This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

F6F landing-gear drop test distance?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:53 am

A number of published sources say that the standard Navy drop test to prove that a carrier aircraft's landing gear was strong enough to withstand no-flare carrier landings was to free-drop the airplane from 10 feet (distance from the bottom of the tires to the ground). They also claim that the F6F was so strong that Grumman was able to drop it from 21 feet (the height limited by the ceiling of the hangar in which the test was done) with no damage to the gear.

I've just read a source (David Anderton) that quotes Corky Meyer as saying the distances were actually six feet and 10 feet.

Who's right?

Re: F6F landing-gear drop test distance?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:02 am

This aircraft has 64-78"(inches?) on the fuselage. I'd imagine a 20 foot drop would bend something. Maybe not the gear, but the fuselage would sure be abused.

Image
Last edited by mike furline on Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: F6F landing-gear drop test distance?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:38 pm

Hasn't changed much since then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6BsCvDgbsc

Re: F6F landing-gear drop test distance?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:00 pm

B-32 drop test at 2:37 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqWkk-B ... 91C7426E7D
Looks like six feet or so; enough to break off a nacelle!

Re: F6F landing-gear drop test distance?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:20 pm

Stephan Wilkinson wrote:A number of published sources say that the standard Navy drop test to prove that a carrier aircraft's landing gear was strong enough to withstand no-flare carrier landings was to free-drop the airplane from 10 feet (distance from the bottom of the tires to the ground). They also claim that the F6F was so strong that Grumman was able to drop it from 21 feet (the height limited by the ceiling of the hangar in which the test was done) with no damage to the gear.

I've just read a source (David Anderton) that quotes Corky Meyer as saying the distances were actually six feet and 10 feet.

Who's right?


21 feet is almost certainly bogus. That's a sink rate of 35 ft per second. The requirement was on the order of 20 feet per second, which is a drop of about 6 feet. (Transport airplanes are designed for a maximum sink rate at landing weight of half that and only about 6 feet per second at maximum gross weight.) A 10-foot drop would result in 25 feet per second, which is plausible without damage but not desirable. You don't get points for greatly exceeding the requirement: that means the airplane is heavier than it needs to be. I think Corky is correct.
Post a reply