Aircraft originally built for Carriers
 

Hello - following on from from the RAF F14 thread - this question is probably more aimed at the Engineers but aircraft such as our own F4s, and the Australian / Canadian Hornets that were originally for Naval operations and not operated as such.

Were the maintenance requirements and fatigue life any different or in the end did it not mater too much?
I was thinking if we bought F14s then the maintenance would be less due to less salt corrosion and pounding in general, especially the undercarriage center barrels.

The Buccaneer was the classic example of having a different fatigue spectrum in overland service. This was not at first reflected into the fatigue test specimen and a spar failure (Ithink) resulted.
Not sure how the ex RN F4 set compared with the RAF ones for fatigue consumption.
One of the Tomcat's maintenance issues was water ingress from the spine and ensuring corrosion and avionics failures. Not sure that would have been much changed by German or UK rain ingress, though both might have been less salty than Atlantic rain.
The other thing with using a carrier aircraft land based is that you are always lugging around a lot of structure weight that is only there for carrier ops. Cf the F35 A and C.

N

Can I throw in a rotary contribution?

The Belvedere, was designed (allegedly) to carry an underslung torpedo - hence the (very) high ground clearance.

But too big for carrier deck lifts, so given to the RAF - who broke lots of pongo ankles - err - because of the (very) high ground clearance!

Rubbish procurement is nothing new it seems.........

Reminiscent of a Lynx upgrade that resulted in a change of height and HMS Endurance's hangar door frame receiving a severe dent. It's why they had to retain Wasps until a refit, and a root cause of Nimrod XV230 (and Ajax, and....). Failure to produce and/or heed an Interface Definition Document. That is indeed a procurement failure, but unfortunately for many years seen as optional.

Nothing surprises me, they gave us a new tug with an extended cab on it which was fine until we went round a corner and the Jags pitot probe on the one we were towing came straight through the rear window. :E

Not an engineering reply (as sought by the OP) but the IDF made impressive use of the A-4 Skyhawk whatever the [additional] maintenance requirements and fatigue life.

Batco

SKYHAWK N13-154904 RAN FAA A4G 883 First flight July 20, 1967 still flying today with DRAKEN USA, however after being sold to the RNZAF in 1984 being converted eventually to A-4K KAHU status, it did stand idle for a decade until sold to DRAKEN in 2012.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bf5f879e6e.jpg

What A Lovely Piccie
 

Thanks for that Spaz

I flew the A-4M with the USN 78-81.

I loved it - it was a great aircraft, and I am so pleased to see variants of it surviving into the modern hi-tech/plastic world. Well deserved and well done Douglas - hope modern Boeing appreciate the heritage of proper stuff that you gave them!!.

I feel sure that it will last longer than I do!

Salute!

I would throw in the A-7 series. course, many of the WW2 recip planes were designed for carriers, and ditto for the Grumann "cat" series later.

The SLUF was so underpowered we USAF folks had to adjust our bomb load when we went to combat in 1972. The US Navy could just shoot the plane off the deck easily with the cat. Our takeoff roll was about 80% of the available runway and we used two check speed points and then guts and a gentle rotation with a thousand feet remaining.

The good thing for we USAF users was the beefy landing gear, the strong tail hook and the folding wings for fitting into shelters.

Gums sends...

Salute Gums.......

I also flew the A-7E during my time with the USN 78-81.

Enjoyed both - the A-7E was the better bomber, but the A-4M was so much more enjoyable to fly. And it wasn't too bad at dropping bombs or firing rockets!

One opinion of a thick pilot!!

Salute ex-fast!

Would have loved to fly the Scooter, but only ones I encountered closely were the ones from Top Gun school and other units back in 1979 and 80. Everybody wanted to fly versus the Viper.

Our first nasal radiator exchange pilot in the SLUF and the Viper commented about the ease of the cat shot versus the pa CEP.inful and "interesting" roll of the A-7 we USAF folks had.

Until the Viper, the SLUF D and E models were the premier mudbeaters with accuracy. Most of us that flew both opined the SLUF was super for repeated passes we used in the CAS and CSAR roles. But we thot the Viper had a better first pass CEP.

Gums sends...

Salute - Again - Gums
 

You really should have a go in the Scooter - you would love it!

My limited experience was in the A-4M with the P408 engine - what a machine! I was on exchange with VX-5 at China Lake - great place to be, and I also flew the A-7E, which was also a great machine to fly - but the A-4M was more enjoyable, from a stupid pilot's perspective.

I then managed a second exchange tour with the USAF, and got to fly the F-16 at Luke. Another wonderful experience.

Before all of that, after a couple of Harrier tours, I was sent to fly the RAF Jaguar - another lovely aircraft to fly - and we did a Tactical Bombing Competition where the USAF sent some A-7D's to fly against us. They cheated - slightly - but in the best possible way - and they were really annoyingly good.

Can I start my life again, please??

Salute!

Great memories, ex.fast.

I wrote the ops plan for the Bomb Comp when USAF sent a detachment of 388th FW Vipers to Lossie - 81?
Had to stay home, but the folks we sent were top of the shelf, from the cooks to the Ops officer and all in between. Funny, but the commander, and competition flight lead, and two others were from the A-7 community, and fourth troopin flight was an ex-aggressor. The home team folks at Lossie did not realize that the new kid on the block could fight on the way in and out, plus hit the designated tgt on time. So we shot down approx 80 aggressors and only lost one during the comp missions. We were not invited back!

Would also have loved the Jag, and my recall is our A-7 and F-16 HUD were variations. My roomie from 'nam said that the shuttle folks had not simply adopted the Marconi HUD and tried to re-invent the wheel. He flew Discovery a few times and then a stint on the Russian MIR. See Blaha.

With the Harrier tours, you may have run across one of my A-7 stalwarts - Waldo. Serve an exchange tour there in the motherland and was a cannon fan - like real gunpowder suckers for special events! Brit rules were a problem, but the armory sergeant on the base figured out loopholes in the rules.

Gums sends, and have a great new year!

A-4 'Super Fox' Hot to Trot: Skyhawk Mongoose and Super Fox | The Skyhawk Association

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d587f473ba.jpg

A4G side number 883 RAN FAA VF-805 squadron over the wires 'spaghetti' HMAS Melbourne c. 1969.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e6d4d3e25f.jpg

Of course history also tells us of perfectly decent aircraft converted either to operate offshore or vice versa - often at vast costs and rarely as effective

Salute!

I would rate the Phantom and SLUF as two of the "rare" birds that did as well or better when adopted by the USAF and other customers. Decent cost for the capability, too.

Gums sends...

douglas has good form - skyraider ?

would you count the Wessex in this pile too ?

stretching it the hunter - derived from the the sea hawk ?

The A-3 Skywarrior was a good aeroplane - then the USAF spent a fortune turning into the B-66 - new wing, new engine pods, new electrics.....

A-3D Skywarrior. Some say: All 3 Dead : A-3 Skywarrior Association - A-3 Skywarrior Assn. - HOME (a3skywarrior.com) JATO smokin'.

This is what happened when an Air Force pilot got assigned to a Navy carrier (navytimes.com) & https://www.historynet.com/air-force...flies-navy.htm
"...“I don’t remember too many of my thousands of landings on concrete,” Williams said, “but I remember every one of my 141 carrier traps.”..." & "....“It looked like I was going to plant 23 tons of aluminum and the three of us in the ‘spud locker,’” he said. “The deck was rising fast as we hit, and I do mean hit, the deck short of the no. 4 wire, and probably with 9 or more Gs. The impact knocked all three of us unconscious. Two things saved us: first, the A-3B’s strength; second was my idle rpm allowed the airspeed to decrease so much that there wasn’t the energy to bounce the tailhook over the wires.”..." & "...“Such a landing normally would have been most severely graded by the LSO [landing signal officer],” he noted. “However, when LSO Stu Corey entered our ready room, all he did was give me a big hug!” When Williams left Midway, he said, “I was certified as a Centurion with a minimum of 100 arrested A-3B landings on one carrier — and I was a half-inch shorter.”"

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....92668a780e.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f7740d67b5.jpg