3 deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags
source | link

I've read several times that the navy versions of jet aircraft need to have a strengthened undercarriage. Here is one example, and another.

I've always just automatically assumed this was needed because aircraft landings are "rough". That is, the aircraft smacks down hard on the carrier deck (or so went my assumption).

But nowNow I find myself questioning this. Naval jets land by catching a wire that brakes them hard. They may also takeoff with a catapult, which is some running device that pulls the nose gear forward at high g's.

So, what is the real reason that naval versions of jets need a strengthened undercarriage?

I've read several times that the navy versions of jet aircraft need to have a strengthened undercarriage. Here is one example, and another.

I've always just automatically assumed this was needed because aircraft landings are "rough". That is, the aircraft smacks down hard on the carrier deck (or so went my assumption).

But now I find myself questioning this. Naval jets land by catching a wire that brakes them hard. They may also takeoff with a catapult, which is some running device that pulls the nose gear forward at high g's.

So what is the real reason that naval versions of jets need a strengthened undercarriage?

I've read several times that the navy versions of jet aircraft need to have a strengthened undercarriage. Here is one example, and another.

I've always just automatically assumed this was needed because aircraft landings are "rough". That is, the aircraft smacks down hard on the carrier deck (or so went my assumption).

Now I find myself questioning this. Naval jets land by catching a wire that brakes them hard. They may also takeoff with a catapult, which is some running device that pulls the nose gear forward at high g's.

So, what is the real reason that naval versions of jets need a strengthened undercarriage?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackAviation/status/735012635926790144
2 edited title
| link

Why todo naval jet aircraft need to have strengthened undercarriages?

1
source | link

Why to naval jet aircraft need to have strengthened undercarriages?

I've read several times that the navy versions of jet aircraft need to have a strengthened undercarriage. Here is one example, and another.

I've always just automatically assumed this was needed because aircraft landings are "rough". That is, the aircraft smacks down hard on the carrier deck (or so went my assumption).

But now I find myself questioning this. Naval jets land by catching a wire that brakes them hard. They may also takeoff with a catapult, which is some running device that pulls the nose gear forward at high g's.

So what is the real reason that naval versions of jets need a strengthened undercarriage?