Tornado On Carriers
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
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
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!
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?
It's my memory at fault surely? There must be some, mustn't there?
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
- 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.
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....
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....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.