F-111 bombers flying from carriers ?

I'm late to this discussion. Why do USAF planes have tail hooks if
they're not meant to land on carriers?

So they can do emergency landings on airfields. IIRC there's a cable at the

And is the tailhook deployed on all landings? Must be a lot of wear on
that sucker! Or must the pilot make the decision at the high-stress
moment of running out of runway?

Fascinating stuff. I love this newsgroup.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Mike" wrote in message
om...
Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?

I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.

So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
it.

Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

The F-111A had a lot in common with the Carrier capable F-111B Navy model
and might have survived a carrier landing, but it would not have been a good
idea.

The F-111B had a much shorter nose than on the landbased F-111s to allow a
better view of the boat. The F-111B also had some small flaps located on
the wing roots that were present but locked up in the F-111A. These were
required to lower the approach speed a couple of knots to meet the Navy
spec.

The landbased F-111s had less robust tailhooks, and the hooks could not be
raised in flight once released.

I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

Jim Howard (former EF-111 EWO)
jim [at] grayraven [dot] com

IIRC, the F-111B also had longer wings to reduce the landing speed.

"Jim H" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike" wrote in message
om...
Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?

I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.

So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
it.

Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

The F-111A had a lot in common with the Carrier capable F-111B Navy model
and might have survived a carrier landing, but it would not have been a
good
idea.

The F-111B had a much shorter nose than on the landbased F-111s to allow a
better view of the boat. The F-111B also had some small flaps located on
the wing roots that were present but locked up in the F-111A. These were
required to lower the approach speed a couple of knots to meet the Navy
spec.

The landbased F-111s had less robust tailhooks, and the hooks could not be
raised in flight once released.

I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

Jim Howard (former EF-111 EWO)
jim [at] grayraven [dot] com

"Jim H" wrote in message

I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

No, they did not. The F-111B had different gear and different bulkheads in
the gear wells (which implies different structural attachements to the
airframe, I think).

http://f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

Note the drawing at the bottom, which marks landing gear as "peculiar for
F-111B", along with quite a few other bits, including the wing pivots.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" waxed lyrical
nk.net:

"Jim H" wrote in message

I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

No, they did not. The F-111B had different gear and different
bulkheads in the gear wells (which implies different structural
attachements to the airframe, I think).

http://f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

Note the drawing at the bottom, which marks landing gear as "peculiar
for F-111B", along with quite a few other bits, including the wing
pivots. --
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


--

Didn't the FB-111A and F-111C also have stronger U/C than the A/D/E/F?
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 10:59:45 +0100, "Nick Pedley"
wrote:


So they can do emergency landings on airfields. IIRC there's a cable at the
runway end attached to a couple of weights (concrete blocks or tires?), the
hook catches this and the weights drag the aircraft to a slow halt.

It's much more sophisticated than that. Two of the main barrier types
used to be the BAK-9 and BAK-12, and Bondo had the opportunity to
partake of their function one day at MUO circa 1970 when the Utility
went Tango Uniform on our Romeo Fox Four. After punching off our
centerline ( so in case the gear folded, we would'nt cut the cable and
possibly go inverted, as the front seater had witnessed in SEA) we
took the approach end cable and came to a stop in about 800 feet. The
spooky part was how we were dragged slightly backwards by the cable's
tension. In SEA during heavy rains at Danang, it was SOP for returning
jets to take the barrier because of the hydroplaning.

Bondo Phil
TAC puke (Ret.)

Kirk Stant wrote:

More cable trivia:

- I believe the original "reusable" cables used B-52 wheel brakes to
slow the cable.

- Rubber "doughnuts" hold the cable about 4 inches above the runway;
running over it just makes a "thump" in an F-4 or Brasilia commuter
liner. However DO NOT try to taxi over a raised cable in a Cessna 172
or equivalent spam can - it WILL mess up your gear! The next time
you fly into a dual use airport look for the big yellow "discs" on
each side of the runway about 1500ft down - thats where the cable is
located.

- The Marines have (had?) a deployable cable and catapult system that
was installed at Danang (?) to recover and launch A-4s during the
Vietnam War.

snip

Chu Lai had the cable and field catapult. The latter was less than
successful (IIRR it blew up while it was being tested, and they had a long
wait for repair parts), but by the time they got it installed the AM-2
runway had already been extended to 8,000 feet and they were building a
paved runway alongside, so it wasn't critical. DaNang presumably had the
cable alone. Prior to the extension to 8,000 feet, the Chu Lai runway was
4,000 feet long*, and they'd use RATOG and/or keep a KC-130 overhead so
they could take off light and immediately tank.

*I'm somewhat simplifying here. They actually relayed the runway several
times, while they experimented trying to find a binder that would keep the
sand in place. Typically, 1/2 the length of the runway (4,000 feet) would
be relaid while they operated from the other 4,000 foot-long half.
Details of the Chu Lai airfield construction can be found in an reprint
article from the Naval Review (IIRR) on Marine Aviation in Vietnam, in
Frank Uhlig, Jr., ed., "Vietnam: The Naval Story." Annapolis: Naval
Institute Press, 1986, upon which my comments are based (the usual
cautions apply on my possibly fallible memory for some details of the
article, but Chu Lai definitely was the base with the field catapult).

Guy

Would have run into you while you were at Osan....

I was at Clark with 26th (maybe gave you a backseat ride in 38). What a
great tour!!!

Cheers

Mark

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
"Mark" wrote in message
om...

ps Where were you during your WSO days???

RTU at Luke in 77. 36TFS at Osan 77-78, 70TFS at Moody 78-80, 3TFS at
Clark 80-84, 335TFS at Seymour Johnson 84-87. Then a couple of boring
staff tours after - but nice locations: Ramstein and Eglin.

I now work as a consultant on several F-15E training devices, so I
still get out to the field occasionally - mainly Luke and Seymour.

You?

Kirk

"Jim H" wrote in message
. ..

The F-111A had a lot in common with the Carrier capable F-111B Navy
model and might have survived a carrier landing, but it would not have
been a good idea.


The scenario doesn't require a carrier landing, just a launch.



The F-111B also had some small flaps located on
the wing roots that were present but locked up in the F-111A. These were
required to lower the approach speed a couple of knots to meet the Navy
spec.


All F-111s had these small flaps. They were supposed to retract when the
wings were swept from 16 to 26 degrees, but sometimes failed to do that. So
they were disconnected and locked up.