C-130 on Navy Carrier

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

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

[Harriet and John]

Sure. Check http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp


"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
>

[Lorence]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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?


Taken from http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm
__________________________________________________ ____________

Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500
miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing,
the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on
an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he
thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft
carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't
kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a
feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the
Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find
out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier
Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks was
the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine bird with a limited
payload capacity and 300-mile range. If an aircraft carrier is
operating in mid-ocean, it has no "onboard delivery" system to fall
back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently
needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable, with a long
cruising range and capable of carrying large payloads.


C-130 Hercules

The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from
the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only
modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller
nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and
removal of the underwing refueling pods. "The big worry was whether we
could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley
said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to
better this mark by a substantial margin.

In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall,
copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering
flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on
30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew
successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested
full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of
85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came
to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing
span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum
payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for
landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination
between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal
officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the
Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still
three or four feet off the deck.

C-130 Hercules

Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the
C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop
landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about
150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that
position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple
hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was
flabbergasted."

The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island"
control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck
on a specially painted line. Lockheed's chief engineer, Art E. Flock
was aboard to observe the testing. "The sea was pretty big that day. I
was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow as
that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop
was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind
direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind on
the nose. "That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge,"
recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of
the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO
HOOK."

From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130
Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500
miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit
too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD
aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished
Flying Cross.


Lorence

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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?

No, because no such event happened. The landings were NOT arrested
(nor did they use catapults).

This is probably the most common question here. 10 seconds of web
searching on "C-130 carrier landing" turned up several dozen relevant
pages.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew Venor]

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
>
>
>
You can watch short video clips of the landing and launch of a C-130 on
the USS Forestall at the Air & Space Smithsonian magazines web site.

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/asm/web/site/QT/menu.html

ALV

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Lorence
> writes
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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?
>
>
>Taken from http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm
>__________________________________________________ ____________
>
>Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500
>miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing,
>the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on
>an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.
>
>When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he
>thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft
>carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't
>kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a
>feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the
>Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find
>out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier
>Onboard Delivery" aircraft.

Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into
service?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[RENABORNEY]

>
>Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into
>service?

SNIP

On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in
order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have
to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over
the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back
aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its
primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather
than hit the barrier)

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, RENABORNEY
> writes
>>
>>Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into
>>service?
>
>SNIP
>
>On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in
>order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have
>to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over
>the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back
>aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its
>primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather
>than hit the barrier)

Obviously on the fight deck! The reason I asked was that I haven't any
conception of the size of the C-130 compared with other naval aircraft
(I could look it all up, but I'm working today) and the available space
on the deck.

Sounds like the need to reposition the aircraft could be a major pain
from the operational point of view, or would it be no worse that having
to shuffle the other aircraft around?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[T. & D. Gregor, Sr.]

Hi WDA:

You can get the pertinent facts from our C-130 Page @
http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm - there's also an opportunity to
purchase the book that chronicles the event, as well as other
fascinating legends of the Herk.

Good Luck

Tom G, Sr.


On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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
>
>
>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Name: T. & D. Gregor, Sr.
E-Mail:
Web-Site: http://www.scenery.org
"The Scenery Hall of Fame"
Subscribe to our Newsletter:


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:09:43 GMT, Peter Twydell
> wrote:

>>>Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into
>>>service?
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in
>>order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have
>>to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over
>>the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back
>>aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its
>>primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather
>>than hit the barrier)
>
>Obviously on the fight deck! The reason I asked was that I haven't any
>conception of the size of the C-130 compared with other naval aircraft
>(I could look it all up, but I'm working today) and the available space
>on the deck.
>
>Sounds like the need to reposition the aircraft could be a major pain
>from the operational point of view, or would it be no worse that having
>to shuffle the other aircraft around?

IIRC this was the main reason the project was not pursued. "Locking
the deck" was not something that an Air Boss would like. And what do
you do if the aircraft goes "down" and requires maintenance?
Particularly heavy maintenance, like an engine or prop change?

I also have a vague recollection of the concept of the "clipped wing"
C-130 where the wing would be shorted 6-8 feet per side to give some
flexibility in deck handling. I don't think this one got much past
the discussion stage.

The project was intereresting showing what could be done. It might
even still be relevant today. I could imagine a "Tom Clancy scenario"
where we pull off an "Entebe" type operation from a carrier. Big
Mother goes out with a couple of Hercs escorted by an LHD loaded out
with lots of Harriers. You would not have to suspend too much
disbelief on this one! ;-)

Bill Kambic

Bill Kambic

[Pechs1]

ballensr-<< Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested
landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s? >><BR><BR>

I'm sure a bunch will repsond but they weren't 'arrested' landings but just max
reverse pitch when landing, with lots of WOD. Done by Admiral, then LCDR(?)
Flatley. I was in VF-33 when he was CAG..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[JJ]

"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 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

[Tex Houston]

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...

> Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service?
> --
> Peter


How about in the normal parking spot on the base where it was stationed on
land. Don't think it was ever contemplated to have a carrier based C-130.
Think about it.

Regards,

Tex

[NimBill]

>From: (Pechs1)

>I'm sure a bunch will repsond but they weren't 'arrested' landings but just
>maxreverse pitch when landing, with lots of WOD. Done by Admiral, then
>LCDR(?)Flatley. I was in VF-33 when he was CAG..P. C. ChisholmCDR,
>USN(ret.)Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat
>Buckeye Phlyer

Its actually quite a well known feat caught on video and available to almost
anyone and seen on Discovery and PBS within the past year.

A much more interesting video is a Herc landing and taking off on a football
field with the goal posts up.

To me the scariest Herc film is a Herc picking up a downed flier at sea via the
use of a balloon put up by the downed flier. I truly think I would rather take
my chances in the water than get jerked into the air at the end of a long
cable.

Getting jerked out of the air by a medium length cable is scary enough.

[William Hughes]

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.

[Gord Beaman]

(NimBill) wrote:
snip
>
>To me the scariest Herc film is a Herc picking up a downed flier at sea via the
>use of a balloon put up by the downed flier. I truly think I would rather take
>my chances in the water than get jerked into the air at the end of a long
>cable.
>

I don't think -I- would...the North Atlantic in winter isn't my
idea of a fun place.

>Getting jerked out of the air by a medium length cable is scary enough.
>
>
I understand that that's not very stressful at all...I saw it
demo'd once, didn't look very vigorous, I believe they use nylon
rope which is quite 'stretchy' and delivers a smooth acceleration
to the 'victim' :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
| (NimBill) wrote:
| snip
| >
| >To me the scariest Herc film is a Herc picking up a downed flier at sea
via the
| >use of a balloon put up by the downed flier. I truly think I would rather
take
| >my chances in the water than get jerked into the air at the end of a long
| >cable.
| >
|
| I don't think -I- would...the North Atlantic in winter isn't my
| idea of a fun place.
|
| >Getting jerked out of the air by a medium length cable is scary enough.
| >
| >
| I understand that that's not very stressful at all...I saw it
| demo'd once, didn't look very vigorous, I believe they use nylon
| rope which is quite 'stretchy' and delivers a smooth acceleration
| to the 'victim' :)
| --
|
| -Gord.
| (use gordon in email)




'sfunny, I was at a supplier's office today talking about the very same
thing. We decided that it would be the ideal treatment for someone
who's just compressed a few vertibra during an ejection. At
least you'd be the same height as you were when you took off (your knuckles
wouldn't ever be the same colour again)





--

Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Thomas Schoene]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> (NimBill) wrote:

snip

>> Getting jerked out of the air by a medium length cable is scary
>> enough.
>>
>>
> I understand that that's not very stressful at all...I saw it
> demo'd once, didn't look very vigorous, I believe they use nylon
> rope which is quite 'stretchy' and delivers a smooth acceleration
> to the 'victim' :)

Smooth, unless the rope snapped, as it did in some of the early trials
(killed at least one SEAL that way, IIRC). The Air Force finally decided
Skyhook wasn't all that useful and removed the pickup gear from its spec
ops Hercs a few years back. I think the sense is that with helicopter IFR,
you can simply tank a helo to pretty much anywhere and do the pickup in a
more conventional fashion.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[John Keeney]

"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

[Dave Kearton]

"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

[Jeroen Wenting]

"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?

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Tex Houston
> writes
>
>"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service?
>> --
>> Peter
>
>
>How about in the normal parking spot on the base where it was stationed on
>land. Don't think it was ever contemplated to have a carrier based C-130.
>Think about it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tex
>
>
That would be a good idea, but as Bill Kambic said, what if the a/c is
unable to take off again for several hours? That's a lot of hardware
clogging up the deck.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Peter Twydell]

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!

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(Peter Twydell) wrote:

> Obviously on the fight deck! The reason I asked was that I haven't any
> conception of the size of the C-130 compared with other naval aircraft
> (I could look it all up, but I'm working today) and the available space
> on the deck.

Bigger. Much bigger.

The nearest aircraft would be the Douglas A-3, which /just/ fitted on the
carriers of its period, which overlapped with the Herc consideration, I
think. It might still fit onto today's ones, if any were flying. Its span
is 72'6" unfolded, with a length of 76'4" and a height of 22'9.5". Did the
fin fold down to fit it into the hanger?

A C-130H is 132'7" span, 97'9" long and 38'3" high.

> Sounds like the need to reposition the aircraft could be a major pain
> from the operational point of view, or would it be no worse that having
> to shuffle the other aircraft around?

It would have been a huge pain. If the Herc broke, there might have been
nothing to do but push it overboard.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[JJ]

"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

[JJ]

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]

No Spam > wrote:

>Re: the 'freefall' delivery scenario..
>
>I imagine it would be safer to put the cargo in the water on special
>pallets (already being done) for surface pick-up. Dropping moving
>cargo onto the flight deck? Well that's just plain scary... I'm sure
>it *could* be made to work but at what cost; at what risk to ship,
>acft (C-130 and those on deck), personnel; and why even attempt if
>there are reasonable alternatives?
>("Rig the barricades! Incoming delivery for ATO...")
>/lac/

What if you want to use an aircraft larger than the C130 - something
that could land on the carrier (or maybe couldn't even land) but
couldn't take off again. (whoa, what about a situation where the
delivery was *SO* important it would be worth it even though the plane
is pushed off the side after the delivery."

What if the sea state was really bad and in water recovery was not
possible? Granted it would make the close approach of the aircraft
very difficult and the cargo more "lively" on deck.

But hey, we're talking about unusual ideas for the unusual situations
that come up in warfight right.

Jay

[JJ]

"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/docs_html/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]

"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

[JJ]

Okay, here's another one:

Big cargo plane comes in for approach, the back door opens up, an
arresting hook comes out. It is attached to a LAPES sled/pallet.
The hook grabs an arresting cable, the release force threshold is
reached. the cargo is pulled from the aircraft cargo bay and onto the
deck.

The arresting cable system slows down the load and keeps it from going
too far.

Jay

[Dave in San Diego]

(JJ) wrote in news:4210d9d9.122177140
@news2.flex.com:

> Okay, here's another one:
>
> Big cargo plane comes in for approach, the back door opens up, an
> arresting hook comes out. It is attached to a LAPES sled/pallet.
> The hook grabs an arresting cable, the release force threshold is
> reached. the cargo is pulled from the aircraft cargo bay and onto the
> deck.
>
> The arresting cable system slows down the load and keeps it from going
> too far.

The success rate of manned jets catching arresting cables is far from
100%, and you are expecting, nay requiring, a 100% rate for an
uncontrolled unaerodynamic lump deposited on the flight deck at @ 130
knots. Bold dream, my friend.

Watch this video, all the way through becasue it isn't all LAPES, and
tell us once more how practical this is.

BTW, how old are you? I used to dream up stuff like this when I was in my
teens.

Dave in San Diego

[Dave in San Diego]

(JJ) wrote in news:4210d9d9.122177140
@news2.flex.com:

> Okay, here's another one:
>
> Big cargo plane comes in for approach, the back door opens up, an
> arresting hook comes out. It is attached to a LAPES sled/pallet.
> The hook grabs an arresting cable, the release force threshold is
> reached. the cargo is pulled from the aircraft cargo bay and onto the
> deck.
>
> The arresting cable system slows down the load and keeps it from going
> too far.

The success rate of manned jets catching arresting cables is far from
100%, and you are expecting, nay requiring, a 100% rate for an
uncontrolled unaerodynamic lump deposited on the flight deck at @ 130
knots. Bold dream, my friend.

Watch this video, all the way through becasue it isn't all LAPES, and
tell us once more how practical this is.

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/airdrops.wmv

BTW, how old are you? I used to dream up stuff like this when I was in my
teens.

Dave in San Diego

[JJ]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:

(JJ) wrote in
>> Big cargo plane comes in for approach, the back door opens up, an
>> arresting hook comes out. It is attached to a LAPES sled/pallet.
>> The hook grabs an arresting cable, the release force threshold is
>> reached. the cargo is pulled from the aircraft cargo bay and onto the
>> deck.
>> The arresting cable system slows down the load and keeps it from going
>> too far.
>
>The success rate of manned jets catching arresting cables is far from
>100%, and you are expecting, nay requiring, a 100% rate for an
>uncontrolled unaerodynamic lump deposited on the flight deck at @ 130
>knots. Bold dream, my friend.

Hunh? If the hook misses the arresting cables, the cargo plane keeps
going and comes back for another approach just like the regular
carrier jets. The cargo module doesn't leave the plane unless hook
catches a cable.

>Watch this video, all the way through becasue it isn't all LAPES, and
>tell us once more how practical this is.

I don't see any arresting cables or smooth steel decks in your
otherwise amusing video. I thank you for that.

Um Dave, while I did touch upon parachutes earlier in this thread, I
don't use them in this sub-thread. My mention of LAPES sled/pallet
refers only to the structure that the cargo is secured to and in turn
is secured to the aircraft load bay. That part has already been
invented and should be reused with some modifications.

>BTW, how old are you? I used to dream up stuff like this when I was in my
>teens.
>Dave in San Diego

Well I am old enough to know that engineering evolution can go from
what seems to be a pretty zany brainstorm type idea to an effective
operational system.

Jay

[KENG]

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

[[email protected]]

Yes..go here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml





On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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
>
>

[Rob van Riel]

Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with a
smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft? The
links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very revealing
in this respect.

Thanks for any help

Rob

[John Szalay]

Rob van Riel > wrote in
:

> Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with a
> smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
> type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
> turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
> information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft? The
> links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very revealing
> in this respect.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> Rob
>

Make sure include the U-2 in that list..

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Rob van Riel
> writes
>Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with a
>smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
>type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
>turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
>information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft? The
>links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very revealing
>in this respect.
>
>Thanks for any help
>
>Rob

Everything? Including FAA, Aéronavale, Koninklijke Marine, RAN, etc.?
Sounds like quite a list if that's the case!
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Bob]

Just a few minor corrections
Both pilots, Flatley and Stoval got DFCs for this program.

The C-130 was the largest and heaviest airplane to be "publically"
landed on a carrier. The Navy didn't go public with everything it did.

The program was to counter USAF and Whiz Kid complaints that a nuclear
carrier could not be resupplied by air if necessary. This program
proved they could be and if you check history you'll find all carriers
henceforth were nuclear powered. Kennedy and America were the final
oil burners desired by both the USAF and Macnammara's whiz kids because
of cost.

The C-2a while not as large became the carrier's supply airplane.

The short landing roll was due to close coordination between the LSO
and Stoval who operated the throttles. At the LSO's signal "cut" all
props went into reverse pitch while the Herc was still in the air.
Flatley steered and locked the Hytrol brakes.The landing was not a
gentle USAF type.

The C-1A referred to had a max range of about 800 miles, not 300. It
was payload limited. The C-2A could carry two J-79 engines which was
it's design spec. Max range about 1000 miles.

The primary purpose of this effort was to prove the Navy could do what
the USAF and Macnammaras educated idiots (IMHO) said could not be done.
The fact that there were few pilots with Flatley and Stovals expertise
around was lost on the doubters and the Nuclear carrier became the Navy
Standard.They deserved more than a DFC, INMHO, but they did the Navy
proud that day.

PS, I know Macnammara is misspelled but I really don't care.


Lorence wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "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?
>
>
> Taken from http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm
> __________________________________________________ ____________
>
> Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500
> miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing,
> the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on
> an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.
>
> When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he
> thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an
aircraft
> carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't
> kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a
> feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the
> Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find
> out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier
> Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks was
> the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine bird with a limited
> payload capacity and 300-mile range. If an aircraft carrier is
> operating in mid-ocean, it has no "onboard delivery" system to fall
> back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently
> needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable, with a long
> cruising range and capable of carrying large payloads.
>
>
> C-130 Hercules
>
> The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan
from
> the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only
> modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller
> nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and
> removal of the underwing refueling pods. "The big worry was whether
we
> could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley
> said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to
> better this mark by a substantial margin.
>
> In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall,
> copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed
engineering
> flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on
> 30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew
> successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested
> full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of
> 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F
came
> to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing
> span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum
> payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for
> landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination
> between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal
> officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the
> Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still
> three or four feet off the deck.
>
> C-130 Hercules
>
> Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the
> C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop
> landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about
> 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from
that
> position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple
> hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was
> flabbergasted."
>
> The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island"
> control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck
> on a specially painted line. Lockheed's chief engineer, Art E. Flock
> was aboard to observe the testing. "The sea was pretty big that day.
I
> was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow as
> that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop
> was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind
> direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind
on
> the nose. "That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's
bridge,"
> recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side
of
> the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO
> HOOK."
>
> From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the
C-130
> Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500
> miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a
bit
> too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD
> aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished
> Flying Cross.
>
>
> Lorence

[Rob van Riel]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:38:38 +0000, Peter Twydell wrote:

> In message >, Rob van Riel
> > writes
>>smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
>>type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
>
> Everything? Including FAA, Aéronavale, Koninklijke Marine, RAN, etc.?
> Sounds like quite a list if that's the case!

Basically, just US Navy/Marines, but if there was an interesting enough
guest appearance on one of the US carriers, I'll consider it qualified.
And yes, you're right, even that is quite a list, but it's still a lot
less than it would be if I declared a modelling free for all. Many
modellers have hundreds, if not thousands of unbuilt kits in the attic, so
limited myself to this and a few other subjects. It may not sound like
such a great limitation, but it sure beats "anything that ever flew or is
otherwise interesting".

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:50:14 +0000, John Szalay wrote:

> Make sure include the U-2 in that list..

Will do, assuming I ever get around to digging out the markings for the
plane that pulled that stunt.

Rob

[Yeff]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:07:31 +0100, Rob van Riel wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:50:14 +0000, John Szalay wrote:
>
>> Make sure include the U-2 in that list..
>
> Will do, assuming I ever get around to digging out the markings for the
> plane that pulled that stunt.

This article might help with your research:
<http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2001/0201spyplane.asp>

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[Dave Kearton]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message

| On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:50:14 +0000, John Szalay wrote:
|
|| Make sure include the U-2 in that list..
|
| Will do, assuming I ever get around to digging out the markings for
| the plane that pulled that stunt.
|
| Rob



I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings
;-/



--

Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Yeff]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:

> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
>
>| On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:50:14 +0000, John Szalay wrote:
>|
>|| Make sure include the U-2 in that list..
>|
>| Will do, assuming I ever get around to digging out the markings for
>| the plane that pulled that stunt.
>|
>| Rob
>
>
>
> I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings
> ;-/

Isn't there an SR-71 sitting on a carrier somewhere... <g>

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:48:40 GMT, Yeff > wrote:

>Isn't there an SR-71 sitting on a carrier somewhere... <g>

NYC, IIRC.

Not sure you'd get enough wind over the deck for that one, though!!!!!
;-)

Bill Kambic

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:36:21 +0000, Yeff wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:07:31 +0100, Rob van Riel wrote:
>
>> Will do, assuming I ever get around to digging out the markings for the
>> plane that pulled that stunt.
>
> This article might help with your research:
> <http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2001/0201spyplane.asp>

Interesting article.

Thanks

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:48:40 +0000, Yeff wrote:
> Isn't there an SR-71 sitting on a carrier somewhere... <g>

That would be the Intrepid, I think, but that's so far removed from any
kind of operational use that I'll disqualify it.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:
> I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings

Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The Herc,
Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was thinking the
A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..

Rob

[Bob Moore]

Rob van Riel > wrote
> Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The Herc,
> Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was thinking
> the A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..

The P-2V was the Navy's first effort to give the Navy a carrier
based nuclear delivery capability to keep the Air Force from
monopolizing thenewly developed weapons. This was in a day when
standard Navy attack aircraft could not carry the "Fat Man" bomb
because of it's size. The smaller "Little Boy" bomb required too
much nuclear material in it's construction.

Bob Moore

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Rob van Riel wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:
>
>>I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings
>>
>
> Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The Herc,
> Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was thinking the
> A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..
>
> Rob
>
>

I might be able to help somewhat with the markings on the Neptune.
Before the AJ-1 Savage (not a small plane itself) entered USN service, a
small number of P2V-3C Neptunes was used as Nuclear bombers. For this
the ASW equipment and armament was removed to make them lighter and the
bomb-bays were modified in order to enable the rather large nuclear
wepons of the time to be fitted. They used JATO for take-off. Though at
least one of these had an arrestor hook and carrier approaches were
undertaken, an arrested landing aboard a carrier was never made. More
details can be found at:
http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/hatwing1.html

Some photographs (sadly in B&W) can be found at:
http://p2vneptune.org/p2v3c.shtml

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:44:12 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
> Some photographs (sadly in B&W) can be found at:
> http://p2vneptune.org/p2v3c.shtml

Thanks for the info. You don't really need much colour if the markings are
white on dark blue, so I think these will do nicely.
Now, all I need to do is win the lottery, so I can retire and start
building in earnest...

Rob

[Gord Beaman]

John Szalay > wrote:

>Rob van Riel > wrote in
:
>
>> Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with a
>> smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
>> type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
>> turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
>> information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft? The
>> links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very revealing
>> in this respect.
>>
>> Thanks for any help
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>Make sure include the U-2 in that list..

....aaand the B-52C (the C is for carrier of course)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:38:38 +0000, Peter Twydell wrote:
>
>> In message >, Rob van Riel
>> > writes
>>>smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
>>>type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now it
>>
>> Everything? Including FAA, Aéronavale, Koninklijke Marine, RAN, etc.?
>> Sounds like quite a list if that's the case!
>
>Basically, just US Navy/Marines, but if there was an interesting enough
>guest appearance on one of the US carriers, I'll consider it qualified.
>And yes, you're right, even that is quite a list, but it's still a lot
>less than it would be if I declared a modelling free for all. Many
>modellers have hundreds, if not thousands of unbuilt kits in the attic, so
>limited myself to this and a few other subjects. It may not sound like
>such a great limitation, but it sure beats "anything that ever flew or is
>otherwise interesting".
>
>Rob

Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Rob van Riel > writes:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:
>> I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings
>
> Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The Herc,
> Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was thinking the
> A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..

The Neptunes were P2V-3s from VC-5. They were an expedient way of the
Navy having the ability to deploy early Atomic Bombs (Mk I and Mk III)
from Carriers. (Thus simultaneously deterring the Soviets and the
Dreaded USAF) They wre replaced with the somewhat more
Carrier-compatible AJ Savage. According to Holly Hills, (Is he still
around? I hope so! If not, Clear Skies!) a VC-5 pilot at the time,
they also had hooks, and had successfully done a lot of FLCPs. They
wnated to try landing then on a Midway Class ship, but they couldn't
find a Ship's Captain who'd agree to it.

(Holly is/was Real Aviation History. After qualifying as a Naval
Aviator adn flying F2A Buffaloes, he joined the RCAF and flew Mustang
Is. He's credited with the first Mustang kill - an FW 190 over
Dieppe. He retirned to teh Navy, and did a whole pile of pioneering
stuff.)


At the same time that teh Navy was running Carrier Trials on the P-51,
late 1944, early 1945, they were also conducting trials on a
hook-equipped PBJ (B-25) Don't forget that one.

And oh, yah - it didn't quite make it on deck, but one proposal for a
high-volume COD airplane in the late '50s (According to a detailed
article in a mid '56 "Aviation Week") was a hook-equipped, folding wing
flavor of the C-123. I don't know if it folded up enough to be struck
below decks, but it's an interesting idea.
(Which sort of puts the kibosh on the contention that nobory thought
that Carriers couldn't be resupplied with stuff at sea.)

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[Dave in San Diego]

Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in
:
>
> Rob van Riel wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:
>>
>>>I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show
>>>markings
>>
>> Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The
>> Herc, Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was
>> thinking the A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..
>>
>> Rob
>
> Some photographs (sadly in B&W) can be found at:
> http://p2vneptune.org/p2v3c.shtml
>
> Regards,
> Ralph Savelsberg
>
There is a decent pic of the Neptune taking off from Midway here:

http://history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF

go to pdf page 18, or document page 176

It, like the Coral Sea pic on the site Ralph cited above, doesn't show
much in the way of markings, though.

Dave in San Diego

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
> Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...

Sorry, got to draw the line somewhere. Unless Mitchells flew of one of the
carriers after WWII as well...

Rob

[John Dallman]

In article 7>,
(John Szalay) wrote:
> Rob van Riel > wrote in
> > I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of every
> > type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers
> Make sure include the U-2 in that list..

I didn't really believe that. So I googled.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0050.shtml

Wow...

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[MikeR]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rob van Riel > writes:
> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...
> >
> > Sorry, got to draw the line somewhere. Unless Mitchells flew of one of
the
> > carriers after WWII as well...
>
> For the 60th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, the USN did indeed
> crane aboard somebody's B-25 Warbird and it was flown off at sea.
> Does that count?


August 26 1995: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027021.jpg

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
MikeR > wrote:
>
>"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Rob van Riel > writes:
>> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>> >> Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...
>> >
>> > Sorry, got to draw the line somewhere. Unless Mitchells flew of one of
>the
>> > carriers after WWII as well...
>>
>> For the 60th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, the USN did indeed
>> crane aboard somebody's B-25 Warbird and it was flown off at sea.
>> Does that count?
>
>
>August 26 1995: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027021.jpg
>
>


Did they start him at a runway length equal to what Dolittle had at a
weight equal to a full fuel and bomb load ?




--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[Dave Kearton]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message


|
|
| Did they start him at a runway length equal to what Dolittle had at a
| weight equal to a full fuel and bomb load ?
|
|| --
|
| a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
|


In **** weather from a pitching deck. Luckily both engines started
or they would have to push her over the side.


(somehow, I don't really think so)


Cheers


Dave Kearton

[MikeR]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> MikeR > wrote:
> >
> >"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Rob van Riel > writes:
> >> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> >> Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, got to draw the line somewhere. Unless Mitchells flew of one
of
> >the
> >> > carriers after WWII as well...
> >>
> >> For the 60th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, the USN did indeed
> >> crane aboard somebody's B-25 Warbird and it was flown off at sea.
> >> Does that count?
> >
> >
> >August 26 1995: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027021.jpg
> >
> >
>
>
> Did they start him at a runway length equal to what Dolittle had at a
> weight equal to a full fuel and bomb load ?

No. The 'reenactment' was not quite that authentic.

They started at NAS Alameda with an area marked off equal to the length of
the Vinson's Flight Deck. All 'warbirds' made several 'deck runs' and were
required to be 'off the deck' well within that marked off area. Then they
were craned aboard for the trip over to Hawaii. The 'deck runs' were right
off Waikiki in front of (what seemed like) millions of spectators. On
'runnup' one 'taildragger' tipped forward and smacked his prop real good so
he missed the flyoff. Narration from the flight deck was simulcast on the
local radio station. The whole thing was pretty cool.

[William Hughes]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:50:03 +0100, in rec.aviation.military.naval Rob van Riel
> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:12:05 +1030, Dave Kearton wrote:
> > I have a picture of a Neptune on the Coral Sea but it doesn't show markings
>
> Ulp! I think I'm going to have to expand my display cabinet. The Herc,
> Neptune and U-2 aren't exactly small aircraft. And here I was thinking the
> A-3 was going to be the biggest of the bunch..
>
> Rob

Uh, Rob? You did remember the R4Ds flown from the Philippine Sea (CV-47) in Jan
'47, didn't you?

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Rob van Riel > writes:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>> Don't forget the B-25 Mitchell of course...
>
> Sorry, got to draw the line somewhere. Unless Mitchells flew of one of the
> carriers after WWII as well...

For the 60th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, the USN did indeed
crane aboard somebody's B-25 Warbird and it was flown off at sea.
Does that count?

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[Gord Beaman]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>
>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message

>
>|
>|
>| Did they start him at a runway length equal to what Dolittle had at a
>| weight equal to a full fuel and bomb load ?
>|
>|| --
>|
>| a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>|
>
>
>In **** weather from a pitching deck. Luckily both engines started
>or they would have to push her over the side.
>
>
>(somehow, I don't really think so)
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
Also I suspect that they didn't worry overmuch about the odd bit
of overtorque or overboost...gutsy bunch of guys wearing big
watches for sure...I have lots of admiration for them.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:06:30 +0100,
Rob van Riel attempted to say .....

> Many modellers have hundreds, if not thousands of unbuilt kits in the attic,

I am not required to answer any questions other than my name, rank and
service number.

Any other info I will not divulge....

;')


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Keeney]

"John Szalay" > wrote in message
. 204.17...
> Rob van Riel > wrote in
> :
>
> > Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with a
> > smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of
every
> > type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now
it
> > turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
> > information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft? The
> > links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very revealing
> > in this respect.
> >
> > Thanks for any help
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
> Make sure include the U-2 in that list..

Seems I've seen pictutes of a P-2 coming off the deck as well...

[John Keeney]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:48:40 +0000, Yeff wrote:
> > Isn't there an SR-71 sitting on a carrier somewhere... <g>
>
> That would be the Intrepid, I think, but that's so far removed from any
> kind of operational use that I'll disqualify it.

Oh yea, P-47s flown off in the PTO, complete with CAT launches.

Projects like that are never ending.

[John Keeney]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> John Szalay > wrote:
>
> >Rob van Riel > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with
a
> >> smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of
every
> >> type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now
it
> >> turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
> >> information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft?
The
> >> links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very
revealing
> >> in this respect.
> >>
> >> Thanks for any help
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >
> >Make sure include the U-2 in that list..
>
> ...aaand the B-52C (the C is for carrier of course)

B-52N, Gord, B-52N...
<sigh> The B-52C was an Air Force version, it was much
discussed in RAM.

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:46:40 -0600, William Hughes wrote:

> Uh, Rob? You did remember the R4Ds flown from the Philippine Sea (CV-47) in Jan
> '47, didn't you?

Nope, I didn't (one of the reasons posting here is a good idea, you get
reminded of all sorts of things). Any hints on what it was doing there?
Testing for supply runs? Also, any idea what unit markings it bore at the
time?

As always, thanks for any info.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:18:23 -0500, John Keeney wrote:

> Oh yea, P-47s flown off in the PTO, complete with CAT launches.
>
> Projects like that are never ending.

Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.

Rob

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Dave in San Diego wrote:


>>
> There is a decent pic of the Neptune taking off from Midway here:
>
> http://history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF
>
> go to pdf page 18, or document page 176
>
> It, like the Coral Sea pic on the site Ralph cited above, doesn't show
> much in the way of markings, though.
>
> Dave in San Diego
>
That seems to be because there hardly are any. They seem to be limited

to the standard dark blue overall with straightforward national markings,

navy titles, BuNo in white and on some aircraft a white tailcode. That's it.
Rather dreary-looking compared to later markings on ASW-oriented Neptunes


Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Rob van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:47:38 +0000, Jerry Ennis wrote:
> "The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974" is available in PDF format at
> http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/U2/u2.pdf.
> Modification of U-2s for carrier operations are discussed on pp.
> 247-251 and a photo showing markings is on p. 249.

Great, this document goes a long way toward making the model buildable.

Rob

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:01:33 +0100, in rec.aviation.military.naval Rob van Riel
> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:46:40 -0600, William Hughes wrote:
>
> > Uh, Rob? You did remember the R4Ds flown from the Philippine Sea (CV-47) in Jan
> > '47, didn't you?
>
> Nope, I didn't (one of the reasons posting here is a good idea, you get
> reminded of all sorts of things). Any hints on what it was doing there?
> Testing for supply runs? Also, any idea what unit markings it bore at the
> time?
>
> As always, thanks for any info.
>
> Rob

Six R4Ds were being transported to Little America, Antarctica, as part of
something called "Operation High Jump". The pilot of #1 was Commander William
Hawkes, with Admiral Richard Byrd as a passenger.

I don't have much information on the event, just a couple of references in my
research materials.

Google turns up several websites that appear to have more info:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Operation+High+Jump%22&btnG=Search

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:04:39 +0100, in rec.aviation.military.naval Rob van Riel
> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:18:23 -0500, John Keeney wrote:
>
> > Oh yea, P-47s flown off in the PTO, complete with CAT launches.
> >
> > Projects like that are never ending.
>
> Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
> urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>
> Rob

ISTR that an active-duty carrier once hosted, while in port, a radio-controlled
model aircraft event; I saw photos a long time ago.

How would you build a scale model of a scale model?

Oh, and don't forget the V-2 that was launched from the Midway...

[Keith W]

"William Hughes" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:01:33 +0100, in rec.aviation.military.naval Rob van
> Riel
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:46:40 -0600, William Hughes wrote:
>>
>> > Uh, Rob? You did remember the R4Ds flown from the Philippine Sea
>> > (CV-47) in Jan
>> > '47, didn't you?
>>
>> Nope, I didn't (one of the reasons posting here is a good idea, you get
>> reminded of all sorts of things). Any hints on what it was doing there?
>> Testing for supply runs? Also, any idea what unit markings it bore at the
>> time?
>>
>> As always, thanks for any info.
>>
>> Rob
>
> Six R4Ds were being transported to Little America, Antarctica, as part of
> something called "Operation High Jump". The pilot of #1 was Commander
> William
> Hawkes, with Admiral Richard Byrd as a passenger.
>
> I don't have much information on the event, just a couple of references in
> my
> research materials.
>

It was a post war Antarctic expedition and Admiral Byrd was
a little more than a passenger he was the expedition head.

CVN 77 was used to transport the ski-equipped R4D's (based
on the C-47/Dakota airframe) to the Antarctic where they were
used for aerial surveys

Note the NeoNazi nuts over on r.a.m will tell you they
were hunting for a sekrit SS Antarctic base

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Pat Carpenter]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:19:37 -0600, William Hughes >
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:01:33 +0100, in rec.aviation.military.naval Rob van Riel
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:46:40 -0600, William Hughes wrote:
>>
>> > Uh, Rob? You did remember the R4Ds flown from the Philippine Sea (CV-47) in Jan
>> > '47, didn't you?
>>
>> Nope, I didn't (one of the reasons posting here is a good idea, you get
>> reminded of all sorts of things). Any hints on what it was doing there?
>> Testing for supply runs? Also, any idea what unit markings it bore at the
>> time?
>>
>> As always, thanks for any info.
>>
>> Rob
>
>Six R4Ds were being transported to Little America, Antarctica, as part of
>something called "Operation High Jump". The pilot of #1 was Commander William
>Hawkes, with Admiral Richard Byrd as a passenger.
>
>I don't have much information on the event, just a couple of references in my
>research materials.
>
>Google turns up several websites that appear to have more info:
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Operation+High+Jump%22&btnG=Search
>

Contains an rather small grainy photo of the R4Ds on the carrier deck

http://www.south-pole.com/philippine.htm


Blue Skies
Pat Carpenter

[Gord Beaman]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:18:23 -0500, John Keeney wrote:
>
>> Oh yea, P-47s flown off in the PTO, complete with CAT launches.
>>
>> Projects like that are never ending.
>
>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
>urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>
>Rob

....aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> John Szalay > wrote:
>>
>> >Rob van Riel > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> Lots of info on this event has been posted here, but it leaves me with
>a
>> >> smaal problem. I've gotten it into my head to build scale models of
>every
>> >> type of post WWII plane that flew of the decks of US carriers, and now
>it
>> >> turns out even the Herc qualifies for that. Can anyone help me with
>> >> information about the squadron markings on this particular aircraft?
>The
>> >> links in the various posts show pictures, but they're not very
>revealing
>> >> in this respect.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for any help
>> >>
>> >> Rob
>> >>
>> >
>> >Make sure include the U-2 in that list..
>>
>> ...aaand the B-52C (the C is for carrier of course)
>
>B-52N, Gord, B-52N...
><sigh> The B-52C was an Air Force version, it was much
>discussed in RAM.
>

Of course, 'N' dammit...I keep getting that wrong, The 'C and
Carrier' association keeps frigging me up...now, is it 'N' for
Nuckle (to indicate the nuckle in the wing that folds up to clear
the island...shucks that's knuckle isn't it...damn...surely not
Navy is it?...how unimaginative...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Rob van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:39:55 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:

> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
>>urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>
> ...aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
> that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
> float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
> question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"

As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?

Rob

[Greasy Rider© @invalid.com]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
postulated :

>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
>catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?

When I was in a Navy airgroup (CVG-6 in the Fifties), it was standard
procedure to launch a concrete filled "wagon" off the cats after a
carrier left Portsmouth , VA yards to test the cats. The weight was
supposed to simulate an aircraft of the time. Difficult to plot the
trajectory from the flight deck but they went "way" out before arcing
down to the water. I would think that a Model T would disintegrate
with the forces applied from a steam catapult.

[Rob van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:16:07 -0500, wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
> postulated :
>
>>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
>>catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?
>
> When I was in a Navy airgroup (CVG-6 in the Fifties), it was standard
> procedure to launch a concrete filled "wagon" off the cats after a
> carrier left Portsmouth , VA yards to test the cats. The weight was
> supposed to simulate an aircraft of the time. Difficult to plot the
> trajectory from the flight deck but they went "way" out before arcing
> down to the water.

Taking this way beyond reasonable speculation, has anyone else ever
wondered about the effects a missile like this might have on another ship,
as an emergency weapon :-)


> I would think that a Model T would disintegrate
> with the forces applied from a steam catapult.

Most likely. I figured they must have put the poor thing on a purpose
built sled or something. Then again, maybe it was just an item of roughly
the same mass as a T Ford, or maybe the whole thing is an urban legend.

The same would hold for any other car strapped to the cat; I doubt it
would be recognisable as a car the instant the cat fired.

Rob

[Greasy Rider© @invalid.com]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:46:58 +0100, Rob van Riel >
postulated :

>The same would hold for any other car strapped to the cat; I doubt it
>would be recognisable as a car the instant the cat fired.

I've seen some like that right out of the showroom...

[niceguy]

With a hydraulic cat, maybe.
With a steam cat, no.

<Greasy Rider© @invalid.com> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
> postulated :
>
>>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
>>catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?
>
> When I was in a Navy airgroup (CVG-6 in the Fifties), it was standard
> procedure to launch a concrete filled "wagon" off the cats after a
> carrier left Portsmouth , VA yards to test the cats. The weight was
> supposed to simulate an aircraft of the time. Difficult to plot the
> trajectory from the flight deck but they went "way" out before arcing
> down to the water. I would think that a Model T would disintegrate
> with the forces applied from a steam catapult.

[Gord Beaman]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:39:55 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
>>>urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>>
>> ...aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
>> that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
>> float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
>> question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"
>
>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
>catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?
>
>Rob

I dunno...but you can bet that it was the fastest mile(?) that it
ever clocked (and at the highest cost too!)...ole Henry must have
rotated a few turns in his grave!... :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave in San Diego]

Rob van Riel > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:39:55 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
>>>urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>>
>> ...aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
>> that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
>> float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
>> question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"
>
> As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of
the
> catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't
it?
>
> Rob
>

There are pics of cars getting catted off out on the 'Net, but I can't
find my copies on my computer right now.

As for the distance, nowhere close to a mile. If you make a couple of
reasonable assumptions - 100 feet off the water, and 130 kt end speed -
and do the math, it comes out to about 460 feet in 2.5 sec. This matches
well with what I saw during the deadload tests in port on the Midway.
Reduce either, and the "flight" distance decreases correspondingly.

Dave in San Diego

[Gord Beaman]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>
>Taking this way beyond reasonable speculation, has anyone else ever
>wondered about the effects a missile like this might have on another ship,
>as an emergency weapon :-)
>
>

Be fun to hear some Navy Dept. Admiral talking to the ship
damaged by the model T wouldn't it?...

"...Your ship was damaged BY A -WHAT- Captain??..."
<choke>
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

Greasy Rider© @invalid.com wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:46:58 +0100, Rob van Riel >
>postulated :
>
>>The same would hold for any other car strapped to the cat; I doubt it
>>would be recognisable as a car the instant the cat fired.
>
>I've seen some like that right out of the showroom...

I've -owned- some that I'd like to do that to...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:44:48 -0000, in rec.aviation.military.naval "Keith W"
> wrote:

> CVN 77 was used to transport the ski-equipped R4D's (based
^^^^^^^^^
> on the C-47/Dakota airframe) to the Antarctic where they were
> used for aerial surveys

"Let's do the time warp again!" :)

> Note the NeoNazi nuts over on r.a.m will tell you they
> were hunting for a sekrit SS Antarctic base

I thought Dirk Pitt blew that up ten years ago...

[Gord Beaman]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:

>Rob van Riel > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:39:55 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>>
>>> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>>>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an overwhelming
>>>>urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work from a carrier.
>>>
>>> ...aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
>>> that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
>>> float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
>>> question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"
>>
>> As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of
>the
>> catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't
>it?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>There are pics of cars getting catted off out on the 'Net, but I can't
>find my copies on my computer right now.
>
>As for the distance, nowhere close to a mile. If you make a couple of
>reasonable assumptions - 100 feet off the water, and 130 kt end speed -
>and do the math, it comes out to about 460 feet in 2.5 sec. This matches
>well with what I saw during the deadload tests in port on the Midway.
>Reduce either, and the "flight" distance decreases correspondingly.
>
>Dave in San Diego

Why has the speed anything to do with it Dave?...there's no
'lift' so it would fall just as fast no matter how fast it was
moving forward...it should hit the water just as quick whether
you shoved it off the side or accelerated it to a thousand MPH
(disregarding the curvature of the earth - and assuming that the
carrier deck is level fore and aft)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave in San Diego]

Rob van Riel > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:16:07 -0500, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
>> postulated :
>>
>>>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of
>>>the catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air,
>>>wasn't it?
>>
>> When I was in a Navy airgroup (CVG-6 in the Fifties), it was standard
>> procedure to launch a concrete filled "wagon" off the cats after a
>> carrier left Portsmouth , VA yards to test the cats. The weight was
>> supposed to simulate an aircraft of the time. Difficult to plot the
>> trajectory from the flight deck but they went "way" out before arcing
>> down to the water.
>
> Taking this way beyond reasonable speculation, has anyone else ever
> wondered about the effects a missile like this might have on another
> ship, as an emergency weapon :-)

Given that your projectile is fired from a level flight deck and heads
for the water immediately, this would be an inconsequential "weapon". The
cat end speed necessary for the projectile to go a mile is over 1200 kt.

>> I would think that a Model T would disintegrate
>> with the forces applied from a steam catapult.
>
> Most likely. I figured they must have put the poor thing on a purpose
> built sled or something. Then again, maybe it was just an item of
> roughly the same mass as a T Ford, or maybe the whole thing is an
> urban legend.
>
> The same would hold for any other car strapped to the cat; I doubt it
> would be recognisable as a car the instant the cat fired.

Nope. Both pix I have seen of cars getting fired show a clearly
recognizable car going off the bow.

Just found this one - a Falcon going off the "E":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/824812/posts

Dave in San Diego

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:41:49 GMT, in rec.aviation.military.naval Dave in San
Diego > wrote:

> There are pics of cars getting catted off out on the 'Net, but I can't
> find my copies on my computer right now.

I've got one of what looks like an old Buick gallantly attempting to aviate from
the #1 catapult of Enterprise...

[Dave in San Diego]

Gord Beaman > wrote in
:

> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>>Rob van Riel > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:39:55 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>>>>Didn't know about that one, but yes, there seems to be an
>>>>>overwhelming urge to get just about anyting that will fly to work
>>>>>from a carrier.
>>>>
>>>> ...aaand some that won't too!...did you see the pic of the car
>>>> that they launched from some carrier?...how in 'ell did they ever
>>>> float that one by the hedshed?...imagine some crusty Admiral's
>>>> question..."You want to catapult WHAT OFF MY DECK Lt?!?"
>>>
>>> As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power
>>> of
>>the
>>> catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air,
>>> wasn't
>>it?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>
>>There are pics of cars getting catted off out on the 'Net, but I can't
>>find my copies on my computer right now.
>>
>>As for the distance, nowhere close to a mile. If you make a couple of
>>reasonable assumptions - 100 feet off the water, and 130 kt end speed
>>- and do the math, it comes out to about 460 feet in 2.5 sec. This
>>matches well with what I saw during the deadload tests in port on the
>>Midway. Reduce either, and the "flight" distance decreases
>>correspondingly.
>>
>>Dave in San Diego
>
> Why has the speed anything to do with it Dave?...there's no
> 'lift' so it would fall just as fast no matter how fast it was
> moving forward...it should hit the water just as quick whether
> you shoved it off the side or accelerated it to a thousand MPH
> (disregarding the curvature of the earth - and assuming that the
> carrier deck is level fore and aft)

I agree - horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent. It's a
classic physics demo in HS and college. The height above the water
determines the fall time. The cat end speed determines how far the car
will travel horizontally in that time.

100 feet off the water gives a fall time of 2.5 sec. 130 kt = 219
ft/sec. 2.5 times 219 gives you 460 feet.

Dave in San Diego

[John Szalay]

Rob van Riel > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:47:38 +0000, Jerry Ennis wrote:
>> "The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974" is available in PDF format at
>> http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/U2/u2.pdf.
>> Modification of U-2s for carrier operations are discussed on pp.
>> 247-251 and a photo showing markings is on p. 249.
>
> Great, this document goes a long way toward making the model buildable.
>
> Rob
>


You are going to have ask some folks from those floating "birdfarms"
but I seem to remember something about some South American countries
being allowed to use US carriers for training while those carriers
were passing close to their waters while on transit around the horn.
so that could add some French built birds to your list..

not sure if it was just for approach training or actual traps and
launch.
Professional courtesy, as it were..

[Allen Epps]

In article >, John
Szalay > wrote:

> Rob van Riel > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:47:38 +0000, Jerry Ennis wrote:
> >> "The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974" is available in PDF format at
> >> http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/U2/u2.pdf.
> >> Modification of U-2s for carrier operations are discussed on pp.
> >> 247-251 and a photo showing markings is on p. 249.
> >
> > Great, this document goes a long way toward making the model buildable.
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
>
> You are going to have ask some folks from those floating "birdfarms"
> but I seem to remember something about some South American countries
> being allowed to use US carriers for training while those carriers
> were passing close to their waters while on transit around the horn.
> so that could add some French built birds to your list..
>
> not sure if it was just for approach training or actual traps and
> launch.
> Professional courtesy, as it were..

Folks that did the last Mimitz around the horn had shots of Super E's
doing cats and traps. (Argentina maybe?)Of course the list of aviation
bosuns that have experience hooking up a bridle is getting shorter and
shorter.

Pugs

[Andrew Venor]

John Szalay wrote:
> Rob van Riel > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:47:38 +0000, Jerry Ennis wrote:
>>
>>>"The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974" is available in PDF format at
>>>http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/U2/u2.pdf.
>>>Modification of U-2s for carrier operations are discussed on pp.
>>>247-251 and a photo showing markings is on p. 249.
>>
>>Great, this document goes a long way toward making the model buildable.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>
>
>
> You are going to have ask some folks from those floating "birdfarms"
> but I seem to remember something about some South American countries
> being allowed to use US carriers for training while those carriers
> were passing close to their waters while on transit around the horn.
> so that could add some French built birds to your list..
>
> not sure if it was just for approach training or actual traps and
> launch.
> Professional courtesy, as it were..

I remember when the Lincoln was down there in 1991 on a trip around Cape
Horn the Argentine Navy only did touch and go landings with their
Skyhawks and Super Etendards. The ship didn't have the equipment to
hook those planes to the catapult.

I guess I now am going to have to dig through the boxes and find the
pictures I took of the Argentine planes from vultures row.

ALV

[Keith W]

"William Hughes" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:44:48 -0000, in rec.aviation.military.naval "Keith
> W"
> > wrote:
>
>> CVN 77 was used to transport the ski-equipped R4D's (based
> ^^^^^^^^^

Brainfart it should have been CV-47 of course

Keith

[Gord Beaman]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:
--cut--
>>
>> Why has the speed anything to do with it Dave?...there's no
>> 'lift' so it would fall just as fast no matter how fast it was
>> moving forward...it should hit the water just as quick whether
>> you shoved it off the side or accelerated it to a thousand MPH
>> (disregarding the curvature of the earth - and assuming that the
>> carrier deck is level fore and aft)
>
>I agree - horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent. It's a
>classic physics demo in HS and college. The height above the water
>determines the fall time. The cat end speed determines how far the car
>will travel horizontally in that time.
>
>100 feet off the water gives a fall time of 2.5 sec. 130 kt = 219
>ft/sec. 2.5 times 219 gives you 460 feet.
>
>Dave in San Diego

Of course...you're right...I wasn't thinking, sorry.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Pavelow]

<Greasy Rider© @invalid.com> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
> postulated :
>
>>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of the
>>catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air, wasn't it?
>
> When I was in a Navy airgroup (CVG-6 in the Fifties), it was standard
> procedure to launch a concrete filled "wagon" off the cats after a
> carrier left Portsmouth , VA yards to test the cats. The weight was
> supposed to simulate an aircraft of the time. Difficult to plot the
> trajectory from the flight deck but they went "way" out before arcing
> down to the water. I would think that a Model T would disintegrate
> with the forces applied from a steam catapult.

In the UK there is a programme called Top Gear which launched an old Jaguar
off the Ski Jump of one of the RN Carriers, I forget which. I'll Have a look
and find out though.

--

Richard Battle

I'm running the 2005 Flora London Marathon for CLIMB (Children Living with
Inherited MetaBolic diseases).
Please sponsor me by clicking the link below.

http://www.justgiving.com/battle

[John Randolph]

Sadly, Cdr. Walter "Smokey" Stovall, Jim Flatley's co-pilot, passed away
from leukemia in Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1972.

An even stranger event was the landing aboard and immediate deck launch from
USS Ranger of a U-2 in the mid 1960's. Anyone have the details on that? It
was a secret operation and the majority of the crew were not allowed above
flight deck level during the op.

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
>

[wws]

John Randolph wrote:

> Sadly, Cdr. Walter "Smokey" Stovall, Jim Flatley's co-pilot, passed away
> from leukemia in Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1972.
>
> An even stranger event was the landing aboard and immediate deck launch from
> USS Ranger of a U-2 in the mid 1960's. Anyone have the details on that? It
> was a secret operation and the majority of the crew were not allowed above
> flight deck level during the op.
>
> "W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> > Japan to Join U.S. Policy on Taiwan
> Growth of China Seen Behind Shift
>
> By Anthony Faiola
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Friday, February 18, 2005; Page A01
> The Chinese seem to feel they are in control in the North Korea nuclear
> situation. The following is from the 'other' Washington paper, the one
> without ties to South Korea.
>
>
> TOKYO, Feb. 17 -- The United States and Japan will declare Saturday for
> the first time in a joint agreement that Taiwan is a mutual security
> concern, according to a draft of the document. Analysts called the move
> a demonstration of Japan's willingness to confront the rapidly growing
> might of China.
>
> The United States has long focused attention on the Chinese
> government's threat to use military force against Taiwan if the island,
> which China views as a renegade province, moves toward independence.
> Until now, Japan has been content to let the United States bear the
> brunt of Beijing's displeasure.
>
> But in the most significant alteration since 1996 to the U.S.-Japan
> Security Alliance, which remains the cornerstone of U.S. interests in
> East Asia, Japan will join the Bush administration in identifying
> security in the Taiwan Strait as a "common strategic objective." Set
> for release after a meeting of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and their Japanese counterparts in
> Washington on Saturday, the revisions will also call for Japan to take
> a greater role in conjunction with U.S. forces both in Asia and beyond,
> according to a draft copy obtained by The Washington Post.
>
> Although it is likely to anger China, the move is being welcomed by
> Taiwan, which, despite having been occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945,
> maintains an empathy for the Japanese that is rare in Asia. Elderly
> Taiwanese, for instance, still show delight in Japanese language and
> culture. Last month, Taiwan inaugurated its $3 billion, Japanese-built
> bullet train, which can reach speeds of almost 200 miles per hour. And
> in December, Japan angered China by granting a tourist visa to former
> Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui, who was educated in Japan and had an
> emotional reunion here with a former professor.
>
> "This is the first time that Japan has made its stance clear; in the
> past, Japan has been very indirect on the Taiwan issue," said Koh
> Se-kai, Taiwan's special representative to Japan, which since 1972 has
> had formal relations with China but not with Taiwan. "We're relieved
> that Japan has become more assertive."
>
> Japan's constitution, drafted by the United States at the end of World
> War II, prohibits the country from going to war. But there is strong
> pressure to revise the constitution so that Japan's Self-Defense Forces
> can act as a real military.
>
> Along with the threat of North Korea, which declared itself a
> nuclear-armed nation last week, the rise of China has become the
> primary concern fueling Japan's shift away from nearly six decades of
> pacifism.
>
> Japan has generally been inclined to sidestep conflict with China. But
> in recent years, China has dramatically modernized its military while
> expanding its sphere of influence in Asia on the strength of its
> booming economy. The effort to extend its reach has included exploring
> for natural gas near Japanese-claimed waters only 110 miles north of
> Taiwan and countering Japan's claims to exclusive economic zones in the
> Pacific.
>
> In response, Japan has also shifted course in the past year, moving to
> defend its territorial claims in the East China Sea. Last November,
> Japan dispatched aircraft on a two-day hunt for a Han-class Chinese
> submarine that briefly intruded into Japan's far southern waters in
> what many here saw as a test of Japanese resolve in the event of
> Chinese aggression against Taiwan.
>
> "It would be wrong for us to send a signal to China that the United
> States and Japan will watch and tolerate China's military invasion of
> Taiwan," said Shinzo Abe, the acting secretary general of Japan's
> ruling Liberal Democratic Party who is widely considered a likely
> successor to Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister. "If the situation
> surrounding Japan threatens our security, Japan can provide U.S. forces
> with support."
>
> Such talk reflects what diplomats and scholars call the defining drama
> of East Asia for the 21st century -- the competition for economic and
> political dominance in the region between Japan, the world's
> second-largest economy, and China, the world's most populous nation and
> a fast-developing economic and military power.
>
> "I think the biggest challenge to Japan is going to be how it arranges
> its relationship with China," the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Howard H.
> Baker Jr., said on Wednesday. "But how they do that is going to say a
> lot about stability in this region for years to come. . . . Japan is a
> superpower; China is on its way to being a superpower. They are both
> rich, they both have a history and tradition in this region, and they
> don't much like each other, I think."
>
> Analysts note that both China and Japan have substantial reasons for
> restraint. Last year, China surpassed the United States as Japan's
> number one trading partner, while massive investments by Japanese
> companies in search of cheaper labor and larger markets have become a
> driving factor behind China's blistering 9.5-percent annual growth
> rate.
>
> But if their economic relations are hot, politically the two nations
> are cool. The Chinese complain about Koizumi's visits to Tokyo's
> Yasukuni Shrine commemorating fallen warriors -- including World War II
> war criminals. The two governments have also battled over the route of
> a trans-Siberian pipeline for Russian oil and territorial rights in an
> East China Sea island chain known as the Senkaku in Japanese and the
> Diaoyu in Chinese.
>
> The Chinese government granted rights two years ago for domestic and
> foreign oil companies to explore and drill an area only three miles
> from Japanese-claimed territory -- a region rich in natural gas and
> oil. This month, Japan pushed back, boosting its claims to the area by
> officially taking over ownership of a 15-foot lighthouse built on the
> island chain by Japanese nationalist activists in 1978.
>
> "It is time Japan began protecting what is ours," said Makoto Yamazaki,
> director of the Japan Youth Association, which built the lighthouse and
> freely handed it over to the government this month. "If our sovereignty
> is being threatened, we have a right to defend ourselves."
>
> But the idea of Japanese military cooperation with the United States in
> the sea lanes north of Taiwan has particularly rankled Chinese
> diplomatic and military planners because it goes to the heart of their
> Taiwan strategy.
>
> On the one hand, diplomats and other specialists say, the Chinese
> military has embarked on a buildup of short-range missiles, naval
> vessels and electronics-aided aircraft to enable it to threaten the
> island militarily if President Chen Shui-bian should take what China
> considers an unacceptably decisive step toward independence. On the
> other hand, they added, China has set out to improve and extend its
> maritime and airborne might in the sea lanes north of Taiwan, with the
> goal of forcing the United States to think twice about military
> intervention. Within the next five years, according to U.S. estimates,
> the Chinese navy is expected to have more than 20 modern attack
> submarines, including half a dozen nuclear-powered vessels.
>
> Japanese officials said that the official position advocating a
> peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue has not changed. They said the
> constitution limits the level of assistance that Japan could offer in
> the event of a U.S. confrontation with China over Taiwan. But the joint
> statement on Saturday could help lay the groundwork for the Japanese to
> extend as much cooperation as they legally can, including logistical
> support such as transportation and medical rescue operations behind the
> lines of combat, officials said.
>
> "We consider China a friendly country, but it is also unpredictable," a
> senior Japanese government official said. "If it takes aggressive
> action, Japan cannot just stand by and watch."
>
> Correspondent Edward Cody in Beijing and special correspondents Sachiko
> Sakamaki and Akiko Yamamoto contributed to this report.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33297-2005Feb17?language=printer
>

[Red Rider]

"John Randolph" > wrote in message
news:BdPRd.84036$bu.35718@fed1read06...
> Sadly, Cdr. Walter "Smokey" Stovall, Jim Flatley's co-pilot, passed away
> from leukemia in Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1972.
>
> An even stranger event was the landing aboard and immediate deck launch
from
> USS Ranger of a U-2 in the mid 1960's. Anyone have the details on that?
It
> was a secret operation and the majority of the crew were not allowed above
> flight deck level during the op.
>
> "W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings
and
> > launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s?
> >
> > WDA

The first test of a U-2 on a carrier were conducted in Aug (maybe it was
Oct) of 1963 on the Kitty Hawk off SoCal. The Ranger participated in test
for a couple of months in early '64 and the first operational mission of a
U-2 was flown from the Ranger in May '64 to look at the French Nuke test in
the pacific. In '69 a U-2R which had a greater range and payload underwent
sea trials on the America off the Va. Capes. This (these) U-2's had special
modified folding wings for carrier use. ( I know that there were five pilots
involved in these test but I don't know how many aircraft were used. I
believed there were 4, U-2R's modified for folding wings).

As far as keeping the crew below deck for these test, that just wasn't so.
You can't hide sh*t on a carrier. As usual during flight ops, all
non-essential personnel and lolly-gaggers were encouraged to stay below out
of the way. The crews on the Kitty Hawk and the Ranger knew what was going
on, and I'll be the crew of the America did too.

Red Rider

[John Szalay]

"P
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:10 +0100, Rob van Riel >
>> postulated :
>>
>>>As I recal that was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the raw power of
>>>the catapults. A model T Ford that spent all of a mile in the air,
>>>wasn't it?
>>
>>

When the car launch photo appeared on the net, this post came soon after
it..

================================================== =========================

Subject: Re: Slow day on the Carrier slow day.jpg [1/3]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:55:49 GMT
From: "Mike Henley" >
Organization: RoadRunner - West
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

"Quokka" > wrote in message
.. .
> I am not too sure what carrier this is, or what the reason was, but it
must
> get pretty boring onboard a carrier sometimes...
----------------------------------------------

This was the USS Enterprise returning from our 1978 WestPac cruise. Most
squadrons in the airwing have a "staff car" to drive the squadron members
to the Navy Exchange, club, front gate, or back to the pier. At the end of
the cruise the squadron sells the car to another squadron on the carrier
coming over. This car was beyond repair. the squadron CO got permission
from the ships CO to load the car aboard before we left the Philippines and
returned home. Tickets were sold to raise money for the Combined Federal
Campaign Fund. The winning ticket got to be the "cat officer" and launch
the car. On a no-fly day everyone gathered on the flight deck to see how
far the car would go (it had a VERY POOR glide ratio). I didn't have the
winning ticket, and was standing to the left of the tractor, just outside
the left of the picture. As I recall, it was responsible for a large
donation to the CFC Fund.

Mike
================================================== =========================
==