Tomcat question

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/aim-54c-1.jpg


It never occured to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?



Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/aim-54c-1.jpg


It never occured to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?

Certainly. They fly with these tanks almost all the time. In fact, here's
a picture of a one making a carrier landing with the tanks in place.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../tr-f14landing
..jpg

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

It never occurred to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?
I'll try to refrain from being wise (although I was really tempted on this
one).

Question: Isn't that photo taken on a carrier? Answer: Yes

Question: So how did it get there? Answer: Landed there (yes, with those
tanks).

They do appear rather large, but the shock strut only retracts a little more
(on landing impact) than shown in the photo.

Them there Tomcats are VERY thirsty so they need all the petrol they can
git!


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN Retired
"Too many years on them
floating airports"










"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/aim-54c-1.jpg


It never occured to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?



Regards...

Larry wrote:

It never occurred to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?

I'll try to refrain from being wise (although I was really tempted on this
one).

Question: Isn't that photo taken on a carrier? Answer: Yes

Question: So how did it get there? Answer: Landed there (yes, with those
tanks).

They do appear rather large, but the shock strut only retracts a little more
(on landing impact) than shown in the photo.

Them there Tomcats are VERY thirsty so they need all the petrol they can
git!

They don't use petrol.

John

Hey John, I'll bet Larry has drank and worn more Tomcat "petrol" than
you ever will, and I'm pretty dam sure he knows what JP-4, JP-5 and
JP-8 is, so he can call it gas/petrol/fuel, whatever he wants!!!! I'm
with you Larry, kinda hard not to be a smart ass about that question,
ain't it?.... I used to shoot mode 4 while the Tomcats were in this
"cat retract" profile, always had bad results from the ground plane of
the big metal carrier deck and the lower IFF antenna, had to wait
till they went to "cat extend" to get a good shoot with the APM-424. ,
same with the E2/C2's.


On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:23:55 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

Larry wrote:

It never occurred to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?

I'll try to refrain from being wise (although I was really tempted on this
one).

Question: Isn't that photo taken on a carrier? Answer: Yes

Question: So how did it get there? Answer: Landed there (yes, with those
tanks).

They do appear rather large, but the shock strut only retracts a little more
(on landing impact) than shown in the photo.

Them there Tomcats are VERY thirsty so they need all the petrol they can
git!

They don't use petrol.

John

They don't use petrol.
I thought "petrol" was a generic word for "fuel" and used the word in that
context. Of course they like JP-5 best, but will run on many other flavors
too.

If "petrol" actually refers to "gasoline" only, then I'll take the bust.

Wasn't trying to be a "know it all"- it's just the original question was
pretty much answered by looking at the picture (at least I thought it was).

--
Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN Retired

"landbound now" :-)





"fudog50" wrote in message
...
Hey John, I'll bet Larry has drank and worn more Tomcat "petrol" than
you ever will, and I'm pretty dam sure he knows what JP-4, JP-5 and
JP-8 is, so he can call it gas/petrol/fuel, whatever he wants!!!! I'm
with you Larry, kinda hard not to be a smart ass about that question,
ain't it?.... I used to shoot mode 4 while the Tomcats were in this
"cat retract" profile, always had bad results from the ground plane of
the big metal carrier deck and the lower IFF antenna, had to wait
till they went to "cat extend" to get a good shoot with the APM-424. ,
same with the E2/C2's.


On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:23:55 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

Larry wrote:

It never occurred to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?

I'll try to refrain from being wise (although I was really tempted on
this
one).

Question: Isn't that photo taken on a carrier? Answer: Yes

Question: So how did it get there? Answer: Landed there (yes, with
those
tanks).

They do appear rather large, but the shock strut only retracts a little
more
(on landing impact) than shown in the photo.

Them there Tomcats are VERY thirsty so they need all the petrol they
can
git!

They don't use petrol.

John

"Larry" wrote in
:

It never occurred to me, is the ground clearing enough for
the Tomcat to land on an aircraft carrier with fuel tanks
like this?

I'll try to refrain from being wise (although I was really
tempted on this one).



Question: Isn't that photo taken on a carrier? Answer: Yes

Question: So how did it get there? Answer: Landed there (yes,
with those tanks).

Ah, but it could've just been prior to take-off.

They do appear rather large, but the shock strut only retracts a
little more (on landing impact) than shown in the photo.

Yes, I went back to my memories of models I built (God knows
how many Tomcats I've 'assembled') and the landing
gear is of course -straight- like on the picture Thomas's
refrenced.


Regards...