PDA

View Full Version : Catapults on Air Craft Carriers


Bear_Nenno
05-10-2005, 09:08 PM
WARNING -- XXX 2: State of the Union movie spoilers follow:
(But dont worry, the movie sucked anyway)







After laughing our way through most of the new XXX movie, we came to a part that we cant agree on. There is a scene where he attaches a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (Or some foreign equivalent) to the deck catapult on an aircraft carrier.
Not only did it move the Bradley, but it launched that thing pretty damn fast -- almost jet fighter fast, and sent it slamming into an M1 MBT (or some strange contraption that looked like an M1 but had a dual 50 cal and three large cannons and shoots the SLOWEST 105mm round I've ever seen.. WTF was that about??).

Anyway, there are a couple people I know who say the catapult is definitely strong enough to launch a Bradley. One guy (the "expert"), says that when he was in the Navy, they used to launch old cars and stuff with the catapult.
Even if that's true, the car has WHEELS and is no where near the 20 something TONS a Bradley weighs. And though the Bradley has tracks, I think it's more comparable to dead weight, like a block of steel, than to an object with wheels.

So I want to ask the TM and find out the Straight Dope. I know you guys will come through with power specifics on the catapult, weight of a Bradley, coefficient of friction of the Carrier Deck and all that stuff. You guys know everything!

So what do you say? Could a Bradley be launched off the deck of an Aircraft Carrier using the catapult alone and with the Bradley facing the path of motion (so the tracks are facing the right way). And if it "could" launch the Bradley, how fast would it move?

I think "hell no", but I've been wrong before. . .

Ringo
05-10-2005, 09:15 PM
I guess a good place to start would be to find out how much a Bradley weighs and how much an F-14 weighs.

mhendo
05-10-2005, 09:31 PM
I guess a good place to start would be to find out how much a Bradley weighs and how much an F-14 weighs.Well according to the army (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/bradley/), the Bradley weighs 50,000 pounds unloaded and 67,000 pounds combat-ready.

And according to the navy (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-f14.html), the F-14 Tomcat weighs 43,600 pounds. It doesn't say whether that weight includes the missiles and stuff that the plane carries.

If the Bradley is unloaded, the difference in weight is not that great, really.

The real difference, of course, is that when the aircraft is launched it is not merely the power of the catapult that causes it to fly off the end of the ship. Presumably (and i know nothing about military aircraft or flying) at the same time that the catapult is pushing the plane, the pilot is also gunning those two "F110-GE400 Afterburning Turbofans with over 54,000 lb Total Thrust." I reckon that might make a bit of difference.

yoyodyne
05-10-2005, 09:52 PM
Sure, if it's in neutral with the parking brake off.

Padeye
05-10-2005, 09:55 PM
That is an empty weright for an F-14. Typical gross takeoff weight is in the neighborhood of 64,000lbs. Yes, the engines do contriubte but let's put things in perspective. F-14 weighs 64,000lb and the thrust is less, 54,000lb as you say, than that so the acceleration from engines alone is somewhat less than that of gravity, about about 27feet/second2. It takes less than two seconds for the cat to launch an airplane. In that time the engines will get the plane moving to 54feet/second or about 36 miles per hour. In that same time the catapult gets the plane moving to about 150 knots, 165 miles per hour. I roughly calculate about 190,000lbs of force from the catapult to achieve that speed.

I once saw a takeoff incident where the pilot, my squadron XO at the time, forgot to release the parking brake for takeoff. 32 tons of metal and wheels that won't turn. The cat launched the plane to the same airspeed as if the wheels had been turning. Note that the main tires on an F-14 are about three feet tall and for carrier use are inflated to 300psi. This is how the XO earned the nickname "Boom-Boom Bertsch." :D He was okay. Although he could have trapped with two blown tires everyone decided it was safer to bingo to the beach.

IANAE but I think the biggest problem in launching improvised objects from a catapult is having an attachment point that isn't torn off from the force. The launch bar on modern carrier planes is intergral to the nose gear which is designed to take the massive loads and of course the same applies to the tail hook.

Padeye
05-10-2005, 10:01 PM
Sure, if it's in neutral with the parking brake off.I snort derisively at your parking brake. Greater surface area then the F-14 example matters not because the pressure per area unit is an inverse function so total friction will be similar. I think a carrier catapult could toss a Bradley a good distance before splashdown.

squeegee
05-10-2005, 10:01 PM
F-14 weighs 64,000lb and the thrust is less, 54,000lb as you sayExcept the F-14 has two engines producing 54klbs or 108klbs of thrust. Which sounds like a pretty decent amount of kinetics.

Xema
05-10-2005, 10:01 PM
The two weights are close enough that you could expect the catapult to accelerate the Bradley to quite a respectable speed, even if not quite that needed to launch the F-14. The engines of the jet are indeed powerful, but given the very short duration of a cat shot (and the low airspeed during much of it), they don't contribute a high percentage of the launch energy.

A practical problem when launching the Bradley would be how to attach it to the catapult in a way that would accept the very high forces without breaking something. (It was probably not designed with this in mind.)

OtakuLoki
05-10-2005, 10:03 PM
I'm going to be guessing here.

But while mhendo has a point about the thrust generated by the engines on the aircraft, that's not sufficient to get the aircraft up to flight speeds in the time that the plane would have on the flight deck. In fact, for many people who have to fly off a carrier on a COD flight - the most unnerving part is that after the plane leaves the catapult it drops.. so that the passengers are looking out and UP at the flight deck. I'm mentioning this to point out that the actual effect of the plane's thrust really doesn't become a factor until after the plane is at flight speed.

I'm going to go with those who are saying, as long as the Brad was in neutral, it would accellerate fairly well, and go off the flight deck. How FAR it remain in the air is another question altogether. While the steam catapult gets the an F-14 up to about 150-175 mph, I would expect that the Bradley only gets up to 120-140 mph.

Xema
05-10-2005, 10:04 PM
Except the F-14 has two engines producing 54klbs or 108klbs of thrust.
Quite respectable. But it can't produce that (or anything like it) while standing still. If it could, no catapult would be needed.

Padeye
05-10-2005, 10:15 PM
Except the F-14 has two engines producing 54klbs or 108klbs of thrust. Which sounds like a pretty decent amount of kinetics.Nuh-uh. The F-14 does not have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. The F-14 cannot fly straight up on engine thrust alone as can an F-16.

Grumman says the GE engines have 27,948lb afterburner thrust each which is pretty close to what I calculated.

Note that the approach speed is listed at 125knots instead of the 165knots I quoted for takeoff. The plane must be much lighter on landing so stall speed is significantly slower than for takeoff. Landing an F-14 on a carrier with full fuel tanks would structurally damage the airframe.

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html

Tuckerfan
05-10-2005, 10:21 PM
The aerodynamics of a Bradley are also somewhat important, at least as far as predicting how far it will go and on which side it will land. I can well imagine a Bradley getting launched and tumbling all over the place, until it smacks down hard.

squeegee
05-10-2005, 10:30 PM
Nuh-uh. The F-14 does not have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. The F-14 cannot fly straight up on engine thrust alone as can an F-16.Aha. I was reading this on the Navy site: "(2) F110-GE400 Afterburning Turbofans with over 54,000 lb Total Thrust" as meaning that the engines produced 54klbs each. Apologies.

Mr. Moto
05-10-2005, 10:51 PM
But while mhendo has a point about the thrust generated by the engines on the aircraft, that's not sufficient to get the aircraft up to flight speeds in the time that the plane would have on the flight deck. In fact, for many people who have to fly off a carrier on a COD flight - the most unnerving part is that after the plane leaves the catapult it drops.. so that the passengers are looking out and UP at the flight deck. I'm mentioning this to point out that the actual effect of the plane's thrust really doesn't become a factor until after the plane is at flight speed.

I can confirm this, as I had to endure this once. I had to test a bunch of gear on the USS John C. Stennis, and was then flown off on a C-2.

They strap you in in seats facing backwards, and when the catapults are engaged, you're thrown against the harnesses. You then have a wonderful sinking feeling and you really do think you're going to plow into the drink right in front of a masive ship bearing down on you at high speed.

Then you lift up, and the rest of the flight is uneventful.

I'm happy to have had the experience, but I don't want to make this a habit.

David Simmons
05-10-2005, 11:01 PM
That is an empty weright for an F-14. Typical gross takeoff weight is in the neighborhood of 64,000lbs. Yes, the engines do contriubte but let's put things in perspective. F-14 weighs 64,000lb and the thrust is less, 54,000lb as you say, than that so the acceleration from engines alone is somewhat less than that of gravity, about about 27feet/second2. It takes less than two seconds for the cat to launch an airplane. In that time the engines will get the plane moving to 54feet/second or about 36 miles per hour. In that same time the catapult gets the plane moving to about 150 knots, 165 miles per hour. I roughly calculate about 190,000lbs of force from the catapult to achieve that speed.Is the launch force of the steam catapults adjustable to account for aircraft of different take-of weights? Or isn't it worth the trouble?

Mr. Moto
05-10-2005, 11:03 PM
Yes, it is.

Ringo
05-10-2005, 11:07 PM
Ultimately, whether you could launch it or not, the Bradley ain't gonna fly.

Padeye
05-10-2005, 11:22 PM
Is the launch force of the steam catapults adjustable to account for aircraft of different take-of weights? Or isn't it worth the trouble?Yes, it has to be or they may easily destory lighter airplanes or launch heavier ones below stall speed and send them in the drink. An insufficiently powerful launch is called a cold cat shot and is one of the many hazards in carrier flight. The same is true of arresting gear and I once saw an F-14 go in the drink due to improper settings.

CynicalGabe
05-10-2005, 11:32 PM
Ultimately, whether you could launch it or not, the Bradley ain't gonna fly.

Damn you.

Damn you for crushing my dreams. :mad:

Nanoda
05-10-2005, 11:42 PM
I have nothing to contribute, other than my opinion that an aircraft catapult will launch just about anything sideways, and a picture of a car that no amount of "I think I can!" is gonna save.
http://www.therealgang.de/php/myexp/FUN/Bilder%20-%20FUN/carlaunch.jpg

Same picture, bigger but slower site (http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/7310.html)

mittu
05-11-2005, 06:33 AM
My physics is incredibly rusty but assuming the height of the carrier (from deck to water) is around 50m (a bit of a WAG, the only measurement I could find was from keel to mast) I calculated it would take about 3.2 seconds for the Bradley to splash down after leaving the deck.

Now assuming it leaves the deck at 120 m.p.h. I calculated that in 3.2 seconds it would travel about 171m before splashing.

I'm know there are many amongst the TM that are far better at such things than I so I leave it up to them to tear apart my guess :)

One thing that confuses me, isn't an M1 a tank? If so where was this tank that caused it to be hit by another tank being propelled from the deck of an aircraft carrier? Floating in the water?

Bear_Nenno
05-11-2005, 07:15 AM
Both the Brad and the M1 started below deck in the carrier. Then, after DODGING a blast from the M1 at about 20m with a skillful pivot steer, the hero drove the Bradley onto the elevator and got onto the deck. By the time the M1 was on deck, the hero rigs the Bradley to the catapult and launches it.
The Bradley becomes a 50,000lb projectile and slams into the M1 (which was conveniently waiting in the path of the catapult). The M1 and the Brad both go flying off the carrier in a twisted mess of fire and steel.
So this catapult not only launched a Bradley, but a Bradley "into" an M1 and then they BOTH were propelled off the deck.
I wonder if this is still possible after we include the weight of the M1.

Billdo
05-11-2005, 07:31 AM
Ultimately, whether you could launch it or not, the Bradley ain't gonna fly.

As god is my witness, I though Bradleys could fly.[/WKRP]

CynicalGabe
05-11-2005, 08:49 AM
Why were the tanks on the carrier to begin with?

ElvisL1ves
05-11-2005, 09:09 AM
My physics is incredibly rusty but assuming the height of the carrier (from deck to water) is around 50m (a bit of a WAG, the only measurement I could find was from keel to mast) I calculated it would take about 3.2 seconds for the Bradley to splash down after leaving the deck.

Now assuming it leaves the deck at 120 m.p.h. I calculated that in 3.2 seconds it would travel about 171m before splashing. Sounds roughly right. Anyway, catapulting a Bradley would indeed be an intensely satisfying experience for all spectators.

August West
05-11-2005, 11:07 AM
When I as on the USS Enterprise during it's extensive overhaul in the early '90s we did dead load testing on the cats. IIRC the dead loads were around 25000lbs. They were basically giant boxes with wheels, the corners were rounded but they weren't terribly aerodynamic.

They were launched out into the James River where a crane barge would pick them up. They flew pretty respectable distances, say around 150-200 yards.

So based on the fact that an empty Bradley weighs 50000lbs, I would guess that a cat could launch one 75-100 yards

mittu
05-11-2005, 11:17 AM
When I as on the USS Enterprise during it's extensive overhaul in the early '90s we did dead load testing on the cats.

Anyone else have a mental image of felines being propelled into the sea? :eek:

FordPrefect
05-11-2005, 11:47 AM
Is the launch force of the steam catapults adjustable to account for aircraft of different take-of weights? Or isn't it worth the trouble?

According to one fighter plane book I read as a youngster the thumbs up that the pilot gives the ground crew before being thrown over the edge means that they confirm the takeoff weight that the catapult guy is showing them on a board. This may have changed in the last 15 years, but that is what the book said.

Whack-a-Mole
05-11-2005, 11:58 AM
Ultimately, whether you could launch it or not, the Bradley ain't gonna fly.

This reminds me of a quote from (I think) the movie Top Gun where the CO mentions something to the effect that the F4 Phantom proves that even bricks can fly if you give them a big enough engine. Somehow seemed appropriate for a discussion on a flying Bradley.

Ethilrist
05-11-2005, 11:59 AM
I had about nineteen different Monty Python quotes pop into my head as I read this...

"Perhaps if we built a large badger..."
"It's more of a plummet, actually. Not a creature of the air is the Bradley."
"I fling her."

Kevbo
05-11-2005, 12:19 PM
The aircraft IS at flying speed (above stall) when it leaves the flight deck.

However, there is sufficient weight on the nose wheel that elevator authority needed to lift the nose to take off attitude is not available until significantly above stall speed.

Once it drops off the end of the deck, the elevators need only rotate the aircraft about it's CG against it's rotational moment, rather than levering the nose up against gravity on the fulcrum of the main gear like when it was on the deck. This takes a half second or so before the aircraft rotates to a climbing attitude.

And THAT is why the aircraft drop off the end of the deck before climbing.

mhendo
05-11-2005, 12:31 PM
Is the launch force of the steam catapults adjustable to account for aircraft of different take-of weights? Or isn't it worth the trouble?Yes, it's adjustable, and is apparently adjusted for each launch depending on the type of plane etc.

You can read about the procedure here (http://people.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier4.htm).

From the link:When the plane is ready to go, the catapult officer opens valves to fill the catapult cylinders with high-pressure steam from the ship's reactors. This steam provides the necessary force to propel the pistons at high speed, slinging the plane forward to generate the necessary lift for takeoff. Initially, the pistons are locked into place, so the cylinders simply build up pressure. The catapult officer carefully monitors the pressure level so it's just right for the particular plane and deck conditions. If the pressure is too low, the plane won't get moving fast enough to take off, and the catapult will throw it into the ocean. If there's too much pressure, the sudden jerk could break the nose gear right off.

Padeye
05-11-2005, 08:28 PM
And THAT is why the aircraft drop off the end of the deck before climbing.They don't drop significantly with a normal cat shot, at least that was my obvservation when I worked flight deck for nearly two years as a final checker. This is true even with F-14s which are launched in a negative pitch attitude due to the kneeling nosegear. The tail end does drop but only enough topitch up and put the plane in a positive attitude. If a plane drops much at all that is an indication of a cold cat shot.

I found a cite on the NASA/JPL website that probably has more than you wanted to know about the physics of a catapult. Note that it is an Adobe .pdf file

http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/PDF_Examples/03_23_02_1.pdf

I only got to take one trap, in a C-2 Greyhound like Mr Moto flew in. Because the seats in the cargo bay are backwards you feel like you have been thrown onto your back and launched upward when you catch the arresting cable and that is pretty mild compared to a jet. I only got to take one cat shot, in a US-3A "Miss Piggy", a convereted Viking for COD use. Best &%$#ing carnival ride ever. :D

pullin
05-11-2005, 09:36 PM
Yes, it's adjustable, and is apparently adjusted for each launch depending on the type of plane etc.

You can read about the procedure here (http://people.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier4.htm).

From the link:

IANANP: But don't they also do the same thing when they land? Calculate the landing weight in order to dial in X amount of tension on the arresting gear? Seems reasonable, anyway.

(NP = Navy Pilot)

pilot141
05-11-2005, 10:35 PM
(I can't believe I'm doing this) :cool:

Pullin the correct term is Naval Aviator, as any Navy puke will loudly and repeatedly tell you.

Only the Air Force has Pilots.






Pilot and proud of it!

Padeye
05-11-2005, 11:05 PM
Yes, the arresting gear which are hydralic cylinders need to be calibrated for each kind of airplane. In late '81 I witnessed the consequences of not having the arresting gear set correctly. My sqadron CO was on approach to the Constellation in an F-14. He came in a little high but that's better than too low. You can bolter and go around if you miss the wires but you don't walk away from a ramp strike. The plane caught the last arresting gear cable, the four wire and kept right on going. We were told later that the arresting engine, a big hydralic cylinder that works like a screen door closer, was set for a lighter aircraft.

The normal procedure for landing is for the pilot to go to military power, that is full throttle but no afterburners the second the wheels hit the deck. This is so that if they bolter, miss the wires, they can just take off again for another attempt. In this case the arresting gear didn't slow down the plane enough to stop it before it reached the angle deck. It did slow down the plane so that it was well below stall speed so when it reached the limit of the cables spooling out of the arresting engine the intertia of the plane pulled the cables completely out of the deck. The plane went down like a stone. All we saw after it went below deck level, about 65 feet above the water for the Connie, was the canopy being jettisoned then a splash when the plane hit.

We learned the rest of the story from the crew. The skipper in the front seat was reaching for the face curtain ejection handle but the RIO pulled the secondary handle between his knees first. A lot of stuff has to happen in the ejection sequence from the explosive bolts that release the caonpy to the parachute ride to the water. Because the plane was falling it's downward velocity was subtracted from the seat motors so it was an out of envelope ejection. The pilot's seat was launching from the plane as it was striking the water and he had barely separated from his seat before he hit the water. Neither parachute opened but the crew were okay except for the skipper having a sore neck because his head was tipped forward when he ejected. The plane guard helo picked them up in a matter of minutes and had them back wet but alive.

Scared the holy hell out of us working the line that day. We didn't realize it was an arresting gear failure on the ship. I had changed tail hook points on planes that morning including on that plane and for a while I thought I might be responsible for the death of two officers and loss of a plane.

Lord Mondegreen
05-12-2005, 02:11 AM
I once saw a takeoff incident where the pilot, my squadron XO at the time, forgot to release the parking brake for takeoff. 32 tons of metal and wheels that won't turn. The cat launched the plane to the same airspeed as if the wheels had been turning. Note that the main tires on an F-14 are about three feet tall and for carrier use are inflated to 300psi. This is how the XO earned the nickname "Boom-Boom Bertsch." :D He was okay. Although he could have trapped with two blown tires everyone decided it was safer to bingo to the beach.

I'm glad he was OK, but I need to know the details! If he reached adequate airspeed I'm guessing he flew away rather than ditching off the end off the carrier?

With the blown tires did he have to eject, or proceed to an airport and land on foam? (The answer may be contained in the phrase "bingo to the beach" - I'm not familiar with that expression.)

sewalk
05-12-2005, 03:09 AM
(I can't believe I'm doing this) :cool:

Pullin the correct term is Naval Aviator, as any Navy puke will loudly and repeatedly tell you.

Only the Air Force has Pilots.

Get it straight before you correct others: In naval parlance, a pilot is a sailor (usually civilian, I think), who guides a vessel into a harbor or other restricted waters. Many Navy pukes look on them as glorified parking attendants since they don't often venture out of sight of dry land. Aviators, when not dragging their knuckles or drooling on their flight suits, like to differentiate themselves from the rest of the naval service.

Padeye
05-12-2005, 08:43 AM
I'm glad he was OK, but I need to know the details! If he reached adequate airspeed I'm guessing he flew away rather than ditching off the end off the carrier?

With the blown tires did he have to eject, or proceed to an airport and land on foam? (The answer may be contained in the phrase "bingo to the beach" - I'm not familiar with that expression.)My technical writing instructor in college told me to avoid jargon. You can see how much attention I paid.

The only thing harmed in that incident were a pair of Goodyear tires. Yes, he reached the same airspeed he would have if the wheels were rolling. The friction of the tires was trivial compared to the force of the catapult. Remember that once something is sliding it has much less friction than when static. That's why the shortest stopping distance is when the tired are just at the edge of locking up rather than being completely locked.

Bingo means to land on shore rather than the carrier where he landed normally. Funny but I never heard of landing on a foamed runway except in movies. If he had to land on the ship I think he may have attempted a normall arrested landing but they might also have used a barricade. The modern barridcade is a big net made of heavy nylon webbing which is attached to a fifth arresting gear wire just for that purpose. The portion of the cable that is streched across the deck before it is pulled out is a replacable section called a crossdeck pendant. When rig the barricade is called everyone on the flight deck drags out the barricade and attach it to the retractable parts of the cable and a pair of masts that are normally folded into the surface of the deck to raise it vertically. The plane flies into the barricade which catches the wings and anything else that snags on the vertical straps.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/026322.jpg

The Great Sun Jester
05-12-2005, 09:11 AM
We could build a catapult (http://www.newcomicreviews.com/temp/lotr/catapult1id.gif)...

ralph124c
05-12-2005, 09:20 AM
Remember the famous Dolittle riad (WWII) on Tokyo? Army AF general James Dolittle got the navy to allow the launching of Army bombers from the carrier Wasp. the raid was a success..in spite of the fact that experts thought the feat impossible. Could this be done today, with a B-1 bomber? Would the navy allow it? Could the planes be recovered (land) on the carrier?

Zakalwe
05-12-2005, 09:28 AM
It did slow down the plane so that it was well below stall speed so when it reached the limit of the cables spooling out of the arresting engine the intertia of the plane pulled the cables completely out of the deck.In Arresting Gear parlance, this is known as a two-block (the travelling end of the cylinder makes contact with the fixed end). As you can imagine, it fucks the gear for a fare-thee-well. Did the cable hold? I would have expected a wire failure in either the CDP (cross-deck pendant), the socket holding the CDP to the wire, or the wire itself.

ABE3 Zakalwe

sewalk
05-12-2005, 09:38 AM
Remember the famous Dolittle riad (WWII) on Tokyo?
Doolittle's planes were not launched; they took off normally, taking advantage of a strong wind and the USS Hornet's own headway. They then flew on toward bases in China, never intending or able to land back on the carrier deck. They were initially loaded on the carrier by crane.
A B-1 could never match the takeoff run of a B-25, even with no payload. Landing is similarly impossible.

Inflight refueling made such foolhardiness unnecessary. B-1's operating over Afghanistan and Iraq flew from Diego Garcia, a British island in the middle of the Indian Ocean. B-2's flew their missions round-trip from Whiteman AFB, Missouri.

Mr. Moto
05-12-2005, 09:51 AM
The largest plane landed and launched from a carrier was a C-130 back in 1963.

Cite, with linked videos at bottom. They're a must watch. (http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm)

Padeye
05-12-2005, 09:59 AM
Zakalwe, I'm not completely certain where the failure was but there was no cable on the deck after the incident and I can't even remember if we ever got a functioning four wire during the rest of the cruise. I have to admit I wasn't watching the wire as the plane went over the edge but I think it took the whole thing with it as I'm sure a breaking cable would have been pretty obvious snapping back.

ralph124c, almost certainly not. There have been some non-carrier aircraft such as a C-130 and U-2 that have been tested on carriers but not using the launch or arresting gear. I'm pretty certain the B-1 would be an impossibility for several reasons. Even if the right wing cleared the island there is no place to attach the launch or arresting gear to the plane. The B-1 is a pretty sturdy airplane but launches and arrests put massive loads on the airframe that it was never designed to handle. Putting enough force on the nose gear to launch it in two seconds would probably tear it from the fuselage. Landing? Never mind the arresting gear. Carrier planes do not land with a gengle flare and touchdown. The glideslope intersects the deck at a pretty high angle which would destroy a plane not designed for that stress. Oh, one other small detail. The empty weight of a B-1 is more than twice that of an A-3 whale at gross. Fully loaded the B-1 is nearly six times as heavy. The catapult pistons and arresting gear engines would have to be much more massive and the gossamer, two-inch arresting gear cable would need to be a bit thicker so it doesn't snap like a guitar string.

sewalk, you know whay aviators drag knuckles don't you? Those goddamn heavy Speedmaster watches. They need them to compensate for the small IFR probe. The reason they don't justr drag the left hand knuckles is because they transfer urine to maintain trim. ;)

Bryan Ekers
05-12-2005, 03:24 PM
Sure, if it's in neutral with the parking brake off.

Sounds dangerous, though. Better hang a safety flag on the back.

CynicalGabe
05-12-2005, 07:28 PM
The largest plane landed and launched from a carrier was a C-130 back in 1963. [/URL]

Didn't they only do that once? Took a while to take off though. About 20 minutes if I recall.

sewalk
05-12-2005, 10:12 PM
Didn't they only do that once? Took a while to take off though. About 20 minutes if I recall.
Read the cite :rolleyes:
29 touch and goes, 21 unarrested landings, 21 unassisted takeoffs.

dogbutler
05-12-2005, 10:24 PM
Read the cite :rolleyes:
29 touch and goes, 21 unarrested landings, 21 unassisted takeoffs.
Whoosh!

CynicalGabe
05-12-2005, 10:37 PM
Whoosh!

Serious whoosh!

Padeye
05-13-2005, 12:04 AM
That's exactly what a touch and go sounds like as the plane goes by, whoosh... oh :smack:

<cocks 1960s style, navy issue Mk1 mod 0 death ray>

GusNSpot
05-13-2005, 01:29 AM
When talking thrust on jet engines, be sure you are talking 'static' thrust, which is a bit different than Max thrust and stuff and such.
Stationary jet engines don't really push as hard as most think.

Zakalwe
05-13-2005, 06:04 AM
Zakalwe, I'm not completely certain where the failure was but there was no cable on the deck after the incident and I can't even remember if we ever got a functioning four wire during the rest of the cruise. I have to admit I wasn't watching the wire as the plane went over the edge but I think it took the whole thing with it as I'm sure a breaking cable would have been pretty obvious snapping back. Okay, you probably had a catastrophic cable failure due to the two-block. My guess would be that the cable failed between the engine and the deck with the a/c pulling the remaining cable over the side. The deck was probably ripped up due to a failure on the deck sheaves (sp? The big wheels that change the cables direction). You didn't see lashback because it occured below deck.

gossamer, two-inch arresting gear cable If memory serves (my books are packed up): 1 5/16 for the main cable, 1 7/8 for the CDP (both braided steel rope with a hemp core).