Land Based Carrier Aircraft

[course_profile]

I was wondering the other day, as you do..

Quite often when talking about carrier aviation people raise the prospect of 'marinising' (sic?) ground based aircraft to operate off carriers. I was wondering if this has ever worked in reverse.

There are lot of design qualities that go into making an aircraft suitable for carrier service, such as sturdier undercarriage, which must increase the weight of the aircraft and reduce it's performance.

When it comes to selling aircraft designed for carrier service for land based operation, such as the F/A-18 has been, did they ever approach the idea of improving the performance by changing the parts of the design that were geared towards carrier service?

[FODPlod]

I'll kick off with the Blackburn Buccaneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer). Read Rowland White's Phoenix Squadron for one of the best insights about its operation.

[course_profile]

Did they make a huge number of changes to the aircraft when the RAF started operating from land bases? Taking away the blown lift or folding wings ect?

[Finnpog]

A-7 Corsair IIs had an AAR boom receptacle added for some of the USAF specific models. Don't think that they redesigned the gear though. I think that the same was true for the F-4 Phantom (IIs - to be pedantic).

[Squirrel 41]

When the US Navy's F-4B became the F-4C (aka F-110A) for the USAF had a dorsal UAARSI port and had larger (and therefore lower pressure) tyres, IIRC.

S41

[Courtney Mil]

Did they make a huge number of changes to the aircraft when the RAF started operating from land bases? Taking away the blown lift or folding wings ect?

No, they don't tend to. Those things are in-built and it would mean a major redseign. Not to mention all the TP work, clearances, etc. Better just to keep them the way they are.

Anyway, some of the new generation of pilots seem to need the stronger landing gear. :E

[turbroprop]

Re Buccaneer

Undercarriage was changed and brakes improved. Equipment used for catupalt launch removed. Underwater escape system removed.

Folding wings and nose kept. Mega useful when parking aircraft in hangar.

Aircraft had a rapid defuel switch that was designed to get rid of fuel quickly to get aircraft below decks. It required an engine to be running for it to function. Not used in Air Force as no requirement, but amusing to watch a liney hanging off the switch thinking in would speed up a normal defuel.

[Trim Stab]

When the RN F4s moved to RAF service I presume that the reason the RAF shortened the nose-wheel leg was to improve unassisted take-off and landing performance?

I guess that when operated unassisted by catapult from land strips, the RN spec F4s would have suffered degradation in take off performance due to the positive incidence throughout the take-off run, and possibly a degradation in landing performance because incidence and thus lift could not be killed immediately the main wheels touched down, thus reducing braking performance.

[dat581]

RAAF F18s had their catapult launch bars deleted when built which surprisingly caused problems when taxiing. Something about a feedback loop in the fly by wire controls causing the nose wheel to oscillate without any pilot input. The solution was to add a no functional launch bar.

I'd say the RAF removed the double extendable nose leg to save the money need to maintain it. Since it was used for carrier take off only and never for landing ( you'd snap the bloody thing ) and the RN did not use it when operating from land bases.

[West Coast]

Technically, C-130 as well.

The pedant in me made me do it.

[Rhino power]

The RAF neither shortened or removed the nose gear leg on the FG.1s it received from the RN, it was the same as it was when they flew from the carriers, just that the extra extensible section was not used.

-RP

[course_profile]

It was the whole thread on what would happen if F-35 went belly up that go my thinking. Having the 3 different variants obviously means that only the C suffered the weight penalty of all the extra bits and pieces it needs to operate off a ship.

This led to think about the F/A-18, which has enjoyed considerable success being exported to Air Forces around the world as opposed to Navies. Seeing as all non US customers operate it from land bases I wondered why they hadn't ever offered a version with normal landing gear, a weaker hook, no wing folding mechanism ect to make it more competitive against other jets. I always thought it was bit under powered anyway although I could be wrong and it seemed like an obvious idea.

Interesting to hear the stories!

[LowObservable]

Before there was a Super Hornet there was a Northrop F-18L (land) that competed with the F/A-18A/B in Canada and Australia. It was anout 1500 lb lighter in OEW than the Hornet and Northrop promised all sorts of other goodies, but commonality ruled.

[GreenKnight121]

Carrier aircraft successfully used by land-based Air Forces:
SBD Dauntless (A-24)
F4U Corsair
F7F Tigercat
S-2 Tracker
A-3 Skywarrior (B-66)
A-4 Skyhawk
A-7 Corsair II
F-8 Crusader
F-4 Phantom II
F-14 Tomcat
Blackburn Buccaneer

There are more, these are just a few that come to mind.

[Davef68]

The F111 carried an amount of weight that had been designed for the carrier version IIRC.

The B-66 had substantial differences from the A-3, it wasn't the simple conversion the USAF originally planned.

[sevenstrokeroll]

don't forget the A1 Skyraider!

The B25 went from a land based plane to a carrier takeoff plane once I seem to recall!

[TBM-Legend]

and some went both ways:

F4F Wildcat
TBF Avenger
SNJ/T-6
T-28
Hawk/Goshawk
Mig29
Su30
H-3 Sea King
H-1 Huey
F9F Panther
T-2 Buckeye
T-33/TV-2
Seafire

[Senior Pilot]

and some went both ways:


Plus a swag of helicopters (aircraft, too) since the Sikorsky R-4!
Dragonfly
Sioux
Whirlwind
Wessex
Wasp/Scout
Sea King
Gazelle
Lynx
Merlin

and probably one or three more around the world :ok:

Re the Buccaneer, ISTR that the RAF added original parts back onto the RN machines: the wing fold covers that were removed as too much of a PITA during carrier ops ;)

[RedhillPhil]

The RAF neither shortened or removed the nose gear leg on the FG.1s it received from the RN, it was the same as it was when they flew from the carriers, just that the extra extensible section was not used.

-RP

I seem to remember an F-4K - dunno if it was a light blue or a dark blue one - landing back at Leuchars with the nosewheel extended, it having refused to retract because the leg wouldn't/couldn't be shortened for retraction.

[ORAC]

It would be cheaper to buy Mudhens off the shelf rather than adding the cost of modifying the SH.

[keesje]

??

Land Based Carrier - Aircraft (J-15 on Wuhan concrete testing/training carrier)

http://imageshack.us/a/img69/6195/wuhan5.jpg

OR


Land Based - Carrier Aircraft (S-2T, Argentine, no more carrier..)

http://home.wxs.nl/~roden171/fotos/faa11.jpg