A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question For Old Naval Aviators



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 25th 07, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Flashnews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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



Ads
  #12  
Old February 25th 07, 03:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default 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  
Old February 25th 07, 03:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default 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


  #14  
Old February 25th 07, 04:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Charlie Wolf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Question For Old Naval Aviators

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.

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)

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.

Regards,

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:14:06 -0500, wrote:

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


  #15  
Old February 25th 07, 05:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default 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  
Old February 25th 07, 06:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default 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  
Old February 26th 07, 12:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Flashnews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old February 26th 07, 01:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default 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  
Old February 26th 07, 01:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Flashnews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old February 26th 07, 01:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Flashnews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.