Usually, when landing on land, they land hard and fast and take a mile of runway to come to a stop; but during an emergency, they use the tailhook which brings the jet to a stop after only 1,000ft.
My question is: why don't they always use this to land?
Here's a short clip I've taken from the show:
There is a lot of stress placed on the airframe when you use the tailhoook. You can see the skin buckling in the picture below behind the landing gear. I'll admit, you probably wouldn't land intentionally with this sort of technique on land but if you catch the wire during the flare it could probably pull you down pretty hard. For these types of landing and it would be difficult to get it right every time.
(Like I wrote in the comments, I do realize that the aircraft below has not yet caught the cable. When you flare, and you might catch the cable mid-air if you have a nose-high attitude, and slam down hard as it pulls you backwards and you loose lift, or you do a non-flare like carrier pilots, also very hard. IMO I think either would end up like the landing below.)
There are several reasons why arresting cables aren't used on land:
As Manfred noted, the stress that gets put onto a plane during landing is incredible. According to HowStuffWorks "How Aircraft Carriers Work", its not unusual for an aircraft to hit the deck at around 150 mps or about 67 mps. Since they have less than 500 feet of runway (~150 meters), they must decelerate at an incredible speed to a standstill in about 2 seconds. That equates to about 3.5 G's! In addition, Navy pilot's are taught to push the throttle to max upon hitting the deck so that if they miss one of the 4 cables, they can still have enough speed to take off and try again. This may now happen automatically as Chris S noted, I'm not certain. This means that the aircraft has to undergo even more stress. Navy planes must hit the deck so hard that its often compared to a controlled crash instead of landing and aircraft frames must be structurally modified to endure that type of stress.
According to Tom Clancy's, Carrier: A Guided tour of an Aircraft Carrier, it is extremely difficult to catch the wires. Its so difficult that Navy Pilots are often ranked on how often they hit the 2nd wire (considered to be the best).
As Manfred noted above, the machinery to slow an aircraft is not trivial. While I'm not familiar of the routine replacement rate for these cables, I would imagine that it would be something else that would have to be monitored. The cable is actually attached to a large machine which provides the cable with some give. I can't imagine that they would be cheap, but I'm not familiar with the exact machinery myself.
Some military runways (on land) do have arresting cables. These are not intended for routine use, but to catch aircraft in danger of running off the end of the runway due to brake failure, touching down too late, etc. Sometimes they may pop-up to snare the undercarriage rather than using a hook, Navy style.
The reasons for not using arresting cables on land have been well discussed above -- airframe and pilot stress from the high G's, maintenance costs, etc. Also, there's usually plenty of land on which to build a runway, so you don't need to stop short as on a carrier.
Watching Jet Stream, about training to fly the CF-18 Hornet, they comment that the jet was originally certified as a Navy plane, landing on aircraft carriers with an arresting cable. Usually, when landing on land, they land hard and fast and take a mile of runway to come to a stop; but during an emergency, they use the tailhook which brings the jet to a stop after only 1,000ft. My question is: why don't they always use this to land? Here's a short clip I've taken from the show:
See Wikipedia:Drag polar and Wikipedia:Polar curve (aviation) for example. These curves are not on a polar coordinate system. Why are they called polars?
I know that for land aircraft and seaplanes that they require separate endorsements to fly them. However, for the case of amphibians, what do you need to fly one? Do you need to have another, completely different endorsement, or just a seaplane and land endorsements? What about if you always fly it on water or land?
) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots. (5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more. So an aircraft category never changes because it is always Vref at max landing weight. What if I fly an approach at a speed that falls into a different category? For instance, a jet may land at significantly less than this speed if very light, or more than this speed if landing with less...FAR 91.3 says: Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 Vso at the maximum certificated landing weight
Jet engines are by their very nature push-engines, however, most propeller airplanes use pull-engines. Is there an inherent advantage to using pull-propellers except for the increased airflow over... is not as advantageous? If there isn't an inherent disadvantage, why are pusher configurations so rare? If there is one, why do they exist at all? Disregarding designs where the choice is obvious, like... aircraft are even more uncommon, and pretty much all I could find except the Lake Buccaneer are all kit-planes (e.g. Velocity, Rutan), ultralights (Quad City), military, or experimental.
What should a pilot do to perform a successful emergency water landing, also known as ditching of a big commercial jet? Is there any checklist, or best practices, like "elevate the nose" or "retract the landing gear", to make it safer? Are commercial Jets buoyant?
According to Airbus: ‐ After the flight crew selects reverse thrust, they must perform a full stop landing. Does it really make sense to have this limitation, and why? What happens if you realise there's not enough space to land, and you've still got adequate speed?
Chemtrail conspiracy theorists believe that there are certain additives being put into jet fuel to spew out [nano-]particles that rain down on us, for means that are being kept secret. The hypothesized reasons behind 'chemtrailing' range anywhere from weather modification, population reduction, and sunlight blocking to reduce the earths temperature hence combatting global warming. Some popular... spores Yellow fungal mycotoxins Ethylene dibromide Polymer fibers My question is, wouldn't these additives, chemicals, etc, cause adverse reactions inside the jet engines, if the turbine
How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics process. Why? Well flying wings go all the way back to the 30s. One of the earliest (and my personal favorite) is the N-9M, which was a scale model of the XB-35, a prototype bomber for the allies during WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall
In companion to the other question asking about wheel tire tracks. Planes come down and stop with a significant amount of force which I would expect to cause either rutting or potholes. Are runways susceptible to ruts and potholes? And do these cause significant issues for landing planes?