Tornado On Carriers
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seafire
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
A potted history of 46 Sqn's Norwegian "adventure" can be found here 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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: At Home
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Jane's are reporting that the F135 for Dave B has suffered another blade failure, slap bang sod on time for revival of F136?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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, and to a new chapter of shipborne aviation.
Only for our short sighted politicians to screw the pooch again....
P1127 lead to Harrier, which led to the Sea Harrier, and to a new chapter of shipborne aviation.
Only for our short sighted politicians to screw the pooch again....
