Old 26th Aug 2008, 21:08
  #23 (permalink)  
Engines
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 768
There's a lot of supposition going on here - and that's OK, it's a discussion forum. However, some of it is a bit wide of the mark.

SRVL relative approach speed to the deck is around the 40 knot mark, I guess. The available landing area on CVF is generous (especially if we were to use an angled landing area) and the F-35B brakes are extremely powerful. Distance from the round down to the touch down point will be a key parameter. The guys working this are not going to recommend an unsafe landing method to justify buying the B. The TPs involved are experienced, smart and operationally aware. They are working to devise a safe manual technique that can be easily automated to improve safety - very much as the USN do for their cat and trap operations.

Spey Phantom - yes, definitely a good bit of work for RR, in the wake of TSR2, P1154 and HS681 cancellation. But the driver for the UK changes was the need to get the aircraft off the shorter catapults and slower carriers the UK had in the 60s. In addition, Bolter performance was a very real issue. Landing gear was beefed up and heavily modified, more weight and so more thrust required. The problem was taking an aircraft designed in detail to operate from the USN CVN flight deck, and trying to get it to work from a smaller deck on a slower ship.

When looking at taking F-35C and putting it on CVF, we could consider this piece of history....
Engines is offline