Talk:Tailhook

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Tailhook in Vegas - I know most people would like to forget about tailhook the infamous party, but should we have an article for it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.134.189.218 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it should. But let it be a true account of EVERYTHING that occurred, especially the politically motivated witchhunt that ensued. References should include, the DoD IG's report and "The Mother of all Hooks" by William McMichael. Forget using "Tailspin" by Zimmerman, it is not nearly as accurate as McMichael's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.53.97 (talk • contribs) .

That article is at Tailhook Association. FiggyBee 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On aircraft

Might be worth explaining who call it what: the English call it an arrester hook , or sometimes an arrestor hook, folks from the USA tailhook (?). It's also wrong to say that the hook is attached to the empennage: it is not, it is attached to the lower rear fuselage. Empennage is a collective term for the rear aerodynamic stabilisers (fin plus tail plane) and it would be deeply unwise both structurally and geometrically to try to fix a hook to this!TSRL (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land-based tailhooks

Most land-based fighters also have tailhooks. This sounds very unlikely (yep! I've been wrong before) and desperately needs support; indeed I suggest it should be deleted within a few weeks unless the originators can justify it from some authoritative source. Of course, some aircraft unfitted for carrier landings have had arrestor hooks fitted for experimental and testing reasons, but that is not the point.TSRL (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few misguided souls write from time to time that F-15, F-16 etc. are carrier aircraft because of their tailhooks (arrester hooks). The section Tailhook#Land-based tailhooks was inserted to inform the masses that a tailhook wasn't evidence of carrier operations. Your opposite theory that no landbased fighters have tailhooks is new. When I was in the Danish Air Force we had off-the-shelf F-16 and F-104 Starfighters with tailhooks - and no aircraft carriers. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this image, USAF F-16s use tailhooks too. I'm sure we can find more, if necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid response: I'm clearly wrong again! It would be interesting to know if European aircraft like the Typhoon are fitted with a hook.TSRL (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC) The Alphasim Typhoon simulator contains one.TSRL (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about - we know your objection was in good faith. As for the Typhoon, take a look at Image:Eurofighter 9803 2.jpg and Image:Typhoon 4.jpg. My eyes aren't that good, and I'm using a small screen, but it sure looks like a hook nestled between the rear of the engines. - BillCJ (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does, and it is surprisingly obvious, not specially faired away. Nice pics. Spurred by Necessary Evil's direct observations of hooked F104s, I looked again at their silhouette and could see the hook well enough, again rather protuberant. So when did these hooks appear? I don't remember them from 50s aircraft, and Janes 1968, though it gives a long list of F104 variants in fair detail dos not mention them. Perhaps my question should be framed as asking when the typical fighter field get arrester wires?TSRL (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles from the 1950s talking about arresting gear installed at USAF bases. One article from 1962 talks about a 140 arresting gear systems installed at 70 Air Force bases. It describes the system as "the rotary-nylon tape, which engages a hook beneath an airplane" made by E.W. Bliss. It describes operation as "A hook would have engaged a wire rope pendant stretched across the runway and attached to nylon tapes wound on reels that play out the tape as the aircraft engages it. The reels are coupled with brakes to absorb the energy of the impact and gradually slow the plane to a stop." (At the end of the runway Marion Star, The. Marion, Ohio. Saturday, June 09, 1962. Page 27.} That sounds similar in concept to current systems. ESCO has a history page that makes it sound like current systems are based the ones designed in the 1950s. It also looks like the company attempted to sell the system for civil use in the early 1960s, not sure where that went, but it never happened even though there are quite a few runway over run accidents. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why don't the wheels get caught by the cable?Lestrade (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

The cable is only a few inches above the ground. The tires roll over it just like car tires over a speed bump. Aircraft with less robust landing gear (not designed to go over bumps) typically land beyond land-based arresting gear. By the way, in the old days when an aircraft missed all the wires with the hook, a net called a barrier would catch the aircraft's landing gear so it wouldn't hit other aircraft parked on the ship. See Arresting gear for more detail. E2a2j (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits (Oct-3-09)

I removed most of the unverifiable content, and improved the intro by adding that in land based aircraft, the tailhook is also used as a way to abort a takeoff (at the point were the aircraft has to much speed for the brakes to be effective) Aaron mcd (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tailhook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227064819/http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afh10-222v8.pdf to http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afh10-222v8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]