If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Futu
On May 3, 6:47 pm, John Halliwell wrote:
In article . com, guy writes Probably, ISTR Sea Harriers off an Invincible operating more or less normally when an accompaning US CVN was completely closed down due to the weather In the South Atlantic the Harriers were frequently operating way below (then) USN minimum visibility. What I find questionable is the reserve fuel issue, though. Doesn't operating in the hover/slow environment just guzzle fuel? If your deck takes a hard roll as you're touching down, won't a pilot want to hop up and wait for the boat to stabilize before trying to set down again? I wonder what the fuel consumption in that state is compared to a typical bolter and go-around. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Futu
In rec.aviation.military Typhoon502 twisted the electrons to say:
What I find questionable is the reserve fuel issue, though. Doesn't operating in the hover/slow environment just guzzle fuel? "Sharkey" Ward's squadron (601) on HMS Invincible was told, by him, not to land with more than 800lbs of fuel onboard. (By contrast, on HMS Hermes they where landing with at least 2000lbs worth of fuel. Ward claims his squadrons where thus getting at least 20 minutes more CAP time per flight.) -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Futu
In article , Alistair Gunn
writes "Sharkey" Ward's squadron (601) on HMS Invincible was told, by him, not to land with more than 800lbs of fuel onboard. (By contrast, on HMS Hermes they where landing with at least 2000lbs worth of fuel. Ward claims his squadrons where thus getting at least 20 minutes more CAP time per flight.) The less fuel you have, the less you need to maintain the hover... -- John |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Futu
In article .com,
Typhoon502 writes What I find questionable is the reserve fuel issue, though. Doesn't operating in the hover/slow environment just guzzle fuel? If your deck takes a hard roll as you're touching down, won't a pilot want to hop up and wait for the boat to stabilize before trying to set down again? I wonder what the fuel consumption in that state is compared to a typical bolter and go-around. The hover does mean full throttle (but it is a relatively high bypass turbofan engine), but it doesn't need to be held for long. As it's at slow speed, you can have one landing, one ready to land, one formating with the carrier etc all at the same time. With a big enough deck, you could (maybe not routinely) land several at once. Whenever I've seen a Harrier land vertically (deck or land), they seem to hit quite hard, how this compares to the arrested controlled crash, I'm not sure. The undercarriage is also quite stable (3 points, quite wide laterally and 3 points for/aft). -- John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The new future Navy | Blue Oval/Dan Edwards | Aviation Photos | 21 | February 11th 07 05:48 PM |
Wildcats to Tomcats: The Tailhook Navy (Tailhook Navy Series) | John | Naval Aviation | 1 | November 29th 05 02:06 PM |
Future of EFB... | Eric Rood | Piloting | 0 | March 11th 05 03:05 AM |
Navy Performing Well, Keeps Eye on Future Force | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 14th 05 10:06 PM |
STOVL and CTOL from big decks - deconflicting ? | John S. Shinal | Naval Aviation | 15 | March 8th 04 04:44 AM |