Catapult launch
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catapult launch
Ok its new years day so I am allowed one daft question, Watching a doc on Channel 5 at the mo about Aircraft Carriers, and the craft that fly off em.apart from the commentary its quite good.
A question occurs to one,have catapult Aircraft Launchers and hook and wire recovery ever been concidered for land based military aircraft?shurely it would save on gas runway length ect.
I know that carrier based aircraft have to be a tad more robust than their land based counterpart, but it would not be necessary to slam a Jet down as hard on a normal runway would it?
Is it worth Drapes patenting this idea??????
A question occurs to one,have catapult Aircraft Launchers and hook and wire recovery ever been concidered for land based military aircraft?shurely it would save on gas runway length ect.
I know that carrier based aircraft have to be a tad more robust than their land based counterpart, but it would not be necessary to slam a Jet down as hard on a normal runway would it?
Is it worth Drapes patenting this idea??????
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herr drapes
I believe the Septics had a system to arrest landing aircraft (if fitted with a tailhook, if not there was a crash barrier) at one of their VietNam bases. Apparently used to stop AC with hydraulic problems after combat but could be wrong as that would preclude lowering gear and hook, wouldn't it?
Anyone with more gen?
I believe the Septics had a system to arrest landing aircraft (if fitted with a tailhook, if not there was a crash barrier) at one of their VietNam bases. Apparently used to stop AC with hydraulic problems after combat but could be wrong as that would preclude lowering gear and hook, wouldn't it?
Anyone with more gen?
You cannot patent an idea.
Carriers (that is proper ones, not just silly little boats like Invisible) need angled decks, mirror landing sights, arrestor systems and catapults because they can't be built long enough to launch or recover combat aircraft otherwise. Being able to generate 30+ knots of wind-over-the-deck also helps....
How would catapults, arrestor systems and all the associated maintenance thereof ever be economically viable on land? I believe it was tried with Hawker biplanes in the '30s and was demed a crock of $hit even then...
Carriers (that is proper ones, not just silly little boats like Invisible) need angled decks, mirror landing sights, arrestor systems and catapults because they can't be built long enough to launch or recover combat aircraft otherwise. Being able to generate 30+ knots of wind-over-the-deck also helps....
How would catapults, arrestor systems and all the associated maintenance thereof ever be economically viable on land? I believe it was tried with Hawker biplanes in the '30s and was demed a crock of $hit even then...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well , back to the drawing board,hmmm, so Aircraft cannot land on a stationary carrier, one shall begin work on a submarine with a very large hacksaw mounted at the bow, that will sneak under enemy carriers and saw off the propellors.
I remember reading about a idea for landing the early Jets on carriers which because of the increased landing speeds presented something of a problem, one idea was to sort of flop them onto a huge inflatable rubber mattress, well necessity is the mother of invention as they say.
I remember reading about a idea for landing the early Jets on carriers which because of the increased landing speeds presented something of a problem, one idea was to sort of flop them onto a huge inflatable rubber mattress, well necessity is the mother of invention as they say.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your idea might just catch on Drapes....
If the powers that be can see that by halving the landing/take-off distance required they could sell off a large chunk of real estate, ie part of an airfield, it might just create another air-offcer slot and more promotions at the top end.
If the powers that be can see that by halving the landing/take-off distance required they could sell off a large chunk of real estate, ie part of an airfield, it might just create another air-offcer slot and more promotions at the top end.
The Americans came up with the cunning idea of putting F-100s and F-104s (and presumably other types) on top of a giant firework and firing the thing at an odd angle of attack. ZELL (or Zero-Length Launch) never really caught on, though. I'll see if I can't find one of the piccies of the tests.
Not strictly a catapult, of course.
As for runway arrestor gear, there is the emergency (RHAG?) system isn't/ wasn't there? Or is that not a wire/hook arrangement?
I dimly recall reading a suggestion in some journal that the first Phantoms operating out of the Falklands routinely used arresting gear to overcome the problem of a worryingly short runway, but have no idea whether or not that's correct. I would be totally and utterly astonished if someone here didn't have the answer by dint of having done it...
Not strictly a catapult, of course.
As for runway arrestor gear, there is the emergency (RHAG?) system isn't/ wasn't there? Or is that not a wire/hook arrangement?
I dimly recall reading a suggestion in some journal that the first Phantoms operating out of the Falklands routinely used arresting gear to overcome the problem of a worryingly short runway, but have no idea whether or not that's correct. I would be totally and utterly astonished if someone here didn't have the answer by dint of having done it...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres a clip knocking about of a F100 I think being blasted thru the door of a large barn and skyward with the aid of a rocket, must have been a bit traumatic for the Pilot, I think the idea was to hide aircraft in dummy barns ready for instant launch to fool Ivan.
Will see if I can locate it.
Will see if I can locate it.
Drapes,
I believe that our septic cousins did at one time experiment with a fighter rocket launched from the back of a lorry. It would be recovered to a normal runway after it's mission was complete. The idea being to have fighters close to the "enemy" border ready for close support for the army.
I also believe that an aircraft carrier was fitted with a rubber covered deck for aircraft landing trials for aircraft with no landing gear fitted! The aircraft being launched by a catapult like Seafires off WW2 merchant ships. This idea was never pursued further than the trials stage! I understand that this idea was British and Vampires/Venoms were used.
Maybe somebody from the History/Nostalgia forum will be able to add some input to this.
CC
I believe that our septic cousins did at one time experiment with a fighter rocket launched from the back of a lorry. It would be recovered to a normal runway after it's mission was complete. The idea being to have fighters close to the "enemy" border ready for close support for the army.
I also believe that an aircraft carrier was fitted with a rubber covered deck for aircraft landing trials for aircraft with no landing gear fitted! The aircraft being launched by a catapult like Seafires off WW2 merchant ships. This idea was never pursued further than the trials stage! I understand that this idea was British and Vampires/Venoms were used.
Maybe somebody from the History/Nostalgia forum will be able to add some input to this.
CC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about all modern military aircraft are hook-equipped these days, whether naval or not. For use in emergencies with the arrestor gear to be found at most military bases.
CC,
The rubberised deck idea was meant to help reduce the weight of jet aircraft (to help with endurance) by removing everything to do with landing gear. A carrier was give a rubber deck, tested using Vampires (wheels up landing rather than after having undercart removed) and all went well. Then someone pointed out that the aircraft could only land on rubber decks, which would mean that RN Air Stations would have to have runways made out of the stuff, which also meant that carrier aircraft wouldn't be able to divert to other airfields without damage resulting from the landing, which meant...
The Admiralty looked at the cost, went, 'Ah. Er. Oh. Um....' and promptly abandoned the idea. Fortunately, as well as this crackpot scheme, the RN also oversaw some more useful thoughts about steam catapults, mirror landing systems, angled decks, etc, etc.
[Edited to add:
ZELL pic here
ZELL F-104 Page (with movie clip link - don't know if it works) here
The rubberised deck idea was meant to help reduce the weight of jet aircraft (to help with endurance) by removing everything to do with landing gear. A carrier was give a rubber deck, tested using Vampires (wheels up landing rather than after having undercart removed) and all went well. Then someone pointed out that the aircraft could only land on rubber decks, which would mean that RN Air Stations would have to have runways made out of the stuff, which also meant that carrier aircraft wouldn't be able to divert to other airfields without damage resulting from the landing, which meant...
The Admiralty looked at the cost, went, 'Ah. Er. Oh. Um....' and promptly abandoned the idea. Fortunately, as well as this crackpot scheme, the RN also oversaw some more useful thoughts about steam catapults, mirror landing systems, angled decks, etc, etc.
[Edited to add:
ZELL pic here
ZELL F-104 Page (with movie clip link - don't know if it works) here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Winkle Brown RN
I have read and treasured this book for years. he did the original trials I believe on the rubber deck on the carriers.
I have read and treasured this book for years. he did the original trials I believe on the rubber deck on the carriers.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, sad spotter's hat on...
Possibly the most bizarre ideas for land based aircraft operation was the German Bachem 349 'Natter' (Viper) project of 1944-45.
This tiny rocket powered (the same Walther rocket as used in the Me 163) point defence interceptor was designed to be launched vertically via 4 solid rocket boosters as the bomber stream passed overhead. The boosters were then jettisoned and the walther rocket took over. The thing would then climb rapidly above the bomber formation, and commence a gentle dive at approx 500 kts before the pilot jettisoned the nose cone and launched 24 unguided rockets. After having blown through the formation, the pilot would then decouple the control column and his harness before releasing the entire nose section forward of his seat!!! With the pilot now exposed to the elements, he would then deploy a brake parachute, thereby throwing the pilot clear and enabling the use of his standard personal parachute!!!!!!!
It was estimated that a typical Natter sortie would last around 2 mins!!! I guess therefore that there would have been plenty of '0' flt duration logbook entires, and that the 'Natter 1000 hrs patch' is now much sought after in aviation badge collector circles! Presumably, said pilot would also have flown with a travel warrant to enable a swift return to his airbase ready for his next op!!!!
The boxheads actually completed 11 unmanned and at least one manned (and fatal!) test flight of this thing. There are plenty of pics around of the thing, but unfortunately, I can never get the pic attachments to work on PPRUNE!! Anyone help?
Spotter's hat off...
Regards and a Happy/safe New Year to everyone!
M2
PS...Anyone seen the film of the Spam SF C-130 trials involving forward and rearward firing rockets to enable almost zero length takeoffs and landings? They trialled them allegedly with a view to flying a C-130 into and out of a football stadium in Tehran to rescue the hostages in 1980. The landing trial ended up with a C-130 in 2 bits!!!!
Possibly the most bizarre ideas for land based aircraft operation was the German Bachem 349 'Natter' (Viper) project of 1944-45.
This tiny rocket powered (the same Walther rocket as used in the Me 163) point defence interceptor was designed to be launched vertically via 4 solid rocket boosters as the bomber stream passed overhead. The boosters were then jettisoned and the walther rocket took over. The thing would then climb rapidly above the bomber formation, and commence a gentle dive at approx 500 kts before the pilot jettisoned the nose cone and launched 24 unguided rockets. After having blown through the formation, the pilot would then decouple the control column and his harness before releasing the entire nose section forward of his seat!!! With the pilot now exposed to the elements, he would then deploy a brake parachute, thereby throwing the pilot clear and enabling the use of his standard personal parachute!!!!!!!
It was estimated that a typical Natter sortie would last around 2 mins!!! I guess therefore that there would have been plenty of '0' flt duration logbook entires, and that the 'Natter 1000 hrs patch' is now much sought after in aviation badge collector circles! Presumably, said pilot would also have flown with a travel warrant to enable a swift return to his airbase ready for his next op!!!!
The boxheads actually completed 11 unmanned and at least one manned (and fatal!) test flight of this thing. There are plenty of pics around of the thing, but unfortunately, I can never get the pic attachments to work on PPRUNE!! Anyone help?
Spotter's hat off...
Regards and a Happy/safe New Year to everyone!
M2
PS...Anyone seen the film of the Spam SF C-130 trials involving forward and rearward firing rockets to enable almost zero length takeoffs and landings? They trialled them allegedly with a view to flying a C-130 into and out of a football stadium in Tehran to rescue the hostages in 1980. The landing trial ended up with a C-130 in 2 bits!!!!
Magic Mushroom
Yes I have seen it, veeeery interesting and I wouldn't like to be a passenger or crewman on it! It was called YMC-130H "Credible Sport". I think 2 were built and one still survives. As well as 8 rockets fireing forward to stop it in the football stadium, it also had vertical and rearward fireing rockets to get it out again!
CC
Yes I have seen it, veeeery interesting and I wouldn't like to be a passenger or crewman on it! It was called YMC-130H "Credible Sport". I think 2 were built and one still survives. As well as 8 rockets fireing forward to stop it in the football stadium, it also had vertical and rearward fireing rockets to get it out again!
CC
I think they drive aircraft carriers into the wind at about 30Kts to provide maximum flying speed.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read 'First Light' by Geoff Wellum. He describes taking 39 Spitfires to Malta in HMS Glorious. They took off without the help of a catapult and carrying 90 gallon drop tanks. Someone came up with the idea of putting the flaps down, placing 25 degree wooden wedges in place and then selecting the flaps back up to obtain 25 degrees of flap. (Flaps down then back up again after take-off) I looked up HMS Glorious in Jane's 1945 and found that the flight deck measured just 540 feet in length and had a bump in the middle. Quite an experience one imagines. None of the RAF pilots had ever flown from (or even been aboard) a carrier before but they all made it into the air safely, although one was lost en-route. Absolute nutters those 1940 vintage fighter pilots were...
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Bing,
Your tale about the Phantom trials may have been skewed in the retelling; if nil wind is required over the deck, the ship simply steams downwind, at the windspeed. No requirement to reverse/back up/steam astern
ISTR we did the occassional Gannet launch for some reason with little wind over deck, but the only other launch/recoveries downwind were we poor souls in the helicopters. Quite a strange sensation approaching a carrier from ahead, knowing (hoping) that the relative winds all sorted out by the time we got over Spot 2 or thereabouts.
Piccie of an aft facing approach here.
Your tale about the Phantom trials may have been skewed in the retelling; if nil wind is required over the deck, the ship simply steams downwind, at the windspeed. No requirement to reverse/back up/steam astern
ISTR we did the occassional Gannet launch for some reason with little wind over deck, but the only other launch/recoveries downwind were we poor souls in the helicopters. Quite a strange sensation approaching a carrier from ahead, knowing (hoping) that the relative winds all sorted out by the time we got over Spot 2 or thereabouts.
Piccie of an aft facing approach here.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shore based catapult launches?
Pictures at Leuchars circa 1920s show the catapult training rig to teach RNAS pilots the drills; swing it into wind and give it a go - I shall try and dig up a copy of the photo to post.
Regular cable engagements were the norm on Stanleys metal matting runway and we had 3 wires one at each end and another in the middle. Runway was long enough to stop without the wires so long as you had about 20 knots of wind down the strip but we couldn't aford to let the any of our precious assets slide off the end. Because of the metal surface we fitted special brass shoes to the arrestor hooks and the metal on metal contact gave a very pleasing shower of sparks as the hook scraped along pre-engagement.
WWII story from my uncle who disembarked 60 Sqn's Hurricanes into the Burma campaign. They'd never done it before, had no intention of doing it again and reckon they would have lost more men and machines in training for it than giving it a shot cold. As with so many things - they got away with it: fortune favours the brave!
Pictures at Leuchars circa 1920s show the catapult training rig to teach RNAS pilots the drills; swing it into wind and give it a go - I shall try and dig up a copy of the photo to post.
Regular cable engagements were the norm on Stanleys metal matting runway and we had 3 wires one at each end and another in the middle. Runway was long enough to stop without the wires so long as you had about 20 knots of wind down the strip but we couldn't aford to let the any of our precious assets slide off the end. Because of the metal surface we fitted special brass shoes to the arrestor hooks and the metal on metal contact gave a very pleasing shower of sparks as the hook scraped along pre-engagement.
WWII story from my uncle who disembarked 60 Sqn's Hurricanes into the Burma campaign. They'd never done it before, had no intention of doing it again and reckon they would have lost more men and machines in training for it than giving it a shot cold. As with so many things - they got away with it: fortune favours the brave!
Catapult Ships
I seem to remember that some merchant ships were fitted with a catapult system during WW2, a sort of rocket assisted gantry affair. Unfortunately there was only one place to land in the middle of the oggin - the oggin.