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
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
Check these numbers - the deck was the Forrestal and there was minimal wind over the deck, actually at anchor in Piraeus, but nose into the wind. The deck launch was never a problem, the landing at full flaps and simply a touch down short of the wires with a cut pass to a brake stop before the end of the island. No other aircraft short of an offset E-2 on deck. Fuel load minimal and just two people at the controls. Trapping was always an option but it would cause a residual work effort. Mission was to just fly around and pick up the mail and return. I may be crazy but you had enough deck to cut pass, taxi a bit, fire it up and take off again wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:10:05 GMT, "Flashnews" wrote: If the airwing was sent ashore and the deck left reasonably empty the C-1 COD's often deck landed and deck departed while the carriers were in port so the arresting crews did not have to be mobilized from liberty. Leaving one or two wires working just made things smoother but a shift had to work. In all this enabled the ships crew to cycle, the mail to be delivered, the ship to be on a liberty schedule, and the staff pukes to get their flight time. What kind of weight did a C-1 fly at? I just looked at my S-2D/E/G NATOPS. At 23,000 lb., standard day, zero headwind, takeoff roll was just under 1000', so a deck run at anchor might be possible (but would be interesting). The same aircraft on a 99 kt. approach (full flaps), 90 kt. touchdown would have a landing roll of almost 2500 ft. That would seem to preclude non-arrested landings at anchor. Of course if the COD were substantially lighter the take off run would be less. And a lighter weight would mean a lower landing speed. Making a fast "interpolation" taking the weight to 19,000 lbs. cuts the distance to about 2100 ft. To get under 1000' requires between 35-40 kts. of headwind. To get 1000 feet or follout you'd have to land a wheels length ahead of the rounddown. I don't think, even then, a 27C had the deck length to do it; maybe a FORESTAL did. While the S-2 is probably "dirtier" than a C-1 I wonder if it would make that much difference at low speeds. And even under the best of circumstance God forbid you have a problem. Bill Kambic, former Stoof IP Veteran: VT-28, VS-27, VS-30, VS-73 Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:16:25 GMT, "Flashnews"
wrote: Check these numbers - the deck was the Forrestal and there was minimal wind over the deck, actually at anchor in Piraeus, but nose into the wind. I just did. They come out the same way. The deck launch was never a problem, the landing at full flaps and simply a touch down short of the wires with a cut pass to a brake stop before the end of the island. No other aircraft short of an offset E-2 on deck. Fuel load minimal and just two people at the controls. That would make it pretty light, but stopping in under 1000'? The "Book" says "no way." Then the Book data is estimated. Trapping was always an option but it would cause a residual work effort. Mission was to just fly around and pick up the mail and return. I may be crazy but you had enough deck to cut pass, taxi a bit, fire it up and take off again Again, the Book says take off can be done, but the landing is "no way." Anybody got a C-1A NATOPS? Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
Not to be picky but,,,,
The Herc did all the big deck tests on the Forestall (not Kitty Kawk Class). I was a C-130 plane captain back in the early 80's and a flight engineer gave me a book, "Herk: Hero of the Skies". The book talks about all the testing on the Forestall. It was a success.....but....well read the book. Thanks. On 23 Feb 2007 16:27:59 -0800, "Mike Weeks" wrote: On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" wrote: Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting book, especially for old naval aviators. But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282 Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...." I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the same. Looking forward to some answers from those who know. As written the passage brings up even more questions: CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". Early in '51 she operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11 for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951. If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward, even behind the barrier. Even if a good number planes were off-loaded as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the loading of others to be returned to the states. Going to put a non- hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point? And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam? According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5 1/2 hours. I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a copy over. In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS 1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week. MW |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
wrote: Bill - I was just an enlisted back seater but... "deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck. The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though. Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem) We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE. No big deal. I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the boat. I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-) Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
An other maneuver that was used as operation pinwheel when going into the dry dock in Yokosuka in
the same era. Nicely illustrated in an early scene in the movie The Bridges At Toko-Ri. -- Mike Kanze "...I've told my Democratic friends, if nothing else, just keep your mouths shut and just let [we Republicans] self-destruct. But they won't even let us do that." - Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) "Leanne" wrote in message ... In the mid 50's, an AD, A1 for the new kids, made a free deck launch off the Midway while at anchor in the bay off Sangley Point. An other maneuver that was used as operation pinwheel when going into the dry dock in Yokosuka in the same era. Leanne "W. D. Allen" wrote in message ... In the late 1950s even when we were moored at the quay in Yokosuka the SIOP had us being catapulted with full fuel load and shape. Never tried it for real of course but if the gong had ever been struck we would have learned quickly that it was definitely possible to catapult aircraft from a moored carrier. Our concern as pilots was if we could do it and fly away! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers
being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook. Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf wrote: Bill - I was just an enlisted back seater but... "deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck. The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though. Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem) We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE. No big deal. I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the boat. I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-) Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:22:32 -0500, "Flashnews"
wrote: I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook. Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right IF you've that much wind then you might pull it off. But you'd best make you peace with God of All Brakes before you try it!!!!! :-) The "Book" says 90 kts. at the ramp so that would do it. "Innovative" and "not leaving much margin for error" are poor synonyms! ;-) Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
remember this was an "inport" thing not regular ops and the mission was a
bag of mail and flight time for the AirBoss and prifly crew we also did many crazy things like no-flap takeoffs with the clean Phantoms (Ed must have done these more then I but we had true hard wings with the B/N/J's) just because it enabled a better and tighter section takeoff and at El Toro or Miramar you could launch two sections on the duals and be airborne & joined with four in nothing flat - but loaded for a real war, that would not happen; now the F-8 guys who would launch with their wings folded - that took balls (no just kidding) wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:22:32 -0500, "Flashnews" wrote: I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook. Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right IF you've that much wind then you might pull it off. But you'd best make you peace with God of All Brakes before you try it!!!!! :-) The "Book" says 90 kts. at the ramp so that would do it. "Innovative" and "not leaving much margin for error" are poor synonyms! ;-) Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Question For Old Naval Aviators
and I think a U-2 made that journey also
"fudog50" wrote in message ... Not to be picky but,,,, The Herc did all the big deck tests on the Forestall (not Kitty Kawk Class). I was a C-130 plane captain back in the early 80's and a flight engineer gave me a book, "Herk: Hero of the Skies". The book talks about all the testing on the Forestall. It was a success.....but....well read the book. Thanks. On 23 Feb 2007 16:27:59 -0800, "Mike Weeks" wrote: On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" wrote: Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting book, especially for old naval aviators. But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282 Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...." I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the same. Looking forward to some answers from those who know. As written the passage brings up even more questions: CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". Early in '51 she operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11 for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951. If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward, even behind the barrier. Even if a good number planes were off-loaded as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the loading of others to be returned to the states. Going to put a non- hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point? And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam? According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5 1/2 hours. I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a copy over. In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS 1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week. MW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
questions for Naval aviators | Mike W. | Naval Aviation | 8 | March 13th 05 10:48 PM |
Naval Aviators | jsmith | Piloting | 1 | March 25th 04 02:56 PM |
Too many Naval Aviators | J | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 3rd 04 06:48 PM |
Naval aviators... | Kulvinder Singh Matharu | Military Aviation | 1 | August 7th 03 09:34 PM |
Naval aviators... | Tarver Engineering | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 7th 03 09:34 PM |