China lands jet on first aircraft carrier
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut down Hunter tanks on Harriers
I believe the 190 was the cut down Hunter 230 gallon tank and we wore them everywhere from the mid 80s. The only snag with the 190 tanks was that the jettison trials showed it should not be done because damage was highly likely.
We never did asymmetric tanks intentionally, and after a loss where the aeroplane had a sidewinder on one side with a clean pylon on the other, we always wore symmetric launchers (although not always symmetric missiles)
The asymmetric load crash off the ski-jump at Yeovs in 1982 was the Ferry Tank trial. In my memory it was with 1 full and 1 empty, and a test pilot at the wheel. The ferry tank fit was rare and the tanks were huge (for a SHAR). 330 gallons capacity is my faded memory. The lesson being that when partially jet-borne and partially wing-borne it was best to be loaded symmetrically. A wing drop off the ski-jump could be life ruining, and other than that ferry tank trial, I don't think it happened again.
We never did asymmetric tanks intentionally, and after a loss where the aeroplane had a sidewinder on one side with a clean pylon on the other, we always wore symmetric launchers (although not always symmetric missiles)
The asymmetric load crash off the ski-jump at Yeovs in 1982 was the Ferry Tank trial. In my memory it was with 1 full and 1 empty, and a test pilot at the wheel. The ferry tank fit was rare and the tanks were huge (for a SHAR). 330 gallons capacity is my faded memory. The lesson being that when partially jet-borne and partially wing-borne it was best to be loaded symmetrically. A wing drop off the ski-jump could be life ruining, and other than that ferry tank trial, I don't think it happened again.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Perhaps I can help here.
The SHAR asymmetric crash off the ramp at Yeovilton was due to failure of one of the two 330 gallon ferry tanks to transfer fuel. Pilot didn't notice and the resultant asymmetry resulted in losing roll control on launch. Possible contributory cause was (I believe) a plethora of confusing and partially embodied Tech Instructions on the tank pipe couplings. Drop tank fuel state indications were also not obvious. We fitted 330s to our squadron's jets in 1989 with no problems once we had put them through the Tank Bay to get the TIs checked and fitted. Usually fitted with the fixed AAR probes at the same time.
DBTW and others: 190 gallon tanks were indeed modified version of the Hunters' 230 gallon tanks. Not welded, but three sections screwed together. They could be jettisoned perfectly happily when full (for example on launch) and also when empty as long as twin Winders weren't fitted outboard, when they could catch a fin. The worst jettison case was half empty when the post jettison path of the tanks depended on where the fuel had sloshed to. In sum, the 190s jettison characteristics were really no worse than any other empty or partially empty drop tank on most fast jets.
We (DGA(N)) were able to put together a perfectly safe RTS for the 190s on the FA2 in 1993.
That said, the 190s were unreliable beasts, mainly due to poorly engineered electrical connections and the internal plumbing. They were a rush job, looked like a rush job and behaved like a rush job. Definitely not one of Kingston's finer products....
Plastic, I'm afraid you've been misinformed - there is no real 'lee' effect behind a ski jump - the wind curls back down over the lip and is doing a fair lick by the time you get around 150 feet aft. Ramp launch calculations don't include any correction for any 'lee' effect. Kingston did a lot of work getting the nose leg loading and extension matched to the ramp, as well as handling the 'unload' extension, as you rightly say. I've not heard of any legs being snapped on UK jumps.
USN did experiment with a concept called 'Sea Launch' where they tried both 'free take off' ramps and also fitting a ramp immediately at the end of a steam cat. As for most CTOL aircraft, ramp benefits were slight and required redesign of the aircraft to improve them.
As JF has pointed out, an ability to adequately control the aircraft at low post launch speeds is essential. As he also inferred, you would need a very (very) high basic T/W ratio to get off a ramp in a CTOL aircraft carrying a max war load. In my view, probably stupidly high. Vectored thrust aircraft are better for ramps because they can use jet lift as well as wing lift to arrest rate of descent after ramp exit, thereby allowing a lower ramp exit speed, and a shorter TO run. They also already have the required low speed control systems fitted. I'm quite sure the 'Sea Typhoon' guys will have worked all this out. Or not.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
The SHAR asymmetric crash off the ramp at Yeovilton was due to failure of one of the two 330 gallon ferry tanks to transfer fuel. Pilot didn't notice and the resultant asymmetry resulted in losing roll control on launch. Possible contributory cause was (I believe) a plethora of confusing and partially embodied Tech Instructions on the tank pipe couplings. Drop tank fuel state indications were also not obvious. We fitted 330s to our squadron's jets in 1989 with no problems once we had put them through the Tank Bay to get the TIs checked and fitted. Usually fitted with the fixed AAR probes at the same time.
DBTW and others: 190 gallon tanks were indeed modified version of the Hunters' 230 gallon tanks. Not welded, but three sections screwed together. They could be jettisoned perfectly happily when full (for example on launch) and also when empty as long as twin Winders weren't fitted outboard, when they could catch a fin. The worst jettison case was half empty when the post jettison path of the tanks depended on where the fuel had sloshed to. In sum, the 190s jettison characteristics were really no worse than any other empty or partially empty drop tank on most fast jets.
We (DGA(N)) were able to put together a perfectly safe RTS for the 190s on the FA2 in 1993.
That said, the 190s were unreliable beasts, mainly due to poorly engineered electrical connections and the internal plumbing. They were a rush job, looked like a rush job and behaved like a rush job. Definitely not one of Kingston's finer products....
Plastic, I'm afraid you've been misinformed - there is no real 'lee' effect behind a ski jump - the wind curls back down over the lip and is doing a fair lick by the time you get around 150 feet aft. Ramp launch calculations don't include any correction for any 'lee' effect. Kingston did a lot of work getting the nose leg loading and extension matched to the ramp, as well as handling the 'unload' extension, as you rightly say. I've not heard of any legs being snapped on UK jumps.
USN did experiment with a concept called 'Sea Launch' where they tried both 'free take off' ramps and also fitting a ramp immediately at the end of a steam cat. As for most CTOL aircraft, ramp benefits were slight and required redesign of the aircraft to improve them.
As JF has pointed out, an ability to adequately control the aircraft at low post launch speeds is essential. As he also inferred, you would need a very (very) high basic T/W ratio to get off a ramp in a CTOL aircraft carrying a max war load. In my view, probably stupidly high. Vectored thrust aircraft are better for ramps because they can use jet lift as well as wing lift to arrest rate of descent after ramp exit, thereby allowing a lower ramp exit speed, and a shorter TO run. They also already have the required low speed control systems fitted. I'm quite sure the 'Sea Typhoon' guys will have worked all this out. Or not.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
10 years ago, when she ended up at Dalian, the 'experts' were telling us that the Varyag was a useless hulk and the Chinese would never complete/put her into service. She was just a 'research vehicle'.
I think we underestimate them at our peril. No doubt they have 'borrowed' USN ad others operations manuals.
I think we underestimate them at our peril. No doubt they have 'borrowed' USN ad others operations manuals.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree don't under estimate the Chinese.
They seem to be pulling everything together - ship, planes,
training.
Yes, a long way to go but once the bugs are sorted and they
know which way to go, they have the capacity to build and
expand very quickly.
They do things (building wise) so quickly it make people
in the West heads spin. Of course it helps when you don't
have to worry about OH&S !!!
They seem to be pulling everything together - ship, planes,
training.
Yes, a long way to go but once the bugs are sorted and they
know which way to go, they have the capacity to build and
expand very quickly.
They do things (building wise) so quickly it make people
in the West heads spin. Of course it helps when you don't
have to worry about OH&S !!!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davef68 wrote:
"No doubt they have 'borrowed' USN ad others operations manuals"
Why not? We'd probably spend zillions re-inventing the wheel -
I have to say the deck operations guys looked as if they were USN trained.........
"No doubt they have 'borrowed' USN ad others operations manuals"
Why not? We'd probably spend zillions re-inventing the wheel -
I have to say the deck operations guys looked as if they were USN trained.........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does amaze me that in the west many do underestimate the Chinese. The speed at which they can do things amazes me. In the west everything is bogged down by pointless rules and regulations, there only purpose seems to be to destroy industry and make us less productive while those who enforce said rules get rich and have nice pension schemes.
Going back to the 1930s many in the west totally underestimated the Japanese and what they were capable of. It was a kind racism basically and belief that we knew best and would always be best. Even though in the end the Japanese lost it was no easy win for the west. With the Chinese if it ends up a new cold war then as their money goes further than ours and also the fact they actually have lots of money it may not be so good for us. If one puts Russia and India into the mix aswell then things get interesting.
Going back to the 1930s many in the west totally underestimated the Japanese and what they were capable of. It was a kind racism basically and belief that we knew best and would always be best. Even though in the end the Japanese lost it was no easy win for the west. With the Chinese if it ends up a new cold war then as their money goes further than ours and also the fact they actually have lots of money it may not be so good for us. If one puts Russia and India into the mix aswell then things get interesting.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That well known axis of evil China, Russia and um India? That well known communist country that's champing at the bit to invade err Kansas? This would be the same country that's spending billions of dollars buying US military equipment to shore itself up against China.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
India and Vietnam plus a few other countries might be
a bit more of a bar to China and willing to take them on.
Vietnam I think is getting a bit toey over China's land grabs.
a bit more of a bar to China and willing to take them on.
Vietnam I think is getting a bit toey over China's land grabs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree Vietnam certainly seems to be going with the west on the issue of China. India seem keen to improve relations with China while still keeping in with the west. I would certainly not gamble on them being on our side in the future even if they won't actually be against us. They and the Chinese have more to gain from working together than ever fighting each other, as we all begin to fall apart in the west increasing trade between China and India will be increasingly important for both nations, as the population in each nation get more wealth then domestic markets will be ever more important for them, while we will be less important than ever.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, good point re India. I don't expect them to be our side
but I did think they had a few issues with China over some land.
I might be mistaking them for another country.
Vietnam
Yes, they certainly seem to be becoming pro west.
Hard to believe !!!
but I did think they had a few issues with China over some land.
I might be mistaking them for another country.
Vietnam
Yes, they certainly seem to be becoming pro west.
Hard to believe !!!
Engineer who designed China's first carrier jet dies of a heart attack moments after the aircraft's first successful landing.
Luo Yuan: Man who worked on China's first aircraft carrier suffers fatal heart attack as he watches inaugural flight | Mail Online
Luo Yuan: Man who worked on China's first aircraft carrier suffers fatal heart attack as he watches inaugural flight | Mail Online
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes 500N, its most ironic regarding Vietnam. Especially seeing the US Navy visit Kam Rahn Bay again and with rumours of maybe a permanent US base there. The former most bitter of enemies now allies (almost)! I never ever thought I would see the day.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR
They still have to come to grips with Capitalism as opposed to
cronysim and bribes etc - based on a few reports of hiccups had
by a few companies but I think they will get there.
Re USN, yes, I remember reading about a visit from a ship
and the Captain being the most senior US Navy Officer to visit
Vietnam since the war and it went down well by all accounts.
It would be funny of the USN ended up with a base at Kam Rahn Bay.
It would be perfectly located IMHO.
I see that Subic Bay might open up again !
They still have to come to grips with Capitalism as opposed to
cronysim and bribes etc - based on a few reports of hiccups had
by a few companies but I think they will get there.
Re USN, yes, I remember reading about a visit from a ship
and the Captain being the most senior US Navy Officer to visit
Vietnam since the war and it went down well by all accounts.
It would be funny of the USN ended up with a base at Kam Rahn Bay.
It would be perfectly located IMHO.
I see that Subic Bay might open up again !
Last edited by 500N; 27th Nov 2012 at 21:22.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
I don’t recognise some of the Harrier asymmetric stores problems mentioned on this thread.
In the early 70s before the RN would agree a SHAR development contract they required us to demonstrate with a Harrier some key spec points. One of these was that we could bring back one Sea Eagle (1400lb) vertically. Sea Eagles were scarce so we used a Martel at 1800lb plus on the other side a SNEB launcher ballasted to give the required asymmetric load.
No probs.
I don’t recognise some of the Harrier asymmetric stores problems mentioned on this thread.
In the early 70s before the RN would agree a SHAR development contract they required us to demonstrate with a Harrier some key spec points. One of these was that we could bring back one Sea Eagle (1400lb) vertically. Sea Eagles were scarce so we used a Martel at 1800lb plus on the other side a SNEB launcher ballasted to give the required asymmetric load.
No probs.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Plastic, I'm afraid you've been misinformed - there is no real 'lee' effect behind a ski jump"
Actually I was guessing. I know how detailed performance calculations can be so even if there was something slightly significant it would be in there. There would be no mileage in a flip up screen extending down the sides of the deck to reduce the on-deck WOD or an air curtain?
I did see one idea for increasing WOD for landing purposes though when I mentioned it jokingly to a colleague he went deadly serious and said that it was highly classified.
Mr Farley
Interesting picture, that asymmetry is a bit less than a full 330gal tank (2500lbs?). Would there be any any issues with ski-launching such an load-out - drag on the loaded outrigger perhaps? I did think it odd that the fuel asymmetry had got progressively worse during the day as the trial progressed and the pilot hadn't noticed anything amiss until it rolled over on its final launch.
Actually I was guessing. I know how detailed performance calculations can be so even if there was something slightly significant it would be in there. There would be no mileage in a flip up screen extending down the sides of the deck to reduce the on-deck WOD or an air curtain?
I did see one idea for increasing WOD for landing purposes though when I mentioned it jokingly to a colleague he went deadly serious and said that it was highly classified.
Mr Farley
Interesting picture, that asymmetry is a bit less than a full 330gal tank (2500lbs?). Would there be any any issues with ski-launching such an load-out - drag on the loaded outrigger perhaps? I did think it odd that the fuel asymmetry had got progressively worse during the day as the trial progressed and the pilot hadn't noticed anything amiss until it rolled over on its final launch.
Last edited by Plastic Bonsai; 27th Nov 2012 at 22:18.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh.....we've got a dozen of these and our pilots are smarter.
Welcome to Navy Forces Online Public Sites
and as to the pilots' "smarts," there is precedence about the mistake of being overconfident regarding Asian carrier pilots.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic
I realise that my pic shows less asymmetry than one full 330. I was refering to other posts about sidewinders etc.
Can't think of any reason to launch asymmetric - at least not seriously so. The case we tested for in the pic was launching with two Sea Eagles and only firing one.
I realise that my pic shows less asymmetry than one full 330. I was refering to other posts about sidewinders etc.
Can't think of any reason to launch asymmetric - at least not seriously so. The case we tested for in the pic was launching with two Sea Eagles and only firing one.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eaglemmoomin rote:-
"That well known axis of evil China, Russia and um India? That well known communist country that's champing at the bit to invade err Kansas? This would be the same country that's spending billions of dollars buying US military equipment to shore itself up against China."
China is the one that holds more US$ than the USA - they'll only invade if their investment looks dubious........
"That well known axis of evil China, Russia and um India? That well known communist country that's champing at the bit to invade err Kansas? This would be the same country that's spending billions of dollars buying US military equipment to shore itself up against China."
China is the one that holds more US$ than the USA - they'll only invade if their investment looks dubious........