-07-23 22:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Fenn
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It
was always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that
the final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called
for, and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back and
it had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a thing.
C135, not KC135
Tramps, if they used a tailhook would be missing the rest of the Airframe
from the rear side troop door and back. Just ain't gonna happen.
Trevor Fenn
2006-07-24 11:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Trevor Fenn
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It
was always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear
that the final product was going to be even heavier than the spec
called for, and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back
and it had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a
thing.
C135, not KC135
Tramps, if they used a tailhook would be missing the rest of the
Airframe from the rear side troop door and back. Just ain't gonna
happen.
I'm with you, I find this whole c-135 hook thing very hard to swallow
Daryl Hunt
2006-07-24 19:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Fenn
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Trevor Fenn
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It
was always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear
that the final product was going to be even heavier than the spec
called for, and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back
and it had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a
thing.
C135, not KC135
Tramps, if they used a tailhook would be missing the rest of the
Airframe from the rear side troop door and back. Just ain't gonna
happen.
I'm with you, I find this whole c-135 hook thing very hard to swallow
It sounds, like me, you spent a few years in and around 135s of all types.
I haven't even seen them try an arresting net on one either (that is
successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I saw, the crew
exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop. The AC was a total
loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards straight up.

Better to bail out than ride it to a stop when a tail hook or an arresting
net might be used.
GB
2006-07-25 10:47:59 UTC
Permalink
(that is successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I
saw, the crew exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop.
The AC was a total loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards
straight up.
How, pray tell, did they get out so quickly? (and what's a LOX?)

Ta,


GB
--
"At the beginning when you try the first time the five 'undred...
ahhhh fuck!" (Valentino Rossi)
RT
2006-07-25 11:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
(that is successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I
saw, the crew exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop.
The AC was a total loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards
straight up.
How, pray tell, did they get out so quickly? (and what's a LOX?)
dunno and Liquid OXygen.. And no, I dunno why there would be LOX on a tanker
:-)

(Aside - there's a neat bit of video on the web showing the winner of a BBQ
lighting competition run by a Yank uni. Used LOX. One flash to ash -
er - well, a puddle of molten aluminium.
http://www.doeblitz.net/ghg/
Nearly as neat as the V8 chainsaw...
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/A7B2AFC2-38CA-4840-9AA3-C90090B07185.htm
:-)
Edward
2006-07-25 13:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by GB
(that is successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I
saw, the crew exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop.
The AC was a total loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards
straight up.
How, pray tell, did they get out so quickly? (and what's a LOX?)
dunno and Liquid OXygen.. And no, I dunno why there would be LOX on a tanker
:-)
Well Doh!!

http://shorterlink.com/?D47250

Ever consider what happens to the ambient 02 in an onboard fire? Or a
depress? No, I thought not.

Stick to the tools RT.
matt weber
2006-07-26 03:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by GB
(that is successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I
saw, the crew exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop.
The AC was a total loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards
straight up.
It may well have been an emergency oxygen supply. LOX is a pain to
handle, but it does allow you to carry a whole lot of oxygen in a very
small space. One assumes that with a large oxygen supply, a loss of
cabin pressure up to about FL300 is simply a major nuisance.

With a tanker aircraft, I suspect a NaO2 'candle' oxygen generator
might not be such a great idea.

As a sideline, the SR71 inert the tanks with nitrogen, the fuel was
used for cooling, and it was considered a good idea to insure that the
fuel in the tank couldn't burn/explode. The Liquid nitrogen container
was loaded just before takeoff, and I suspect it had something on the
order of 10 liters of liquid nitrogen to inert the fuel system for
the entire mission.

10 liters of LOX expands to about 8600 liters of oxygen at STP
conditions. If you need to carry significant amounts of oxygen, it is
hard to beat LOX as a way to do it. you cann store about 6 times as
much oxygen in a liter of liquid oxygen as you can in a 1 liter gas
cyclinder at 2000 psi. LOX is nasty, but you haven't seen a mess until
you have seen what happens if you break off the valve stem on a
2000psi cylinder.

10 crew members, 3 lpm oxygen, 1800 liters per hour, so each 10 liters
of LOX will support a little over 5 hours
Post by RT
Post by GB
How, pray tell, did they get out so quickly? (and what's a LOX?)
dunno and Liquid OXygen.. And no, I dunno why there would be LOX on a tanker
:-)
(Aside - there's a neat bit of video on the web showing the winner of a BBQ
lighting competition run by a Yank uni. Used LOX. One flash to ash -
er - well, a puddle of molten aluminium.
http://www.doeblitz.net/ghg/
Nearly as neat as the V8 chainsaw...
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/A7B2AFC2-38CA-4840-9AA3-C90090B07185.htm
:-)
Edward
2006-07-25 13:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
(that is successfully). The last inflight fire on a Tanker that I
saw, the crew exited the bird while it was still rolling to a stop.
The AC was a total loss when the LOX unit blew about 200 yards
straight up.
How, pray tell, did they get out so quickly? (and what's a LOX?)
Ta,
GB
You could first try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lox_(salmon) as an appetiser.

But really this is where you should go GB and far better than you as
the
perennial village troll really deserve - http://tinyurl.com/2rfwr

Absence of smiley intentional!
Graeme Cant
2006-07-26 15:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Fenn
I'm with you, I find this whole c-135 hook thing very hard to swallow
Absolutely. I don't believe any 707 variant ever had an arrestor hook.

OTOH, I do have an mpeg of a C-141 with a tow hook - and an F-106 in
tow! :)

GC

matt weber
2006-07-24 06:11:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:56:10 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It was
always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that the
final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called for,
and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back and it
had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a thing.
If it has a boom, by definition it isn't a C135, it is a KC135.

I'd also bet that RC135's have a hook as well.
Daryl Hunt
2006-07-24 19:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:56:10 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by matt weber
The carrier based version of the F111 never got past prototype. It was
always heavier than the US Navy wanted, and it became clear that the
final product was going to be even heavier than the spec called for,
and the
F111B died.
However many high value military aircraft are equipped with an
arrester hook. It is cheap insurance. USAF C135's have them,
HUH? The last time I looked on a 135 there was a Boom on the back and it
had wings, not a hook. Where did you ever hear of such a thing.
If it has a boom, by definition it isn't a C135, it is a KC135.
I'd also bet that RC135's have a hook as well.
RCs have Tailbooms for the most part. Those that don't are quite sexless in
the back end. In otherwords, clean. Like a Tanker, get out before you have
the need of a tailhook since you will never survive the tailhook experience.
Paul J. Adam
2006-07-20 19:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
A lot of military aircraft (F-16, for example, and evidently F-111) have
hooks, though trying to catch a wire on a carrier would dismantle the
airframe. They're used to shorten landings in bad situations, but with
less drastic deceleration than the arrestor wires on a carrier:
--
Paul J. Adam
Kurt R. Todoroff
2006-07-21 03:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Adam
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
A lot of military aircraft (F-16, for example, and evidently F-111) have
hooks, though trying to catch a wire on a carrier would dismantle the
airframe. They're used to shorten landings in bad situations, but with
The difference in acceleration would not dismantle the airframe.
Carrier and land based aircraft arresting systems both utilize cable
runout.
--
Kurt Todoroff
***@comcast.net

Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.
Errol Cavit
2006-07-20 19:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
Per the FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/faq/
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq2.txt

Subject: C.11. Why do USAF aircraft have tailhooks?

To help stop the aircraft in the event of brake failure, or some similar
accident leading to a runway overrun. Just past the end of many military
runways, you'll find an arrester cable strung across the field. The cable
(unlike those on aircraft carriers) isn't attached to anything firm;
instead, each end is linked to a long chain, which just drags on the
ground. The idea is to slow the aircraft down in a reasonable distance;
the tailhooks on Air Force fighters are smaller and weaker than the
superficially similar hooks on Navy planes.

The hook is also used during a hot jet-cal (at least it is/was on F-4's),
in which the Exhaust Gas Temperature instrument has been repaired/replaced.
The aircraft is taken to a remote corner of the base, hooked up, and fired
up to verify that the instrument is working correctly. This includes
going to full military power.-- Errol Cavit | ***@hotmail.com | "We
can ridicule some of those earlier interpretations, but we need to recognise
that they were commonly regarded as the 'truth', and were backed by the most
rigorous and sophisticated scholarship of the time - claims we commonly make
about ourselves today." KR Howe, The Quest for Origins.
Kurt R. Todoroff
2006-07-21 02:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol Cavit
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
Per the FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/faq/
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq2.txt
Subject: C.11. Why do USAF aircraft have tailhooks?
To help stop the aircraft in the event of brake failure, or some similar
accident leading to a runway overrun. Just past the end of many military
runways, you'll find an arrester cable strung across the field. The cable
(unlike those on aircraft carriers) isn't attached to anything firm;
instead, each end is linked to a long chain, which just drags on the
ground. The idea is to slow the aircraft down in a reasonable distance;
the tailhooks on Air Force fighters are smaller and weaker than the
superficially similar hooks on Navy planes.
The arresting gear that you have cited found limited use in the USAF in
recent times. It exist on one of the runways at Holloman AFB when I
attended Lead-In Fighter Training. Ed Rasimus was assigned to Holloman
as an IP shortly after my departure. He may remember this arresting
gear's USAF designation. However, the standard USAF arresting gear was
the BAK-12 which was modified to the BAK-14 configuration after the
introduction of the F-16 into the fleet. The BAK-12 was pretty rough on
those baby tires that only the F-16s had. The BAK-14 was the same
arresting gear system as the BAK-12, except that it was recessed into
the runway and covered by a steel plate. The tower would extend the
BAK-14 into position upon request by the aircrew. (Don't forget to call
tower with your CABLE CABLE CABLE request when you initiate your high
speed, 160 KIAS heavyweight abort.) The BAK-12 / BAK-14 arresting
system consisted of a cable that crossed the runway width at a point
1,000 feet from both of the approach ends. It was elevated above the
runway surface by multiple four inch diameter donuts. Each end of the
cable was attached to a 1,200 foot long nylon band that was wrapped
around a spool. The spool shaft was connected to what was essentially a
large disk brake. The brake calipers applied force to the brake stators
(disks) in direct proportion to the angular velocity of the unwinding
spool. Therefore, regardless of aircraft engagement speed, the system
always produced the full 1,200 foot runout during engagement, whether
engagement occurred at 50 knots or 200 knots. As for the statement of
the Air Force aircraft hooks being small and weaker than their Naval
equivalents, a close up inspection would not support this assertion.
Post by Errol Cavit
The hook is also used during a hot jet-cal (at least it is/was on F-4's),
in which the Exhaust Gas Temperature instrument has been repaired/replaced.
The aircraft is taken to a remote corner of the base, hooked up, and fired
up to verify that the instrument is working correctly. This includes
can ridicule some of those earlier interpretations, but we need to recognise
that they were commonly regarded as the 'truth', and were backed by the most
rigorous and sophisticated scholarship of the time - claims we commonly make
about ourselves today." KR Howe, The Quest for Origins.
In the F-111, the maintenance folks simply attached two strong steel
cables to the main landing gear and to a reinforced attachment point on
the ground to perform hot engine trimming.
--
Kurt Todoroff
***@comcast.net

Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.
Geoff Miller
2006-07-20 19:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the
RAAF F111 had were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example
of their use, but what else were they intended for?
The hooks are to help the planes stop when they land with a
hrdraulic failure (i.e., no brakes), make a gear-up landing
as in this case, etc.
Post by Major Kong
We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time ago....were these
F111 intended for Naval use?
A navalized variant of the F-111, the F-111B, was developed
by Grumman (not General Dynamics, as in the case of the land-
based version) in the 1960s but never went into production.




Geoff
--
"Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate,
which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough.
I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still
standing." -- Ann Coulter
David Bromage
2006-07-21 00:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for?
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires. AIUI there are also portable
units which can be set up if F-111s and F/A-18s need to operate off
short strips.

Cheers
David
beasley
2006-07-22 03:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Bromage
Post by Major Kong
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for?
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
Andrew Hennell
2006-07-22 03:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
beasley
2006-07-22 04:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
Andrew Hennell
2006-07-22 04:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)

Williamstown maybe?
beasley
2006-07-22 06:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a net!
My error in leaving it out.

Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Edward
2006-07-22 07:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a net!
You're not wrong there mate, but the cables are used to stop the
Castlemaine drifting into Hobsons Bay and the net is used to catch fish
not aircraft. :-)
Post by beasley
My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Yes, Townsville does, Rocky too. IIRC the cable at Rocky was used to
snag a Yank F-16 a few years back.

Nowra did have it naturally - but unsure about these days though.
Brash
2006-07-23 05:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a
net! My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Please, it's "Exercises", not "war games".

War games are what kids (of all ages) play with little models, measuring
tapes, and 10-sided dice.
--
"You brought it on yourself."

Me.
newsguy
2006-07-23 05:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brash
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a
net! My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Please, it's "Exercises", not "war games".
"War games" is the exact phrase several services use (depending on the
exercise) including the USN and USAF.
Brash
2006-07-24 06:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by newsguy
Post by Brash
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a
net! My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Please, it's "Exercises", not "war games".
"War games" is the exact phrase several services use (depending on the
exercise) including the USN and USAF.
Except the comment was x-posted to AUS.AVIATION and was talking about
activities in Australia by what appears to be an Australian.

Erego, we're talking about Exercises, not "war games".
--
You brought it on yourself.

Me.
GB
2006-07-23 23:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brash
Post by beasley
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Please, it's "Exercises", not "war games".
War games are what kids (of all ages) play with little models, measuring
tapes, and 10-sided dice.
Like he said, war games.


GB
--
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the
entrails of the last priest." (Diderot, paraphrasing Meslier)
Coop
2006-07-23 12:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a net!
My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Seen them at Woomera, too. In fact had to land over one to avoid the
possibility of a very "arrested" landing....

Coop
ventus50
2006-07-23 13:49:13 UTC
Permalink
But hit em hard, with too much energy, and they bite back, real hard.
Read this.
Even the nosewheel strut got a whack from the broken BAK-12 !

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/pdf/REPORTS/FSIR/CF188906/CF188906_e.pdf
Post by Coop
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
Of course, that is what you meant to say :) as it too as cables and a net!
My error in leaving it out.
Someone told me same at Townsville which the yanks wanted for their war
games too, not sure about that.
Seen them at Woomera, too. In fact had to land over one to avoid the
possibility of a very "arrested" landing....
Coop
Graeme Hogan
2006-07-24 22:05:21 UTC
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestor_hook
Edward
2006-07-23 15:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coop
Seen them at Woomera, too. In fact had to land over one to avoid the
possibility of a very "arrested" landing....
Larger aircraft than yours Coop are of course permitted to trample them

with some speed and spacing limitations.
Brash
2006-07-23 05:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the pre-menioned
statement :)
bugger. I have nothing else to say really :)
Williamstown maybe?
You mean Williamtown.

With so many Hornets there, it's a safe bet the base has arrestor cables.
--
"You brought it on yourself."

Me.
Dave Kearton
2006-07-22 04:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the
pre-menioned statement :)
Elizabeth must have an airbase near RAAF Edinburgh.
--
Cheers

Dave Kearton
beasley
2006-07-22 06:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Kearton
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the
pre-menioned statement :)
Elizabeth must have an airbase near RAAF Edinburgh.
Its the same as being a former resident (I dont usually mention it) of
Elizabeth. Edinburgh must be pronounced with a plum in one's mouth.An
officer (which Im not) would never use the word Elizabeth, but us low NCO's
who could at the time only afford to live in "Elizabeth: call it such.
Dave Kearton
2006-07-22 06:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Dave Kearton
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the
pre-menioned statement :)
Elizabeth must have an airbase near RAAF Edinburgh.
Its the same as being a former resident (I dont usually mention it) of
Elizabeth. Edinburgh must be pronounced with a plum in one's mouth.An
officer (which Im not) would never use the word Elizabeth, but us low
NCO's who could at the time only afford to live in "Elizabeth: call
it such.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the base is called, nor what
the rest of the country refers to it as. We might as well say the
F-111s are based at Ipswich or the RAAF Museum is at Werribee.


....also an escapee from Elizabeth.
--
Cheers

Dave Kearton
Ric
2006-07-22 11:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by Dave Kearton
Post by beasley
Post by Andrew Hennell
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted with
both cables and catch nets
pretty sure Richmond has them too
Yep, that's that word between "Amberly" and "Elizabeth" in the
pre-menioned statement :)
Elizabeth must have an airbase near RAAF Edinburgh.
Its the same as being a former resident (I dont usually mention it) of
Elizabeth. Edinburgh must be pronounced with a plum in one's mouth.An
officer (which Im not) would never use the word Elizabeth, but us low
NCO's who could at the time only afford to live in "Elizabeth: call it
such.
Hmm, I spent 8 years at Edinburgh as a troop, and never heard it called
Elizabeth. Are you making shit up?

Ric
Trevor Fenn
2006-07-22 12:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
Post by Major Kong
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111
had were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but
what else were they intended for?
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all
fitted with both cables and catch nets
Elizabeth?

Is that a new base?
Brash
2006-07-23 05:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by beasley
Post by David Bromage
Post by Major Kong
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for?
A number of RAAF bases have arrestor wires.
Darwin, Tindale, Amberly, Richmond, Elizabeth and Pearce are all fitted
with both cables and catch nets
This isn't a spelling flame, just a correction for the sake of accuracy.

It's "Tindal", "Amberley", and by "Elizabeth", I assume you're referring to
RAAF Edinburgh.
--
"You brought it on yourself."

Me.
Pumper_50
2006-07-21 01:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
Strangely there was actually consideration and trials for use of a F111
varient by the USN during development as a Fleet Air Superiority Fighter.
(F-111B)
Only 6 or 7 were built though in 1965 and were cancelled 2 or 3 years later.
It was far too heavy for use on carriers and the USN wasn't keen on the
aircraft initially as it was actually a modifed bomber aircraft.

I think they had longer wings and it's nose dome shorter and folded upwards.
(Used on later F-111 models)

I'm not sure if this is where the arrestor hooks presence was born from or
if it was always planned to be there.

IIRC the RAAF versions also had the stronger undercarriage that the F-111B
was planned to have too.
beasley
2006-07-22 03:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Kong
Hello,
Amazing, but one thing that I never really knew that the RAAF F111 had
were arrestor hooks? Here is a good example of their use, but what else
were they intended for? We sold off HMAS Melbourne a long time
ago....were these F111 intended for Naval use?
No, ours never were.

The F-111B was the model to be used for carrier opertions, but was plagued
with weight and design faults that would not live up to US carrier standards
to meet the 25,000kg weight.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...