WWII Japanese Carrier Approach?

[W. D. Allen]

What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or mirror
type approaches? If so what was their technique?

WDA

end

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"W. D. Allen" > wrote:

> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or mirror
> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>
> WDA
>
> end
>

They probably used whatever the British used pre-war, as the British
advised the Japanese Naval aviation at that time.

[R Leonard]

On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or mirror
> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>
> WDA
>
> end

The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.

[W. D. Allen]

Did they do a flat "paddles" pass or a "mirror" glide slope pass?

WDA

end

"R Leonard" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
>> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or
>> mirror
>> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>>
>> WDA
>>
>> end
>
> The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.
>

[R Leonard]

On Jun 28, 1:59 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> Did they do a flat "paddles" pass or a "mirror" glide slope pass?
>
> WDA
>
> end
>
> "R Leonard" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> >> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
> >> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or
> >> mirror
> >> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>
> >> WDA
>
> >> end
>
> > The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Japanese lighting system for landing: Very briefly, positioned
along the outer edge of the flight deck, on both sides, was a bank of
2 red lights. About 10-15 meters forward of them was a bank of 4
green lights. Lights were of variable intensity, could be adjusted
for the glide angle for type of aircraft approaching, and had
reflectors so as to concentrate their beam. These lights allowed
approaching pilots to judge whether or not they were on the correct
glide path for landing, generally between 5 and 6 degrees. On the
correct path the pilot would see the green lights sitting directly
atop the red. If the green was somewhere above immediately atop the
red, then he was too high. If the pilot saw only red, or, worse,
green below red, then he was too low. A similar set up was on the
forward edges of the flight deck for recoveries over the bow when
necessary. Various other optical clues (paint, deck lighting, etc.)
showed the pilot where he was in relation to the center of the deck
and a lighting signal system on the island told him the ship's speed.
The decision to land was up to the pilot based on his visual input of
the situation. There was one crewman assigned to signal a wave off in
the event there was something obviously wrong . . . no landing
gear . . . no hook . . . fouled deck . . . that sort. This he did by
running out on the deck and waving a flag to attract the pilot's
attention.

There is a much better description in Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's
"Shattered Sword".

Rich

[Mike Kanze]

Sounds a bit like the FAA's Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) system.

--
Mike Kanze

"Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it."

- Max Frisch

"R Leonard" > wrote in message oups.com...
On Jun 28, 1:59 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> Did they do a flat "paddles" pass or a "mirror" glide slope pass?
>
> WDA
>
> end
>
> "R Leonard" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> >> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers during
> >> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or
> >> mirror
> >> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>
> >> WDA
>
> >> end
>
> > The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Japanese lighting system for landing: Very briefly, positioned
along the outer edge of the flight deck, on both sides, was a bank of
2 red lights. About 10-15 meters forward of them was a bank of 4
green lights. Lights were of variable intensity, could be adjusted
for the glide angle for type of aircraft approaching, and had
reflectors so as to concentrate their beam. These lights allowed
approaching pilots to judge whether or not they were on the correct
glide path for landing, generally between 5 and 6 degrees. On the
correct path the pilot would see the green lights sitting directly
atop the red. If the green was somewhere above immediately atop the
red, then he was too high. If the pilot saw only red, or, worse,
green below red, then he was too low. A similar set up was on the
forward edges of the flight deck for recoveries over the bow when
necessary. Various other optical clues (paint, deck lighting, etc.)
showed the pilot where he was in relation to the center of the deck
and a lighting signal system on the island told him the ship's speed.
The decision to land was up to the pilot based on his visual input of
the situation. There was one crewman assigned to signal a wave off in
the event there was something obviously wrong . . . no landing
gear . . . no hook . . . fouled deck . . . that sort. This he did by
running out on the deck and waving a flag to attract the pilot's
attention.

There is a much better description in Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's
"Shattered Sword".

Rich

[R Leonard]

On Jun 29, 12:44 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> Sounds a bit like the FAA's Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) system.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze

Hey Mike!

Not sure when the FAA started theirs. The Japanese system was in use
as far back as 1932, I believe.

Rich

[W. D. Allen]

Sounds similar to the VFR panel system used at Crows Landing, Miramar, etc.,
back in the 1950s where two sign boards painted with horizontal bars, were
aligned by an approaching pilot to assist in achieving the correct glide
slope angle for carrier landing practice.

WDA

end

"R Leonard" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 28, 1:59 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>> Did they do a flat "paddles" pass or a "mirror" glide slope pass?
>>
>> WDA
>>
>> end
>>
>> "R Leonard" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>> >> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers
>> >> during
>> >> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or
>> >> mirror
>> >> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>>
>> >> WDA
>>
>> >> end
>>
>> > The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The Japanese lighting system for landing: Very briefly, positioned
> along the outer edge of the flight deck, on both sides, was a bank of
> 2 red lights. About 10-15 meters forward of them was a bank of 4
> green lights. Lights were of variable intensity, could be adjusted
> for the glide angle for type of aircraft approaching, and had
> reflectors so as to concentrate their beam. These lights allowed
> approaching pilots to judge whether or not they were on the correct
> glide path for landing, generally between 5 and 6 degrees. On the
> correct path the pilot would see the green lights sitting directly
> atop the red. If the green was somewhere above immediately atop the
> red, then he was too high. If the pilot saw only red, or, worse,
> green below red, then he was too low. A similar set up was on the
> forward edges of the flight deck for recoveries over the bow when
> necessary. Various other optical clues (paint, deck lighting, etc.)
> showed the pilot where he was in relation to the center of the deck
> and a lighting signal system on the island told him the ship's speed.
> The decision to land was up to the pilot based on his visual input of
> the situation. There was one crewman assigned to signal a wave off in
> the event there was something obviously wrong . . . no landing
> gear . . . no hook . . . fouled deck . . . that sort. This he did by
> running out on the deck and waving a flag to attract the pilot's
> attention.
>
> There is a much better description in Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's
> "Shattered Sword".
>
> Rich
>

[R Leonard]

Jeez, the only boards I remember ever seeing painted were on the roof
of an old warehouse on the approach to Oceana . . .

"WHEELS!"

Of course, in my case, my point of view was always from the ground.

Regards,

Rich
,
On Jun 29, 2:01 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> Sounds similar to the VFR panel system used at Crows Landing, Miramar, etc.,
> back in the 1950s where two sign boards painted with horizontal bars, were
> aligned by an approaching pilot to assist in achieving the correct glide
> slope angle for carrier landing practice.
>
> WDA
>
> end
>
> "R Leonard" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 1:59 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> >> Did they do a flat "paddles" pass or a "mirror" glide slope pass?
>
> >> WDA
>
> >> end
>
> >> "R Leonard" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 26, 4:21 pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> >> >> What type approach did Japanese pilots use for landing on carriers
> >> >> during
> >> >> WWII? Have any other countries since WWII used other than paddles or
> >> >> mirror
> >> >> type approaches? If so what was their technique?
>
> >> >> WDA
>
> >> >> end
>
> >> > The Japanese used a lighting system . . . no LSO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The Japanese lighting system for landing: Very briefly, positioned
> > along the outer edge of the flight deck, on both sides, was a bank of
> > 2 red lights. About 10-15 meters forward of them was a bank of 4
> > green lights. Lights were of variable intensity, could be adjusted
> > for the glide angle for type of aircraft approaching, and had
> > reflectors so as to concentrate their beam. These lights allowed
> > approaching pilots to judge whether or not they were on the correct
> > glide path for landing, generally between 5 and 6 degrees. On the
> > correct path the pilot would see the green lights sitting directly
> > atop the red. If the green was somewhere above immediately atop the
> > red, then he was too high. If the pilot saw only red, or, worse,
> > green below red, then he was too low. A similar set up was on the
> > forward edges of the flight deck for recoveries over the bow when
> > necessary. Various other optical clues (paint, deck lighting, etc.)
> > showed the pilot where he was in relation to the center of the deck
> > and a lighting signal system on the island told him the ship's speed.
> > The decision to land was up to the pilot based on his visual input of
> > the situation. There was one crewman assigned to signal a wave off in
> > the event there was something obviously wrong . . . no landing
> > gear . . . no hook . . . fouled deck . . . that sort. This he did by
> > running out on the deck and waving a flag to attract the pilot's
> > attention.
>
> > There is a much better description in Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's
> > "Shattered Sword".
>
> > Rich- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -