|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 2, 2015 11:41:19 GMT
As far as folding wings go, it appears that this had been a requirement for carrier based aircraft since the very early days of naval aviation. In fact it seems that it is one of those things that was and is taken for granted so much no one bothers to mention anything about them.
'Modern' carrier aircraft, as in (this case) fighters designed specifically for carrier use rather than being modified from land-based designs were around long before the Corsair, Hell or Wild Cat fighters of the US Navy. The Aichi D3A (The Japanese Val dive bomber of WW2), Douglas SBD Dauntless and Mitsubishi A5M (Precursor to the famous 'Zero' fighter) were all aircraft designed from the start as carrier aircraft. The Dauntless was in fact modified for land service by removing the tail hook.
Based on the dates these aircraft entered service, and assuming a few years for development, it appears that Navy's were issuing specifications for carrier-only aircraft since at least the late 1920's if not earlier. Given that aircraft carriers were included in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921/22 it is more than possible that naval-only* aircraft were in existence or development by this date. (Even if at this point they were considered and used as scouts for the big guns of the fleet rather than as an offensive force).
(*Naval only as in designed for carrier operations first, and used on land by happy accident)
As far as I can tell the need to have folding wings, tail hook and heavy duty undercarriage was well known and doesn't seem to have been something that needed to be spelt out to designers.
They've been doing that since WW2, as they flew Spitfires from carriers to Malta twice. The limitation is that the aircraft need to be capable of actually taking off from the carriers. For RAF fighters landing back on the carrier was not usually something that was attempted or required.
The difference this time around is that the RAF and Fleet Air Arm will be using the same type of aircraft, which is capable of carrier landings. I'd guess that the same held back in the days when the Navy had carriers operating F-4 Phantom jets, and the Air Force was also using the F-4.
Landing on a carrier, or any warship, isn't just a case of pointing the aircraft in the right direction. You have to be capable of coordinating your landing with the LSO on the ship which requires additional training - even for helicopters. It is possible (I suspect that the RAF harriers that took part in the Falklands war didn't have the time to get more than a very basic training course...which probably included 'if you crash and damage the ship pray that you die in the process...') for someone to do this with little or no specific training. But its not easy and in fact VERY dangerous as unlike landing elsewhere there are very few visual clues as to wind direction, strength and distance from target and lots of things you could fly into if you mess up. (And a lot of people who are not going to be happy at you hitting anything other than the sea).
The USS Forrestal was not a small carrier. She was some 1067 feet long and 238 feet wide. Compare to the Nimitz-class carriers which are 1092 feet long and 252 feet wide and as far as a pilot coming in to land is concerned the extra landing area is nether here nor there.
A further comparison can be made with the British Invincible class carriers, which were 686 feet long and 118 feet wide and hence practically half the size. (This is actually shorter than the US Navy's Yorktown class of carriers, which were 824 feet long and 109 feet wide; In fact I *think* the Yorktown class was even slightly heavier. The last ship of this class, the USS Enterprise, was decommissioned as she was too small for jet aircraft to operate from).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 2, 2015 14:57:22 GMT
I had a girlfriend who had been a helo mechanic in Germany before things got friendlier over there. said it was not entirely uncommon for two border patrol flights to meet and land in a convenient meadow to exchange pleasantries - and trade goods. however, she also had one time where the call came through to scramble all resources and set course for the USSR. once armed, airborne, and almost to the border the "thanks, we got what we wanted, you can all go back home, now" call came through.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 2, 2015 15:07:52 GMT
As far as folding wings go, it appears that this had been a requirement for carrier based aircraft since the very early days of naval aviation. In fact it seems that it is one of those things that was and is taken for granted so much no one bothers to mention anything about them. 'Modern' carrier aircraft, as in (this case) fighters designed specifically for carrier use rather than being modified from land-based designs were around long before the Corsair, Hell or Wild Cat fighters of the US Navy. The Aichi D3A (The Japanese Val dive bomber of WW2), Douglas SBD Dauntless and Mitsubishi A5M (Precursor to the famous 'Zero' fighter) were all aircraft designed from the start as carrier aircraft. The Dauntless was in fact modified for land service by removing the tail hook. Based on the dates these aircraft entered service, and assuming a few years for development, it appears that Navy's were issuing specifications for carrier-only aircraft since at least the late 1920's if not earlier. Given that aircraft carriers were included in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921/22 it is more than possible that naval-only* aircraft were in existence or development by this date. (Even if at this point they were considered and used as scouts for the big guns of the fleet rather than as an offensive force). (*Naval only as in designed for carrier operations first, and used on land by happy accident) As far as I can tell the need to have folding wings, tail hook and heavy duty undercarriage was well known and doesn't seem to have been something that needed to be spelt out to designers. They've been doing that since WW2, as they flew Spitfires from carriers to Malta twice. The limitation is that the aircraft need to be capable of actually taking off from the carriers. For RAF fighters landing back on the carrier was not usually something that was attempted or required. The difference this time around is that the RAF and Fleet Air Arm will be using the same type of aircraft, which is capable of carrier landings. I'd guess that the same held back in the days when the Navy had carriers operating F-4 Phantom jets, and the Air Force was also using the F-4. Landing on a carrier, or any warship, isn't just a case of pointing the aircraft in the right direction. You have to be capable of coordinating your landing with the LSO on the ship which requires additional training - even for helicopters. It is possible (I suspect that the RAF harriers that took part in the Falklands war didn't have the time to get more than a very basic training course...which probably included 'if you crash and damage the ship pray that you die in the process...') for someone to do this with little or no specific training. But its not easy and in fact VERY dangerous as unlike landing elsewhere there are very few visual clues as to wind direction, strength and distance from target and lots of things you could fly into if you mess up. (And a lot of people who are not going to be happy at you hitting anything other than the sea). The USS Forrestal was not a small carrier. She was some 1067 feet long and 238 feet wide. Compare to the Nimitz-class carriers which are 1092 feet long and 252 feet wide and as far as a pilot coming in to land is concerned the extra landing area is nether here nor there. A further comparison can be made with the British Invincible class carriers, which were 686 feet long and 118 feet wide and hence practically half the size. (This is actually shorter than the US Navy's Yorktown class of carriers, which were 824 feet long and 109 feet wide; In fact I *think* the Yorktown class was even slightly heavier. The last ship of this class, the USS Enterprise, was decommissioned as she was too small for jet aircraft to operate from). Keep in mind the US spent much of that era entering each war with the best hardware available for the last war. in the beginning of WWII, we were sending troops out with open circuit water cooled black powder machine guns while the germans were using closed circuit smokeless powder machine guns. our tanks were infantry support vehicles, rather than antiarmor vehicles. we basically won wars by overwhelming the enemy with force of numbers, determination, and front line innovation. the more I think about it, the best innovation for carrier work was tricycle landing gear. that would significantly reduce the hardware needed for the catapult connection AND let the pilot see better while taxiing and such. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 2, 2015 17:47:41 GMT
The last ship of this class, the USS Enterprise, was decommissioned as she was too small for jet aircraft to operate from. I'm guessing you're talking about CV-6 and not CVN-65, which was only just decommissioned 3 years ago? They were both called USS Enterprise and CVN-65 most definitely operated jets. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 2, 2015 20:29:41 GMT
The last ship of this class, the USS Enterprise, was decommissioned as she was too small for jet aircraft to operate from. I'm guessing you're talking about CV-6 and not CVN-65, which was only just decommissioned 3 years ago? They were both called USS Enterprise and CVN-65 most definitely operated jets. I stated 'Yorktown class', of which the CV-6 Enterprise was the only one of the three to survive the second world war. Of course another reason she wasn't suitable for jet aircraft was down to the Yorktown class having wooden flight decks. But that was something that could be been addressed easily enough during a refit, which after all the damage she took she would have needed anyway. The irony is that, as I noted, she was actually larger than the Invincible class carriers of the Royal Navy of the late 70's. So it is actually possible that had she been mothballed rather than scrapped she might have been pressed back into service as a small(ish) support carrier alongside the Iowa Class Battleships in the early 80's. Reagan would have seen what such carriers with Harriers were capable of doing during the Falklands War after all. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 2, 2015 21:07:45 GMT
we do like our USS Enterprises.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 2, 2015 21:34:58 GMT
I'm guessing you're talking about CV-6 and not CVN-65, which was only just decommissioned 3 years ago? They were both called USS Enterprise and CVN-65 most definitely operated jets. I stated 'Yorktown class', of which the CV-6 Enterprise was the only one of the three to survive the second world war. Missed that part. Sorry  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 2, 2015 21:36:09 GMT
we do like our USS Enterprises. It has already been determined that the next carrier to be commissioned, CVN-80, which is scheduled to be ready in 2025 will be christened "Enterprise" and will be the 9th USN vessel to carry the name. It was made public during the decommissioning ceremony for CVN-65 in 2012. EDIT: I'll apparently have to correct myself here. CVN-65 wasn't decommissioned in 2012. It was just inactivated and the aforementioned ceremony was an "inactivation ceremony", not a decommissioning ceremony. It wasn't officially decommissioned until 15 March 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 2, 2015 21:55:55 GMT
It will carry on until we get to the NCC1701 series...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 3, 2015 6:24:38 GMT
By then we were using Harriers... you dont need a long runway for Harriers with the ski-lift jump at the end, (STOL)the harrier doesnt need a catapult either, thus smaller lighter dare I say Faster ships that are not as easy to hit?... and the landing cant be easier when you can roll to a dead stop alongside, judge the up-and-down, and just float over the deck sideways at the last moment.
I say easier... landing a harrier from VTOL is, well, "Rocket science", especially at sea.
There was a push to "Investigate" if a Harrier could land on a Helipad. (sizeable one of course...With a talk-down from deck crew...)
Scrapped... yes it can, as long as you dont want anything on the immediate deck to stay there. (Including paint...)
The downwash from Harrier is a bit more eager than a helicopter, to say the least?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 3, 2015 15:08:41 GMT
By then we were using Harriers... you dont need a long runway for Harriers with the ski-lift jump at the end, (STOL)the harrier doesnt need a catapult either, thus smaller lighter dare I say Faster ships that are not as easy to hit?... and the landing cant be easier when you can roll to a dead stop alongside, judge the up-and-down, and just float over the deck sideways at the last moment. I say easier... landing a harrier from VTOL is, well, "Rocket science", especially at sea. There was a push to "Investigate" if a Harrier could land on a Helipad. (sizeable one of course...With a talk-down from deck crew...) Scrapped... yes it can, as long as you dont want anything on the immediate deck to stay there. (Including paint...) The downwash from Harrier is a bit more eager than a helicopter, to say the least?... a trifle warmer, too. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 3, 2015 17:21:05 GMT
Just to further Cybermotris's point about folding winged aircraft for ship borne use, Shorts airccraft where using folding wing systems before WWI. By the end of WWI they were designing a carrier based torpedo bomber with foldable wings. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Shirl |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 4, 2015 5:59:15 GMT
Just to further Cybermotris's point about folding winged aircraft for ship borne use, Shorts airccraft where using folding wing systems before WWI. By the end of WWI they were designing a carrier based torpedo bomber with foldable wings. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Shirlshirl was British. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 4, 2015 9:52:27 GMT
Just to further Cybermotris's point about folding winged aircraft for ship borne use, Shorts airccraft where using folding wing systems before WWI. By the end of WWI they were designing a carrier based torpedo bomber with foldable wings. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Shirlshirl was British. And your point is? Military hardware, or tactics and training for that matter, isn't developed in isolation nor are the external influences purely from battlefield experiences. You take a look at what Allies are doing as well, and their designs help inform you as to what features and technologies may be helpful on existing or future designs. For Carrier technology the USN took catapults from the Royal Navy, along with armored flight decks - British carriers in WW2 had armored flight decks which reduced the number of aircraft they could carry but increased survivability from bomb attacks. The Yorktown class lacked armored flight decks, but after seeing how useful armored flight decks were on British carriers they were incorporated into subsequent US Carrier designs. You could play this game going back for centuries if not millennia. The design of British warships in the late part of 1700's and early 1800's was directly influenced by French and later Dutch designs. Every Battleship built after 1906 was based on HMS Dreadnought, which in turn would have been indirectly influenced in part by the USS Monitor (specifically the gun turret, although such turrets had been in use on other ships for at least a generation by 1906). Military design is usually a mixture of needs, what the enemy (or potential enemy) is capable of and what everyone else is doing. This is, of course, adding the fact that any advantageous technologies or features will end up spreading and quite often (especially in the 20th century) you'll see effective designs being sold world wide. The Argentine airforce had French Mirage jet fighters (that they thankfully opted not to deploy) and American A-4 Skyhawks with which to fight the Falklands war with. After the Falklands war the Harrier had proved itself enough that it ended up being further developed and deployed by the US Military, Spain, Italy, India and Thailand. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 4, 2015 10:14:18 GMT
And your point is? Military hardware, or tactics and training for that matter, isn't developed in isolation nor are the external influences purely from battlefield experiences. You take a look at what Allies are doing as well, and their designs help inform you as to what features and technologies may be helpful on existing or future designs. For Carrier technology the USN took catapults from the Royal Navy, along with armored flight decks - British carriers in WW2 had armored flight decks which reduced the number of aircraft they could carry but increased survivability from bomb attacks. The Yorktown class lacked armored flight decks, but after seeing how useful armored flight decks were on British carriers they were incorporated into subsequent US Carrier designs. You could play this game going back for centuries if not millennia. The design of British warships in the late part of 1700's and early 1800's was directly influenced by French and later Dutch designs. Every Battleship built after 1906 was based on HMS Dreadnought, which in turn would have been indirectly influenced in part by the USS Monitor (specifically the gun turret, although such turrets had been in use on other ships for at least a generation by 1906). Military design is usually a mixture of needs, what the enemy (or potential enemy) is capable of and what everyone else is doing. This is, of course, adding the fact that any advantageous technologies or features will end up spreading and quite often (especially in the 20th century) you'll see effective designs being sold world wide. The Argentine airforce had French Mirage jet fighters (that they thankfully opted not to deploy) and American A-4 Skyhawks with which to fight the Falklands war with. After the Falklands war the Harrier had proved itself enough that it ended up being further developed and deployed by the US Military, Spain, Italy, India and Thailand. the shirl was also only designed to launch off of the carrier, but not to land on it. they would jettison the landing gear, and ditch near the carrier and it would hopefully remain afloat long enough to winch it back aboard - IF they couldn't make it to a runway. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 4, 2015 17:18:32 GMT
My comment about the Shorts Shirl related only to folding wings, not other aspects of design.
As for the world most difficult aircraft to fly how about a Bleriot IX from 1909, the world oldest aircraft in airworthy condition, crash it and it is irreplaceable.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 4, 2015 22:57:19 GMT
My comment about the Shorts Shirl related only to folding wings, not other aspects of design. As for the world most difficult aircraft to fly how about a Bleriot IX from 1909, the world oldest aircraft in airworthy condition, crash it and it is irreplaceable. as I said right at the beginning - how about all those experimental designs that killed their pilot on the only test flight. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 5, 2015 1:48:34 GMT
My comment about the Shorts Shirl related only to folding wings, not other aspects of design. As for the world most difficult aircraft to fly how about a Bleriot IX from 1909, the world oldest aircraft in airworthy condition, crash it and it is irreplaceable. as I said right at the beginning - how about all those experimental designs that killed their pilot on the only test flight. A couple of the early NASA/Boeing/Grumman/Northrop "X-Projects" come to mind... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 5, 2015 5:36:20 GMT
So was the Short Stirling.... took me until I joined up to realise it wasnt just a "Not very long" plane and that Short was an actual plane maker.?..
I know, we all get confused.
(ask Loki)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 5, 2015 14:17:09 GMT
So was the Short Stirling.... took me until I joined up to realise it wasnt just a "Not very long" plane and that Short was an actual plane maker.?.. I know, we all get confused. (ask Loki) just like when you're talking about cars, "smart" is a brand name, not an adjective. |
|
