Not_a_ Boffin wrote:
The trough-type arrangement you're describing would have to be very narrow (driven by the wheel track on both F18 and F35) and of the order of 1-2m in width at best, to avoid the same problem. However, by doing that you're automatically constraining the aircraft to recover within 0.5 to 1m laterally of the deck CL, which will increase the pilot burden / reduce operating envelope and also putting an osbtruction in the deck which in addition to being a corrosion / FOD trap would also be a hazard to tyres during a landing. The current safe parking lining allows for a 3m deviation off CL for the E2. It's a lot of trouble to go to before trying to sort the hook itself.
Not_A_Boffin, What you are describing is a single trough. What I had in mind was a series of shallow undulations with a maximum depth, of, say, one wire diameter and a wavelength of, say, a metre. The next wire would have its dips half a wavelength out of sequence with the first, so if the hook did hit a highpoint on the deck at the first wire it would be more likely to find a low point at the next one.
As for being a FOD trap, with a 1 metre wavelength and a 1 wire diameter depth it should be easy enough to keep clean. The 20 to 42 foot pitch between the arrester wires means that the slope of the longitudinal wavelength will be small.
Some useful info and drawings on arrester hook design and carrier decks here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=P...topic&p=212174
Given the loads the arrester hook has to take, and its importance, Making it telescopic sounds like a lot of weight and potential unreliability to be incorporating into an already 'weight challenged' aircraft.
Is there any precedent of telescopic arrester hooks for carrier use and what is their track record?