In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/10/2004 4:13 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"John Keeney" wrote:

At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.

...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...

...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
mention worrying in use.

Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

It didn't help that the boats could only carry one or two.

Well, the whole "Squadron Freighter" companion ship concept just didn't
work out, since the cranes they built to move the planes from the
carrier's flight deck were severely underpowered, and the companion
ships were too slow to keep up during flight ops.

Not to mention having to armor the bows of the carriers to protect the
ships in case of a catapult failure.

Although I have to admit that the followon project - the Ultra Large COD
Aircraft - was showing some promise when the Defense Department had to
cancel the program to redesign the planes as land-based freighters.
They worked out quite nicely as the C-5 Galaxy once they fixed the
landing gear and removed the arresting hooks.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.