Unlikely carrier aircraft

[Larry Jacks]

Operating a plane from a carrier is a tough operation. It can be even tougher when you're talking about a plane that wasn't designed for carrier operations. Attached are a couple videos showing such aircraft:

U-2 carrier evaluation (http://www.creativefission.com/Frame_MOV_Carrier320x240.html)

C-130 Carrier Landing (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=15368361)

The U-2 is reportedly a very tough plane to land on dry land. I can only imagine how difficult it was on a turbulent flight deck.

[Tedward]

Always wondered how Doolittle felt (and his crews) on take off. With a bomb load.

[Trebuchet]

The brother of a good friend of my folks was a pilot on the Dolittle raid. He wrote a memoir and noted that the airplane kind of fell out of ground effect when it crossed the bow and immediately sank toward the sea. I think there was a pitching effect as well. Sounded like a pretty hairy takeoff!

Then there was the guy who landed a tiny Cessna with about 8 people in it during the evacuation of Saigon.

[JustAFriend]

You can see the takeoffs of the Dolittle Raiders HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F5D9OCYCas)
The one at 1:46 is a real rectal-sucker....

If you go to the Air Force Museum in Dayton OH (I get up there a couple times a year),
they have a case with a bottle of Hennesy cognac and cubbyholes filled with cups.
The right-side up cups are for the living members of the Raiders and the upside-down ones
are for the men who have passed away.

The last two men alive will go to the musuem and drink a toast for their comrades....

[slang]

Awesome footage, guys. I read the thread title as meaning a fun thread, and figured I'd post the spruce goose. But this is way better, thanks.

[Tedward]

I have seen the footage but that was a while ago. Forgot about Youtube. Ta. Hats off to the lads.

[BigDon]

Saw one of our pilots, Mr. Rief, earn the name "Surf Rider Rief" after he caught the number three wire and DIDN't go to full power after slowing. Doing that firmly brings you to a stop against the tension of the wire (cable actually). Not doing so caused the cable to fall out of the tailhook and he rolled off the end of the angle.

I got to where I could see him again just as a swell smacked into the belly of the Tomcat and he was doing a full afterburner "tail walk" that almost always ends in disaster even with solid ground to push against but the engines were powerful enough to get him back into the air again.

He was in sooooo much trouble for almost losing that 45 million dollar aircraft (in 1980 dollars) due to not following standard procedure that it was only his previously exemplary career that kept him from "flying a desk" for the rest of his life.

[novaderrik]

that's some footage i'd like to see.. just another example of how awesome those Tomcats were.

[cjl]

That would definitely be some neat footage, though it makes absolutely no difference to the performance of the jet whether it has any solid ground underneath it to "push against" or not.

[tbm]

That would definitely be some neat footage, though it makes absolutely no difference to the performance of the jet whether it has any solid ground underneath it to "push against" or not.

I noticed that too, but I figured I'd let it go...........

Here's one that'll make ya look twice:

[cjl]

SR-71? It'd take a miracle for that thing to pull off a carrier takeoff or landing.

[Neverfly]

WOW!
That was a Four Time Looker- not twice!

ETA: Offhanded guess- That Carrier is perma-docked:p
That's a museum- of sorts.

[mugaliens]

I have footage somewhere of a P2 taking a cat shot through a wave (big wave). My dad got a look at the leading edge afterwards. It was completely caved in. The emblem might say "Navy," but the big, long skinny things go through the water. The shorter, smaller things with arms go through the air. Neither one does very well in the other's environment.

[mugaliens]

That would definitely be some neat footage, though it makes absolutely no difference to the performance of the jet whether it has any solid ground underneath it to "push against" or not.

Really? Ground effect is alive and well on a carrier deck, and high aspect ratio wings like those on the U-2 are much more affected than low-aspect ratio wings like those on the Phantom or Tomcat.

[cjl]

Ground effect is alive and well, but in that case, it was entirely engine power.

Besides, ground effect actually works quite well over water, a fact which these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan) bizzare planes used to their great advantage.
But ground effect is very dependent on being close to the surface below, and the plane is going over a rather big step down.

[geonuc]

WOW!
That was a Four Time Looker- not twice!

ETA: Offhanded guess- That Carrier is perma-docked:p
That's a museum- of sorts.
I believe that is the USS Intrepid, in New York.

[captain swoop]

Don't forget this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Xwing2.jpeg)

[mugaliens]

Ground effect is alive and well, but in that case, it was entirely engine power.

Besides, ground effect actually works quite well over water, a fact which these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan) bizzare planes used to their great advantage.
But ground effect is very dependent on being close to the surface below, and the plane is going over a rather big step down.

It's actually quite dependant upon wingspan. It's first noticeable with 1 to 1-1/2 times the wingspan in AGL altitude, and it's substantial at 50% of it's wingspan to the ground.

Thus, for the U-2, with it's 103 ft wingspan, the pilot would still feel a slight effect after it's shot off the end of the carrier's deck.

When landing, however, it would be very noticeable, and is what causes the float. Prior to reaching the flight deck, it may be on the verge of a stall, but immediately after it crosses the threshold, it's in ground effect, and it's stall speed just dropped by between 10 and 15 kts.

[novaderrik]

Don't forget this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Xwing2.jpeg)
too bad R2 fell out...

[Tog_]

In a model kit I had for an OV-1 Mohawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-1_Mohawk), there was a story about its STOL capabilities. It claims that a "Hawk" landed on a carrier, then took off again without the use of any hooks or anything else.

The catch? It did it 90 laterally across the deck. I looked for a cite yesterday, but I can't find one online.

[Larry Jacks]

Thus, for the U-2, with it's 103 ft wingspan, the pilot would still feel a slight effect after it's shot off the end of the carrier's deck.

The U-2 didn't need a catapault to take off from a carrier deck. If you watch the video, it shows a deck crewman near one wingtip as the U-2 applied power and took off on its own.

Your description of the challenges of landing a U-2 on a carrier deck is correct. In addition to that, I bet there was a lot of turbulence from air flowing down the flight deck. Everything I've read about the U-2 indicates that it's one of the hardest planes to land even on dry land. One article states that for every excess foot of altitude it has when crossing the runway threshold, it'll float as much as 1000 feet down the runway. I was surprised to see a tail hook on the U-2 because that would require a substancial strengthing of the airframe but after watching several of the landing attempts, I doubt they could've stopped it any other way.

It's interesting to note that those C-130 carrier trials didn't need a tail hook or catapault launches. IIRC, there was only a few feet of clearance between the wingtip and the carrier island. That's some remarkable airmanship. I can see why the Navy never adopted the C-130 for carrier use - the margins are just too small for safe operations. Imagine trying to do that at night in bad weather with a pitching deck. Shutter!

[HenrikOlsen]

It's interesting to note that those C-130 carrier trials didn't need a tail hook or catapault launches.
If you find a high quality version you can see that the C-130 has the words "Look Ma, no hook!" painted on the right side just under the cockpit windows:lol:

[mugaliens]

I was surprised to see a tail hook on the U-2 because that would require a substancial strengthing of the airframe but after watching several of the landing attempts, I doubt they could've stopped it any other way.

Nearly all smaller USAF airplanes (ie, smaller than cargo and aerial refuelers) have arresting gear which they can use to engage the BAK-12 (http://www.esco.zodiac.com/index.cfm/navid-90)and similar systems at the end of many USAF runways. These are used to stop an aircraft that has suffered certain failures or degredations in it's hydraulic systems.

I'm just sorry they picture it's use with an F-18! Makes sense, though, as the F-18 is designed to handle the stress repeatedly. An F-16, by comparison can do it just fine, once, and will in all liklihood be returned to normal duty, but not without a major inspection, first.

The U-2 was neither designed nor built with arresting gear, and for the carrier ops trials in 1964, they were modified with a stronger structure and a tail hook, along with full spoilers to kill the lift, which helped alleviate the ground effect.

The original trials in 1963 did not use tail hooks.

This went beyond the test phase - a U-2G took off from the USS Ranger in May 1964 to monitor French nuclear tests at the Mururoa atoll.

More (http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/jpngp2022/33.html?p=1&pm=l&tc=4&tt=1218683562).

It's interesting to note that those C-130 carrier trials didn't need a tail hook or catapault launches. IIRC, there was only a few feet of clearance between the wingtip and the carrier island. That's some remarkable airmanship. I can see why the Navy never adopted the C-130 for carrier use - the margins are just too small for safe operations. Imagine trying to do that at night in bad weather with a pitching deck. Shutter!

The wingtip clearance was 15 feet. A flagman waived to the pilot when the aircraft was 4 feet off the deck, at which point the pilot would move the throttles from flight idle to full reverse, which is nearly instantaneous (about a second) in the Herk.

The problem with this is that if pitch lock were occur, the resulting assymetrical would easily slew the Herk into the conning tower or off the side of the deck. In normal operations, all assualt landings require a brief reverse check for a pitch lock condition immediately after touchdown. If there are no indications, the pilot goes full reverse. If pitch lock is likely, the pilot uses brakes, only. When landing on a 3,000 ft runway, reverse thrust only saves about 400 feet of rollout. It's more to save the brakes than anything.

It was for this lack of safety (no check for potential pitch lock) that the Navy ruled it unsuitable for carrier resupply.

[vonmazur]

In a model kit I had for an OV-1 Mohawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-1_Mohawk), there was a story about its STOL capabilities. It claims that a "Hawk" landed on a carrier, then took off again without the use of any hooks or anything else.

The catch? It did it 90 laterally across the deck. I looked for a cite yesterday, but I can't find one online.


I flew them it is true....BTW: You do not want an engine or pitch failure on takeoff....You have to wait for it to flip up right and then punch out...

Dale

[Tog_]

I flew them it is true....BTW: You do not want an engine or pitch failure on takeoff....You have to wait for it to flip up right and then punch out...

Dale
That sounds like there might be more to the story...

My dad was in flight school in '65 (Huey crew chief) and got to watch a training session with a Mowhawk. The trainee came in and landed in (what my dad considered) an amazingly short distance. From where he was standing, he could see the instructor explaining things. This explanation ended with a "here, watch" gesture and a take off.

When the pilot came in, the way dad recalls it, the plane touched down, bounced one time, and came to a halt. My dad guessed the total distance to have been less than 100 to 150 feet.

That seemed really short to me, until I read the story about the carrier. Just how little space did it take a motivated pilot to land? Let's say a cool, dry day, with no wind to speak of.

[Ilya]

I believe that is the USS Intrepid, in New York.

It is. Here is a view from Intrepid's mast camera:

http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/pages/webcams

[slang]

Nearly all smaller USAF airplanes (ie, smaller than cargo and aerial refuelers) have arresting gear which they can use to engage the BAK-12 (http://www.esco.zodiac.com/index.cfm/navid-90)and similar systems at the end of many USAF runways. These are used to stop an aircraft that has suffered certain failures or degredations in it's hydraulic systems.

I'm just sorry they picture it's use with an F-18! Makes sense, though, as the F-18 is designed to handle the stress repeatedly. An F-16, by comparison can do it just fine, once, and will in all liklihood be returned to normal duty, but not without a major inspection, first.

I have seen this happen with an F-16B that had an unfortunate encounter with an F-15 jet wash. Hydraulics failure. I had seen many, many F-16 landings at that point, and seeing this one come in with (IIRC) higher speed than usual, not losing any speed at all as it came down the runway, rapidly approaching the point (hidden from me by trees) where the runway ended... very scary. Never seen that loudmouth pilot (a nice guy) that timid.. He was very glad that there was a cable to grab. And he had a (conversion) student in the back who was along for the ride.