STOVL and CTOL from big decks - deconflicting ?

"John R Weiss" wrote:

What are the comparative thrust and specific fuel consumptions of the 2
airplanes' powerplants? What will the fuel burn be for a typical approach and
vertical landing for the F-35?

There is some scant info from RN 801 Squadron in their
Falklands ops on INVINCIBLE. ISTR that Sharkey Ward insisted they use
their fuel on CAP and not in the pattern, with some *really* low fuel
loads at land-on, and not much burned during their approach and
translation maneuver. Most 801 flights were 2 ship CAPs.

Is there a USN "best practice" for fuel load at the trap ?
Five minutes of fuel at a given SFC, or something like that ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"John S. Shinal" wrote:

There is some scant info from RN 801 Squadron in their
Falklands ops on INVINCIBLE. ISTR that Sharkey Ward insisted they use
their fuel on CAP and not in the pattern, with some *really* low fuel
loads at land-on, and not much burned during their approach and
translation maneuver. Most 801 flights were 2 ship CAPs.

Policies during actual wartime may differ significantly from "peacetime"
practice. Actually saving the ships from incoming missiles tends to make a
single airplane a reasonable trade...


Is there a USN "best practice" for fuel load at the trap ?
Five minutes of fuel at a given SFC, or something like that ?

That has evolved through the years, based on experience, changing tactics, and
risk-averse trends on the part of the upper echelons...

In my 81-83 A-6 cruise on Midway, our daytime minimum was 3.5-4.0 (3500-4000 lb
at landing), and 4.0-5.0 at night. By the time I got to Kitty Hawk in 87, it
was 5.0-5.5 day and max trap (6.0-7.5, depending on airframe and loadout) at
night. Nimitz 88-89 was essentially max trap all the time...

I don't know what the current state of affairs is...

Unless the ship is working "blue water" (no divert field available), min landing
fuel is usually the fuel required for divert. In "blue water" ops, numbers
similar to those I cited above come into play. Generally, 2 looks at the ball
(maybe 3 at night) plus min landing fuel for the airplane (e.g., 2.0 for the
A-6).

On 3/4/04 10:26, in article yMI1c.178613$uV3.756299@attbi_s51, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"John S. Shinal" wrote:

There is some scant info from RN 801 Squadron in their
Falklands ops on INVINCIBLE. ISTR that Sharkey Ward insisted they use
their fuel on CAP and not in the pattern, with some *really* low fuel
loads at land-on, and not much burned during their approach and
translation maneuver. Most 801 flights were 2 ship CAPs.

Policies during actual wartime may differ significantly from "peacetime"
practice. Actually saving the ships from incoming missiles tends to make a
single airplane a reasonable trade...


Weapons bring back typically influences these policy decisions.

Is there a USN "best practice" for fuel load at the trap ?
Five minutes of fuel at a given SFC, or something like that ?

That has evolved through the years, based on experience, changing tactics, and
risk-averse trends on the part of the upper echelons...
SNIP

Case I "charlie" (day/VMC) is tank plus three passes (2.5 +.4 + .4 + .4) or
3.7.

Case II/III (night/IMC) "charlie" is night tank plus two passes (3.0 + .8 +
..8) or 4.6.

All this is from memory (i.e. I know the numbers [3.7/4.6] are correct, but
the calculation method may be slightly off without refreshing my knowledge).
Other carrier guys feel free to jump in and correct me.

--Woody