>
>Good question, Chris. But often keeping the tanks on gives you more stability
>should the main gear
>collapse. The underside of the fuselage is not flat and the aircraft is
>likely topple; I expect that
>the outriggers are not strong enough for the full weight of the aircraft. On
>the Tornado we were
>advised to keep the tanks on if we had a gear malfunction, especially if it
>was a main leg not locked
>down. One main locked down would give you a massive problem on landing. In
>that event we would plan
>to land into wind (least crosswind possible) with the gear up and slide on the
>tanks before taking
>the upwind cable (hook down on landing).
>
Okay, that makes sense.
When I was stationed at Dyess AFB, there was an emergency landing of a
B-52D that had one wingtip (outrigger) gear stuck in the up position. The
solution was to deplete the fuel, then land and catch the wingtip with a
flatbed semi (ie - articulated) truck racing down the edge of the runway. It
worked, but I would not have wanted to be the driver of the truck.
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|