Tornado On Carriers

[SADDLER]

Just a query,would a Tornado have made a reasonable conventional carrier aircraft?

[insty66]

Not really,

U/C not strong enough.
Hook not strong enough

Weight penalty to correct the above faults would make it woefully underpowered for carrier operations.

In my opinion of course

[flash8]

I dunno about the Tornado but was surprised to find out the other day that the Herk was once considered for carriers and even had some test runs with success!

[Paul Wilson]

I believe the US Navy ran some Hawks off their carriers, could be wrong though

[StopStart]

Hawks? Carriers? Madness......

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/usn-t45goshawk03.jpg

[StopStart]

Herks? Carriers? Madness......

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_5.jpg

[moggiee]

The C130 landed on, and departed from, the USS Forrestal. A little effort on Google will find you the video.

[Not_a_boffin]

Look hard enough on Gary Google and there's a shot of Jaguar trials on the old french Clemenceau in the early 70s.

[Never Alert]

'carrier+jaguar+trials' is all you need.

Not a bad vid.

[Dr Jekyll]

I'm trying to think of a combat aircraft designed for land use that made a world class carrier aircraft. Apart from the Harrier which is something of a special case, I can't think of any. Unless you count the F18 as a navalised YF17.

It's my memory at fault surely? There must be some, mustn't there?

[Cyclone733]

Perhaps this one?

http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/supermarine_seafire.html

[Evalu8ter]

I would hazard to suggest that the Seafire was anything but a world class carrier fighter; definately a case of necessity over suitabilility. Why? Narrow track, weak undercarriage, very poor over the nose visibility and short legs.

Compare and contrast to what IMHO were world class piston carrier fighters: Hellcat, Bearcat & Sea Fury (albeit developed from a land aircraft). All with raised cockpits and sloped cowlings to aid visibility, wide track undercarriage & decent endurance.

Note the exception of the Corsair; a wonderful aircraft but not "world class" as a pure carrier machine.

The USN did try a P51 but considered that it had poor visibility and too high an approach speed for carrier Ops.

The only type I can think of is the FJ Fury, naval version of the Sabre.

[brickhistory]

Seafire suffered from the same issues as listed above plus some:

- u/c never really built for the task; additionally, the narrow track was the cause of numerous accidents
- fuselage originally not up to arrested landings; it always had concerns regarding overstressing the structure
- visibility ahead while 'in the groove' led to circling approach on final which tended to impart sideloads it couldn't handle leading one back to the first point

Not meant to knock the pilots and deck crews. Utmost respect for making it work both in WWII and Korea.

But not a land plane design adapted to an 'outstanding' carrier aircraft, in my opinion.

[JagRigger]

Sea Fury...........?

[John Farley]

Paul

As you may now realise the Hawk (in T-45 guise) has been the USN advanced trainer for many years.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/T-45.jpg

JF

[Evalu8ter]

Oh, nearly forgot,
The Sea Hornet....sorry, need to stop dribbling now....

Big props, handed Merlins, awesome visibility, range and firepower.

Thinking laterally, Sea Cobra for the USMC and, dare I say it, Chinook?

Ok, it fizzes if you leave it on deck too long and doesn't fold, but on work per deckspot and tolerance to wind over the deck (or even a tailwind) little beats it as an assault platform.

Putting on tin hat and seeking shelter....

[Polikarpov]

Interesting question. Plenty of carrier aircraft went on to have world class land-based careers, of course. F-4, Buccaneer, to name but two!

[GreenKnight121]

As you may now realise the Hawk (in T-45 guise) has been the USN advanced trainer for many years.


With a beefed-up airframe, new landing gear, and a completely new & redesigned main wing.

The Tornado would have been a decent carrier aircraft IF it had been part of the initial design, and if more powerful engines were provided... the RB199s were barely adequate for the land-based versions... they would have been dangerously underpowered with a heavier navalized Tornado.

[WPH]

http://ships.bouwman.com/C17/C17-Carrier.jpg

[VinRouge]

I always thought that the tornado engines were optimised (blade angles etc) for its ultra-low level-never coming-back bombing missions to russia, rather the medium level bastardised bomber hot n' high that we now use it as?

Would have thought the jag would have been relatively ok for landings, especially as its U/C was designed for strip landings (or on motorways) and quite rugged, certainly able to cope with the high r.o.d. encountered in deck landings. Bear in mind, of course, you cant just slap on a ruggedised UC, you have to also beef up the surrounding structure, be it wing box or fuselage to cope with the additional stress/fatigue encountered. Oh, thats before we take into account that the Jag required curvature-of-earth to get airbourne from airfields (loaded up) in the first place!!!

I would suggest its relatively easy to design a carrier-based A/C to operate on land than vice-versa; the design points are worlds apart, to design a land base a/c to operate from a carrier would not only be highly restrictive in terms of payload, but also range.

[mr fish]

could you count the b25 mitchell, as touched on in everyones fave aero film 'pearl necklace'. of course only one bomb was dropped per aircraft, but the effect on the japanese military was profound. the raid forced them to confront the fact that the usa was not out of the war and was in the mood to continue by any means necessary:8

[RAFEmployee]

The C17 on the carrier is photoshop, you see the dust from a desert landing and the shadows are in the wrong place and I don't think that guy would stand where he is.

[ZH875]

The C17 on the carrier is photoshop, you see the dust from a desert landing and the shadows are in the wrong place and I don't think that guy would stand where he is.


You don't say.....:ugh:

[TEEEJ]

U-2 Carriers? Madness......

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/u2/carrier_01.jpg

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2001/0201spyplane.asp

[MDJETFAN]

Though it didn't come to fruition, in 1973 McDonnell-Douglas submitted a design proposal for a DC-9-20 with folding outer wings and extending nose gear a la F-4 Phantom for catapult launches. The Series 20 was the version with a Series 10 fuselage, but the bigger Series 30 wing which also had L/E slats fitted. The nose wheel was positioned 12 feet 6 inches further aft than normal.
Primarily designed for COD duties, it was also to be fitted with standard USN "Buddy" IFR pods under the wings to support the RA-5Cs on long range missions. Two removeable fuselage fuel tanks offered an additional 1780 USG for off-loading or increasing the operating range.
It also had an IFR probe mounted on the port side of the nose. The heavy thrust reversers were also to be eliminated and straight-through exhaust pipes fitted.
Shore operations would have been with a 110,000 lb MTOW; Carrier ops were restricted to a 104,000 lb MTOW by catapult limitations. The MLW aboard ship was restricted to 75,000lbs.
In service was planned for mid-1976. The project was dropped as the number of carriers was reduced as the Nam conflict wound down.

[GreenKnight121]

Mr fish...

In 1942, a B-25 could not have landed on a CV. But they could by 1944. Testing of catapult takeoffs and arrested landings were performed using one modified PBJ (USN/USMC version of the B-25) aboard the new Essex-class CV Shangri-La in November 1944. The testing used the arresting gear assembly from an SBD (Dauntless), and was deemed successful, but no further development of the idea was ever made.


We discussed the idea here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4352

[Tourist]

To return to the question,

I find it very unlikely that the conversion to a carrier a/c could also transform the Tornado into a reasonable aircraft.
I mean, whats the chances?

[peppermint_jam]

Perhaps if you had a carrier with a 5000ft deck she might get airbourne! Tonkas do do the job they were built for rather well though.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

The C17 on the carrier is photoshop, you see the dust from a desert landing and the shadows are in the wrong place and I don't think that guy would stand where he is.

You must be an IntO. Waaaaaaah!

[WolvoWill]

The Jag 'M' always struck me as a rather bad idea - yes its undercarriage was strong but the relative lack of thrust and poor engine out performance seemed to stand against it. Isn't it a bit underfinned as well, making low speed high-ish AOA handling quite tricky, also counting against its suitability?

I did read a story about the Jag M being rejected by the French Navy because of its poor engine out performance - the irony being that the aircraft they ended up with, the Super Etendard, had even worse engine out performance.........politics and patriotism were always against a navalised Jag for the French anyway.

[LowObservable]

I remember the FN rejecting Jag N for exactly that reason, and replacing it with the Super Etendard, which as you say made no sense at first. However, the Jag's wing loading and T/W ratio were not ideal, and if it was indeed not safe on one engine you were better off with a single, with half as many failures.
The old land-based to carrier-based question keeps popping up. The answer is that the design criteria have diverged as performance increased. The Sea Fury and Sea Hornet were the last respectable land-to-carrier fighters that did not involve a major redesign. The Sea Vampire/Venom/Aquilon were OK, although none of the early carrier straight-wing jets were wonderful.
From then on - people say FJ-2/3/4 Fury, but the FJ-2 was not a successful CV machine and the FJ-3/4 were successively deeper redesigns.
In the supersonic age, we have seen one aircraft in parallel variants - Rafale - be successful, and another - Jaguar - fail at the carrier side. Both were designed from the ground up for carrier and land ops, though.
In the 1970s, Congress told the USN to buy a fighter based on the USAF's LWF candidates, the YF-16 and YF-17, but what came out the end was a new airplane.
Meanwhile, the Russians have navalized the MiG-29 and Su-27 - the latter is in service and the former in a new version has been ordered by India.
And then there's the Harrier and JSF.
Lesson: it's not impossible with the right aircraft (moderate wing loading, lots of power). But be prepared for an extensive redesign to address cat/trap loads, no-flare landings, approach speed limits and over-the-nose view.

[Tourist]

Peppermint.
"Tonkas do do the job they were built for rather well though. "
Lets see you justify that statement.

I am not talking about the boxes of wiggly amps and missiles here, I mean the airframe.
Put the clever electrics in any number of aircraft (for example one that can fly above 250) and the result is vastly superior.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Put the clever electrics in any number of aircraft (for example one that can fly above 250) and the result is vastly superior.

You are trying to shift the goalposts. He said, "Tonkas do do the job they were built for rather well though" which at the time was hammering along at or more often well below 250ft.

Of course there have been very few complaints from those who actually matter about the service they have received from Tornado crews in the latest hotspots.

[Never Alert]

Tourist has a point about the airframes performance up at ML however, the comment he dived on was in reference to the orginal design of the Tornado...

On the deck, flat out, they are the best in the business.

If the airframe is letting the crews down up at ML in sandy places, they are doing well to produce the goods in spite of it.:D

[Tourist]

If we are going to get pernickity (sp?), then you mean the job it was initially designed for, whereas I am refering to the job the F3 was built for.
I aint a bomber that the RN is crying out for, but some form of credible air defense.
(A bomber would also be nice)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Where did you mention the F3 variant of the Tonka previous to your last post?

Even the decks of grey funnel line boats don't shift about as much as the goalposts seem to be doing here.

[Eagle402]

Low Observable,

Thanks for a very interesting - and thorough - post on a fascinating subject.

Much obliged Sir.

Eagle402.

[Tourist]

Equally stacker, when did I, or anyone else for that matter, mention the GR?

Perhaps what peppermint should have said was "The ground attack variant of the Tornado is quite good at doing the low level bombing role that nobody tends to do anymore. "

[The Helpful Stacker]

.... the low level bombing role that nobody tends to do anymore.

"Tends to do at the moment" would perhaps be more apt.

Whats to say that in the future the current trend of bombing lumps out of folks with little more than AKs and bad language from medium level won't be replaced with one of actually having to go toe to toe with a credible nation-state enemy?

Isn't this the oft quoted reason for the need for the Royal Navy to get hold of lots of shiny toys and other assorted budgetary drains?

[Engines]

LO pretty much hits the nail in his post.

The thread has shown up the key reason that land based and carrier based designs are very different - AS LONG AS the carrier mode of operation is cat and trap. Cat and trap demands a number of things from an aircraft, but the main design drivers are a very low approach speed (around 135 knots, and with excellent handling qualities)(to keep loads on arresting gear and the aircraft down) and an ability to get airborne safely at fairly low speeds (again to keep cat size and airframe loads down). You also have to add a fairly beefy and specially designed gear (F-35C gear is over twice the weight of F-35A!), some good engine controls, and usually folding wings - not at all straightforward. Plus a lot of ironwork in the fuselage to take heafty arresting and launch loads. All these requirements are hard to do with a conventional land based design - the T-45 version of the Hawk is radically different and only works because it is a training aircraft and doesn't need to carry a weapon load, or go far. Incidentlally, Jaguar was originally designed to be a sea going aircraft as well, hence the landing gear layout and sturdiness.

One reason that carrier based aircraft often make good land based designs is that part of the design solution for a CV aircraft can be a big wing - and that can be used for fuel as well as delivering good cruise efficiency. F-35C shows this feature well.

Once you take away cat and trap, aircraft can go to sea easily as long as they can get their approach speed down to zero and take off under their own power. Harrier, V-22, all rotary wing show how. Once there, a ship can add in advantages of a ski jump plus wind over deck (WOD).

Many of the examples quoted in the thread were 'one off' demonstrations of landing an aircraft on a ship and proved to have limited value. The C-130 took over the entire deck and could only have got off with a useful load with the aid of RATOG. The U-2 was a desperately bad aircraft to land - they bashed the nose off one on the early trials, and it was never deployed. Again, took over the entire deck.

To answer the original thread question - I belive that Tornado would probably NEVER have made a feasible carrier aircraft - but that doesn't make it a bad design - it's just too far a jump from one design space to another.

Regards,

Engines

[Kitbag]

To all those who keep citing the Jaguars undercarriage it is worth noting that the Jaguar M variant had a very different u/c from the land version- twin nose wheel with very long oleo and single main wheel units.

[MikeSmith1115]

I remember the first Tornados delivered to the RAF came with nose legs that could be extended to increase AoA specifically for carrier take-offs. Although never trialled (AFAIA), and the nose legs were soon modified, the main underacrriage was recokned to be beefy enough for a carrier landing, but I agree the hook would need some serious work.

[LowObservable]

Thanks to those who made comments...
I'd add a couple of other considerations to the mix.
It's not just low approach speed but controllability at low approach speed. What finally nailed Boeing's delta-wing JSF was the size of control surfaces needed rather than a question of lift, per se.
Also, consider corrosion/environment - particularly on your LO systems if any.
And the USN at least has some landing gear requirements - addressing the need to make sure that the jet stays on all three wheels as it moves - which tend to push the mains back. This is why the Bug/Rhino toe the rudders in to rotate.

[Engines]

LO, spot on as usual. Some comments, though:

Controllability on the approach - yes, the Boeing JSF ran out of control power and grew a tail - look at most cat and trap aircraft and you see a big tailplane to generate the forces needed. Buccaneer used leading edge blowing on the tailplane to get the same without the weight and stress penalty - very clever and I think unique.

USN landing gear requirements are very demanding and normally drive the gears aft to give 'rollback stability' - i.e. the jet won't tip nose up if suddenly braked when moving aft on a rolling deck. However, the gears have to be far enough forward to allow 'tail over deck' servicing. Plus, gear location on the airframe drives the ability to handle the very large loads needed to do the 'no flare' recoveries needed to take the wires with accuracy. Further forward, the better, usually.

Modern designs, like F-18 and others, have allowed the gears to move aft to ease these concerns and then use clever scheduling of control surfaces (rudders and tailplanes) to get the thing rotated at the end of the cat stroke. This launch and rotate manoeuvre is a really hard bit of the cat and trap envelope to get right, and most aircraft (F-18 for sure) now do it hands off to keep the pilot out of the loop. UK were the first to demand that and it led to some expensive changes to the baseline F-4 when the RN bought it.

[mr fish]

sorry to back a few posts but GREENKNIGHT 121, do i take your comment to mean the doolittle raids did not take place???.my post refered to an important mission which happened to involve aircraft and carriers, the fact that it was one way was not really relevant(execpt to the brave chaps involved)!!

[GreenKnight121]

To quote someone on another board...

"Welcome to the internet. Where everything you say can and will be misquoted and presented out of context."


No, nothing I said could possibly be interpreted (to my reading, anyway) as claiming the Dolittle raid didn't happen!

And yes, the fact it was one-way is indeed pertinent, as many aircraft that were completely unsuitable for use as carrier aircraft took off from carrier decks (unmodified Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40s, DC-3, etc), but did not land on them.

I was showing how the B-25 could indeed have been adapted for full carrier service... which is the point of the entire thread... adapting a land-based aircraft for carrier service.

[Cyclone733]

GreenKnight121,

The second Malta mission resulted in what must be the
first and only RAF Spitfire carrier landing in history.
One of the Malta-bound Spits lost his belly fuel tank
after launch and returned to Wasp. Of course, he had
no tail hook, thus could not 'catch a wire.' Wasp's
CAG coached the pilot in (he took one wave-off) and
successfully guided him to a landing which stopped just
10 feet from the forward edge of the flight deck.

Not to say this makes the Spitfire a good carrier aircraft of course

[phil gollin]

The Seafire's bad reputation was obtained at Salerno where the light winds meant an excessive number of poor landings/crashes. Otherwise the plane's reputation has been gradually resurected to a status akin to a "good/very good makeshift with problems" depending on who you read.

There is no doubt that it wasn't an ideal naval fighter (low endurance and undercarriage mainly) but it was the fastest naval fighter at low-level even at the end of the war and was much more manoueverable than any other. It's main fault in the BPF was chewing through propellors through "pecking" on landing.

-----

One not mentioned are the "hooked mosquitoes" (as opposed to post-war Sea Mosquitoes) which came in two types. The only "operational" ones were the 618 squadron "Highball" ones. The PR versions were fully carrier capable, but the bomber version were only rated for one full carrier arrested landing. They went out to the Far East but were never used.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Very interesting book by an RN TP on the subject, I forget the name of the chap that wrote it, but the title is "Wings on my Sleeve" or similar. The chap conducted many carrier trials of lots of different aircraft, including, I believe, the mossie. Well worth a read!

[ORAC]

Controllability on the approach - yes, the Boeing JSF ran out of control power and grew a tail - look at most cat and trap aircraft and you see a big tailplane to generate the forces needed. Doesn't mean a tail is always needed though.....

Cancelled A-12 Avenger II

http://www.habu2.net/a12/images/a12_a02.jpg

Planned X-47 Pegasus Naval UCAV (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/)

In August 2007, Northrop Grumman was selected by US Navy for the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) with a version of the X-47B with Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine. The programme is to demonstrate the suitability of an autonomous UAV for aircraft carrier operations and identify critical technologies. Two demonstrator air vehicles are to be built. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in late 2009, carrier landings in 2011 and the programme will conclude in 2013. It will include catapult take-offs, arrested landings and flight in the immediate vicinity of the carrier.

The airframe is a stealthy planform design. It is diamond-kite shaped with a 55° backward sweep on the leading edge and a 35° forward sweep on the trailing edge. The X-47A has a wingspan of 8.47m and is 8.5m long; the dimensions of the X-47B have yet to be finalised.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/images/X-

[Gainesy]

Very interesting book by an RN TP on the subject, I forget the name of the chap that wrote it

Capt Eric "Winkle" Brown, RN. Good book, recently re-printed.

[DarkBlueLoggie]

I dunno about the Tornado but was surprised to find out the other day that the Herk was once considered for carriers and even had some test runs with success!

As already posted, Hercs were trialled on carriers. The big drawback was that the entire flightdeck had to be cleared for it to operate, something which you don't want to do very often and not good on a USN carrier who traditionally operate with a far larger air group than can be parked in the hangar. Thus you either have to deploy with a fraction of your air group in order to operate one aircraft, or have it all up in the air whenever you want to launch or land the Herc.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Hey, what would you professionals know? Like-Minded and his hairy palmed chums have been landing B747's on aircraft carriers donchaknow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M81yoZqrMPM&feature=related)?

Read some of the comments below the video. Priceless.

:rolleyes:

[chopper2004]

Bill Gunston's Future Warplanes: the first published edition:in the mid 80s, showed a concept for COD Fokker 100 for the USN....I recalled the artists impression.

[mtoroshanga]

I may be wrong but I am sure that a number of spitfires landed on the carrier HMS Courageous in the course of escaping from Norway early in the last War. Of course she was subsequently sunk by the battlecruisers Scharnhoust and Gnisenou (or something like that) and most of the pilots lost.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

mtoroshanga,

You are probably thinking of 46 Sqn landing Hurricanes on HMS Glorious after withdrawing from Norway.

[The Adjutant]

Not Spitfires in the 1940 Nowegian campaign. Gloster Gladiators and some Hurricanes (I think) but certainly not Spitfires.

[mtoroshanga]

I stand corrected. Age and all that!!!!

[topgas]

Eric "Winkle" Brown's book is an excellent read, also see
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=250925

The wheels up landings on the Rubber Landing Deck was an unusual way to avoid undercarriage stress!

[Evalu8ter]

Had the fortune to see "Winkle" chat about test flying last year. His stories of landing the first semi-navalized Mosquito were enthralling. No "handed" engines and a power-on approach speed below the published stall speed....

Had nothing but praise for the Sea Hornet mind you...

[LowObservable]

Evalu8r...

A key to making the X-47B work is that it has no cockpit... therefore no over-the-nose visibility required... therefore an aerodynamically optimal alpha... made life easier than for the A-12. But the A-12 also had a funny planform, and ended up with huge control surfaces and slats.

[Double Zero]

My father was an engine fitter on Seafires with HMS Unicorn at Salerno; although 897NAS claimed four German aircraft, after four days they were down from around thirty aircraft to half a dozen, all through deck landing accidents – simple lack of Wind Over Deck, even when the ship was going flat out.

An answer to this was later come up with – it’s called the Harrier !

The Seafire simply had too weak & narrow-track undercarriage, plus had a nasty habit of breaking it’s back on severe hook arrests.

The previous comment about ‘pecking’ is valid too; the Merlin had a weak point in the bevel gearing.

I have often wondered why the Hurricane was not used more; might be a bit slower but surely more suitable for lightly trained service pilots on a moving deck?!

I am certainly not a Test Pilot, but I always got the impression ‘Winkle’ Brown was using his superior skills to do what was just about possible, rather than the later creed of TP who had the standard service pilot in mind – an example being judging the Corsair fine for carrier use, when even the US Marines had said “ sod that ! ”

Dad went onto Hellcats in the Pacific, obviously a far better carrier plane than the Seafire; though he reckons the later Mk9’s did well considering.

[Engines]

ORAC, tails and all that....

The A-12 was cancelled and one of the problems LM were struggling with was control surface power on the approach. I have heard that the 'Dorito' had exhibited a tendency to tumble end over end in some conditions (in the wind tunnels).

Likewise the X-47A has already been heavily modified to get it onto the deck - the original delta 'kite' planform has given way to a more conventional flying wing arrangement on the X-47B. LO, you are right that lack of cockpit allows use of higher alpha on the approach but this often comes at the expense of controllability. Not only that, landing at high AOA results in some unwelcome problems during hook engagement and run out - the best carrier jets land as close to flat as they can.

This cat and trap business - devilishly hard....

Regards

Engines

[insty66]

A potted history of 46 Sqn's Norwegian "adventure" can be found here (http://www.smr46.co.uk/sqn/46histry.htm) It misses out little bit's like landing attempts on coconut matting! but the basic's are there.

Most of the ground crew were evacuated by Norwegian trawler boats at great risk to the Norwegians themselves.

To go back on topic I remember the "double extension" nose legs but never saw one extended.

Thought it was a mad idea in 85 and still do now tbh.

[Evalu8ter]

Double Zero,
Your question about the Hurricane is a valid one. In many ways the Seafire & F4U are alike, as are the F6F and Hurricane. Both the Seafire and the Corsair were highly strung, high performance and demanding aircraft where the design emphasis was on combat capability and performance. The trade off was structural strength / chassis design (Seafire) and forward visibility / initially highly recoiling undercarriage (in order to accommodate the prop) for the Corsair.

Hurricane / F6F not in the same performance league, not as glamourous but inherently more docile, arguebly more combat resistant and safer machines for 200 hr pilots to go to war in. Interestingly, also, in their own way more successful than their more famous cousins; F6F shot down more ac in the PTO than the Corsair whereas the Hurricanes role in the BoB is well documented.

[shaky]

I've got an old video on the development of the Harrier in which John Farley makes the eminently sensible comment,regarding carrier operations, that it is far easier to stop and land than it is to land and then try to stop.

[Not_a_boffin]

As opposed to the current RVL proposal, which is to slow down a bit and then land........and then try to stop

Jane's are reporting that the F135 for Dave B has suffered another blade failure, slap bang sod on time for revival of F136?

[WhiteOvies]

N_A_B
Top bunch of people that Rolls-Royce Aero are, they also know a fair bit about blade failures, particularly in the VSTOL flight regime.

However, they have learned lots through several investigations and F136 looks like much the better option for the Dave B. Shame that politics entererd so much into the selection of F135 but there's just no avoiding it in procurement these days.:hmm:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

According to the MOD website, on this day in 1963 the P1127 prototype, forerunner of the Harrier, made the first test vertical landing and take-off from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal off Portland.

P1127 lead to Harrier, which led to the Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152), and to a new chapter of shipborne aviation.

Only for our short sighted politicians to screw the pooch again.... :\