PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Navalised Typhoon
View Single Post
Old 7th Jul 2005, 17:41
  #16 (permalink)  
LowObservable
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Not sure I'd cite the Sea Vixen as a good example of anything except a jet-propelled death warrant.

True: there is no cheap and fast way to adapt a land-based aircraft to a carrier, because the cat, arrest and landing loads are large and very specific and go to the inmost parts of the structure. So-called "carrier derivatives" of land-based aircraft either didn't work very well or were like the FJ Fury - completely different aircraft.

There are other issues, too.
A carrier aircraft doesn't worry too much about crosswinds.
Approach speeds are more restricted, which means higher AoA and a need for over-the-nose visibility.
Control response on approach is more critical (look at the tail and high-lift devices on a Hornet versus an F-16.)

Clearly, a carrier-based aircraft can operate ashore easily enough (although the Bug has a tendency to roll into a ball if you fubar the landing) but it carries a weight penalty. An F-16E is smaller than a Super Bug but has better performance all round, and the Foat Wuff team has managed to exceed the Bug's performance without going to a new airplane.

The F-4 worked well, but give me a break - it was twice the size of anything else at the time.

The Rafale is the first computer-aided compromise design. The layout works well for both CV and CTOL, and the extra structural beef required is incorporated in the smallest possible number of parts.
LowObservable is offline