Tornado On Carriers
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Land Plane Designs On Carriers
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Put the clever electrics in any number of aircraft (for example one that can fly above 250) and the result is vastly superior.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
I aint a bomber that the RN is crying out for, but some form of credible air defense.
(A bomber would also be nice)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
Even the decks of grey funnel line boats don't shift about as much as the goalposts seem to be doing here.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. "
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. "
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
.... the low level bombing role that nobody tends to do anymore.
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?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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