C-130 on Navy Carrier

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:07:44 GMT, in rec.aviation.military.naval
(JJ) wrote:
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:
Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
WDA
end

What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

I don't think it's been tried on a carrier, but the system you describe exists.
It's called the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). Problem is, it
isn't accurate enough for a carrier. One or two hundred feet short or long, or a
few degrees off-axis on land is no big deal, but on a carrier it's the
difference between a successful delivery and a massive hole in the transom, a
bunch of wrecked deckload aircraft, or a lost cargo. It's be easier to just rig
the cargo for airdrop and splashdown, then retrieve it with the carrier's helos.
This, of course, limits the cargo to the lifting capacity of the helo, which
invalidates the entire reason for using a C-130 in the first place. Might as
well just stick to the COD.

William Hughes wrote:

What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

I don't think it's been tried on a carrier, but the system you describe exists.
It's called the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES).
Problem is, it isn't accurate enough for a carrier. One or two hundred feet short or long, or a
few degrees off-axis on land is no big deal, but on a carrier it's the
difference between a successful delivery and a massive hole in the transom, a
bunch of wrecked deckload aircraft, or a lost cargo.

Wouldn't the flight deck be cleared of aircraft? The 1960s picture
shows a cleared deck on Forrestal. How fast does the cargo slow down
from the parachutes that pull it from the plane? What if a special
surface was put on the bottom of the delivery containers to help it
slow down quicker? Imagine big keds sneaker soles? :-)

It's be easier to just rig the cargo for airdrop and splashdown, then retrieve it with the carrier's helos.
This, of course, limits the cargo to the lifting capacity of the helo, which
invalidates the entire reason for using a C-130 in the first place. Might as
well just stick to the COD.

Well wasn't the main reason for trying out the C130 more because of
range limitations not payload? Also, if the C130 payload is not a
couple of very large items too heavy for a helo but instead many
smaller items that could be recovered in multiple helo lifts?

Jay

I got it how about a normally arrested landing... only the cargo is
attached to the hook. The 130 bolters the cargo stays on deck. Boy talk
about a POWER DUMP.
KenG

JJ wrote:
William Hughes wrote:


What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

I don't think it's been tried on a carrier, but the system you describe exists.
It's called the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES).
Problem is, it isn't accurate enough for a carrier. One or two hundred feet short or long, or a
few degrees off-axis on land is no big deal, but on a carrier it's the
difference between a successful delivery and a massive hole in the transom, a
bunch of wrecked deckload aircraft, or a lost cargo.


Wouldn't the flight deck be cleared of aircraft? The 1960s picture
shows a cleared deck on Forrestal. How fast does the cargo slow down
from the parachutes that pull it from the plane? What if a special
surface was put on the bottom of the delivery containers to help it
slow down quicker? Imagine big keds sneaker soles? :-)


It's be easier to just rig the cargo for airdrop and splashdown, then retrieve it with the carrier's helos.
This, of course, limits the cargo to the lifting capacity of the helo, which
invalidates the entire reason for using a C-130 in the first place. Might as
well just stick to the COD.


Well wasn't the main reason for trying out the C130 more because of
range limitations not payload? Also, if the C130 payload is not a
couple of very large items too heavy for a helo but instead many
smaller items that could be recovered in multiple helo lifts?

Jay

"JJ" wrote in message
...
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:
Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
WDA
end

What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

Don't forget that besides the ten foot fall the dropped cargo is
moving forward at the same speed as the C-130. You'll need a
big net to catch it before it zooms off the end of the deck.
The plane could stop because it could use its brakes and reverse
thrust.

How about a scenario like this?

C130 has a very heavy cargo load and minimal fuel. As soon as it
takes off, it does an aerial refueling and flies to the carrier. I
don't know the numbers but I imagine takeoff weight is lower than max
airborne?

Jay

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
|
| "JJ" wrote in message
| ...
| "W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:
| Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings
and
| launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
| WDA
| end
|
| What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
| cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
| foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
| Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
| delivered.
|
| Don't forget that besides the ten foot fall the dropped cargo is
| moving forward at the same speed as the C-130. You'll need a
| big net to catch it before it zooms off the end of the deck.
| The plane could stop because it could use its brakes and reverse
| thrust.
|
| How about a scenario like this?
|
| C130 has a very heavy cargo load and minimal fuel. As soon as it
| takes off, it does an aerial refueling and flies to the carrier. I
| don't know the numbers but I imagine takeoff weight is lower than max
| airborne?
|
| Jay
|
|


In addition to all that, the damage done by the pallet to the non-skid
surface would be extensive.


I recall when Kitty Hawk visited Perth recently it received a $100K
resurface, before heading out again.



--

Cheers


Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote:
In addition to all that, the damage done by the pallet to the non-skid
surface would be extensive.

What if there was a special material on the bottom of the pallet that
not only helped cushion the landing, slow down the cargo and keep it
from sliding around when coming to a stop but also wore or ablated to
minimize wear or damage to anti-skid coatings.

I recall when Kitty Hawk visited Perth recently it received a $100K
resurface, before heading out again.

I would imagine the downtime is a much bigger issue than $100k
material/labor cost.

Jay

"John Keeney" wrote:

Don't forget that besides the ten foot fall the dropped cargo is
moving forward at the same speed as the C-130. You'll need a
big net to catch it before it zooms off the end of the deck.
The plane could stop because it could use its brakes and reverse
thrust.

Yes, I had not fully considered this aspect - with higher altitude
parachute drops the cargo loses most of the aircraft imparted forward
velocity by the time it lands.

I took a look at some LAPES links
http://www.parachutehistory.com/military/lapes.html
http://www.edwards.af.mil/moments/do.../94-05-03.html

I wonder how slowly a laden C130 could fly yet still generate enough
force from the parachutes to pull out the cargo and ensure predictable
placement. How about a C17?

Jay

"JJ" wrote in message
...
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:
Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
WDA
end

What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

How would you pick up return cargo and passengers using such a technique?

In message , Jeroen Wenting
writes

"JJ" wrote in message
...
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:
Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
WDA
end

What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

How would you pick up return cargo and passengers using such a technique?


A modification of this technique might do it:
http://tinyurl.com/3rnj5

Winding the cable in to recover the cargo would be interesting.

I'm not sure if the term 'snatch pilot' would be one to use on the west
side of the pond, though.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

"Jeroen Wenting" wrote:
What would happen if the C130 just flew in low to the deck and the
cargo was ejected out the back? Could most airdropped stuff take a 10
foot freefall? How about 20 feet? How about the carrier deck?
Probably no dents right? I can imagine it "depends" on what is being
delivered.

How would you pick up return cargo and passengers using such a technique?

I would assume that the priority was to get cargo onto the carrier not
off.

Jay