Sign in to follow this  
mustang__1

carrier landing

Recommended Posts

still undetermined if this looks fun or not...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My buddy who is a retired USMC fighter pilot who is..........not a timid soul.........says the few carrier landings he did were.....”not fun”.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mustang__1 said:

still undetermined if this looks fun or not...

 

 

That’s incredible thanks for posting ! So he essentially hits the gas right before touchdown in case he doesn’t catch the cable, is that correct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day at the office. :blink:

And they do that at night.

Naval aviators are the best there are, no question. Just sitting in the back seat for one of those would be terrifying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sea was angry that day my friend - G Constanza.  That guy made it look easy, even caught the 1st wire?  Nicely done. And not fun.

edit: I am upvoting PB because I don't want him to have to live with being a kiss ass, if everyone could help out we can get him over this.  TIA  he should be a f'n saint.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was some crazy throttle jockeying on the way in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, scottyMO said:

That’s incredible thanks for posting ! So he essentially hits the gas right before touchdown in case he doesn’t catch the cable, is that correct?

Yes.....I did a landing by Cod  on the Saratoga years ago and when they hit they go to full military power assuming they have missed the cables (its a controlled crash ).    If they have hooked,  they stop and they let off the throttle.    A miss is referred to as a " bolter " .......  quite the experience......as is the catapult takeoff.........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, F'g Dinosaur said:

Yes.....I did a landing by Cod  on the Saratoga years ago and when they hit they go to full military power assuming they have missed the cables (its a controlled crash ).    If they have hooked,  they stop and they let off the throttle.    A miss is referred to as a " bolter " .......  quite the experience......as is the catapult takeoff.........

Yyeeeeeaaaaaahhhhh I’m taking off aga...... oh shit I caught the cable !!! Power off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

edit: I am upvoting PB because I don't want him to have to live with being a kiss ass, if everyone could help out we can get him over this.  TIA  he should be a f'n saint.

:lol:

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, F'g Dinosaur said:

Yes.....I did a landing by Cod  on the Saratoga years ago and when they hit they go to full military power assuming they have missed the cables (its a controlled crash ).    If they have hooked,  they stop and they let off the throttle.    A miss is referred to as a " bolter " .......  quite the experience......as is the catapult takeoff.........

Back half of my enlistment was on a destroyer running plane guard for the Shitty Kitty (I think it was) for night ops. For us that means we are steaming along a little behind and to the side of the carrier. For me as one of the ship’s swimmers, it means sitting in a really crappy poorly fitting wet suit in a motor whaleboat hanging in davits but swung out over the side ready to lower quickly. In the boat is just me as the swimmer, two bosun mates one of which is the coxswain, and a gunners mate with a 14 for “sharks”.......

Anyway the up side is the view and sounds of the flight ops are frigging awesome.   The down side is after a while it just sucks. So one night a guy misses the cables and tries unsuccessfully to power off the bow back into the air. The plane veers off the port side a couple hundred yards under full power kinda lays over a quarter turn and goes into the drink. Pilot rode it into the water.....don’t know why, too low, not enough time, wrong angle? I know nothing about that pilot stuff. Well, I almost shit myself. “Holy shit something actually happened!” I had NEVER seen anything like that before. (Don’t know how many hours we did that and nothing ever happened). After a brief holy shit period we hit the lights, hard port and after just a few seconds it seemed, slowed to a near stop and lowered the whaleboat and off we went in the direction of the plane which we couldn’t really see. Fortunately, the real rescue guys (whose only job was pilot rescue, as opposed to myself who was “certified” by a week long class because I volunteered and was a extremely good swimmer) arrived in the helo, made the jump and extracted the pilot, made the hoist and headed back to the carrier almost before we even got near the plane. I never heard how he did. 

That night was the moment that reinforced that those guys had huge brass balls. Respect.

Fing Brown Shoes.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a nice day?  Absolutely the most fun you can have with your clothes on. I would have probably done the job for no pay. 

Ay night in bad weather?  You earn every dime and change. 

Target wire is the 3 wire. As said above, full power at touchdown is in case of a bolter, when you miss the wire or experience a “hook skip”. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty incredible stuff! Thanks for posting the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

On a nice day?  Absolutely the most fun you can have with your clothes on. I would have probably done the job for no pay. 

Ay night in bad weather?  You earn every dime and change. 

Target wire is the 3 wire. As said above, full power at touchdown is in case of a bolter, when you miss the wire or experience a “hook skip”. 

IB, it brings up something I've wondered. Does the ship steer a course to cancel the crosswind component caused by the angled deck? Is the relative wind directly on the bow or the angled deck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, chum said:

IB, it brings up something I've wondered. Does the ship steer a course to cancel the crosswind component caused by the angled deck? Is the relative wind directly on the bow or the angled deck?

Wind over deck is generally between straight ahead (axial) and down the angle depending on how much natural wind. Goal is to get roughly 30 knots of wind over deck. So the more natural wind, the less generated by ship’s speed. High natural wind usually comes with higher seas and the deck starts to move around a bit.  Low natural winds mean the wind over deck is more axial and the ship’s speed means the “runway” is always moving slowly to the right so lineup has to be adjusted constantly but not a big deal. Similar to a slight crosswind.  

Not a huge difference to the approach. The crosswind component is small. Approach speed is 125-140 knots depending on which aircraft and gross weight. That gives a relative speed of around 100 knots so a couple of knots of crosswind isn’t a worry. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mustang__1 said:

still undetermined if this looks fun or not..

You can go practice it a N57 with that short narrow runway.. just don't drag it in... nasty little X-wind right before touchdown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

On a nice day?  Absolutely the most fun you can have with your clothes on. I would have probably done the job for no pay. 

Ay night in bad weather?  You earn every dime and change. 

Target wire is the 3 wire. As said above, full power at touchdown is in case of a bolter, when you miss the wire or experience a “hook skip”. 

Question - why wire 3? Is that the middle one?  For some reason I thought you went for the 1st in case you bounced.

 

and thanks to all who helped - PB is now officially a F'n saint.   My work here is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During 1963, a KC-130F aircraft made history by landing and taking off from the aircraft carrier; USS Forrestal (CVA-59).  The crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 un-arrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.  On and off the angle deck too. 

No tail hook...No catapult.

The airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

Biggest brass bollocks in history.   Lt. Flatley went on to be a Rear Admiral and command the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga.

Never get tired of watching this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

During 1963, a KC-130F aircraft made history by landing and taking off from the aircraft carrier; USS Forrestal (CVA-59).  The crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 un-arrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.  On and off the angle deck too. 

No tail hook...No catapult.

The airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

Biggest brass bollocks in history.   Lt. Flatley went on to be a Rear Admiral and command the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga.

Never get tired of watching this.

 

 

 

Kerosene powered anti-gravity drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

During 1963, a KC-130F aircraft made history by landing and taking off from the aircraft carrier; USS Forrestal (CVA-59).  The crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 un-arrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.  On and off the angle deck too. 

No tail hook...No catapult.

The airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

Biggest brass bollocks in history.   Lt. Flatley went on to be a Rear Admiral and command the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga.

Never get tired of watching this.

 

BTW, While serving as the commanding officer of the USS Saratoga in 1980, he completed his 1,500th arrested landing in an F-4 Phantom. He retired in 1987.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd pay for a catapult launch and an arrestor landing.....

Big time bucket list...!!!

When will private enterprise have an aircraft carrier..... and Navy surplus Tomcats...?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, madohe said:

I'd pay for a catapult launch and an arrestor landing.....

Big time bucket list...!!!

When will private enterprise have an aircraft carrier..... and Navy surplus Tomcats...?

 

 

Pretty sure that the Enterprise is being cut up and the Tomcats are all gate guards, museum pieces, and soda cans at this point.

I'd pay for that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

and thanks to all who helped - PB is now officially a F'n saint.   My work here is done.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother built big hours on Uncle Sam flying one of those. He said it was mostly a big circle route, like a bus. He got tired of it one day when he realized he was risking his ass for an empty plane with nothing but 1 pallet of Stars and Stripes for delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nacradriver said:

You can go practice it a N57 with that short narrow runway.. just don't drag it in... nasty little X-wind right before touchdown

maybe sometime in April! I did fly into one airport... damned if i can remember where, that on approach looked to be about as narrow as my damn wheel base. i'll ask my dad tomorrow. very active jump airport, nestled next to a mountain (hill)... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the guy in the OP ... ah ... dropped anything on brown people that day?  Or did he just fly around for fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piece of cake. 

Park it over there next to the edge Mac.

 

I landed on a carrier second attempt. No waves though. And was in a small room. Does that still qualify? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, P_Wop said:

BTW, While serving as the commanding officer of the USS Saratoga in 1980, he completed his 1,500th arrested landing in an F-4 Phantom. He retired in 1987.

Landing a slow plane is easier.

Did they give the guy a party or something for hte 1500th?  I mean that must have made the world a better place right? 

Maybe if we subtract the CO2 produced that is now fucking the planet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Question - why wire 3? Is that the middle one?  For some reason I thought you went for the 1st in case you bounced.

 

and thanks to all who helped - PB is now officially a F'n saint.   My work here is done.

On a four-wire carrier (Nimitz class) you aim for #3 as a good balance.  #1 puts the hook closer to the ramp (less vertical clearance) because your touchdown point is further aft; #4 and you risk missing or hook skip...round and round you go.  As I recall, the glide slope to the 3 wire puts about 10 feet vertical clearance between the hook and the ramp when you cross the stern.

The newer class (Ford) only has 3 wires.  I assume they aim for #2 there, but we haven't really operated it full-bore yet.

The usual black-shoe approach to CVN flight ops: after watching that for a while, you can keep your flight pay.  You earn that.  Now, your base pay I have an issue with...

 

(I was an engineer on CVNs for several tours, running the power plants.  I've done cats and traps, but only as a passenger.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mustang__1 said:

maybe sometime in April! I did fly into one airport...


Confirmed for the week of the 23rd....  I'll shoot you an email once I have things firmed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Landing a slow plane is easier.

Do tell.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he would arrive at the scene of the crash later and slower :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, P_Wop said:

During 1963, a KC-130F aircraft made history by landing and taking off from the aircraft carrier; USS Forrestal (CVA-59).  The crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 un-arrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.  On and off the angle deck too. 

No tail hook...No catapult.

 

 

In college my neighbors were with the VXE-6 (orange tailed C-130s that flew to Antarctica) they were navigators; taught me how to use a sextant..  They told stories of this fabulous feat of flying... 

Got me out to Pt. Mugu one day for the grand tour in one of the planes.. flying Mack Truck ... I really like that it had it's own "LJ" brewer  :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

Thanks for that C-130 link IStream! Made me go look up this one

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/top-secret-c-130-with-rocket-boosters/912500478001

Even better! Makes me want to put a sound track of Wagner on it.

 

Thanks, but P_Wop gets original credit for the link. I just hit "quote".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the limited visibility between the smoke and the dust, not to mention the plane catching on fire were some of the reasons JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off) never caught on.  So they invented the V 22 Osprey, maybe marginally better, maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I guess the limited visibility between the smoke and the dust, not to mention the plane catching on fire were some of the reasons JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off) never caught on.  So they invented the V 22 Osprey, maybe marginally better, maybe not.

JATO is expensive, a one time shot without reloading and hard on the airframe from a fatigue loading standpoint. The jet assisted landing is all that and very high risk. 

2 minutes into the above video shows just how bad it can get. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

Thanks for that C-130 link IStream! Made me go look up this one

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/top-secret-c-130-with-rocket-boosters/912500478001

Even better! Makes me want to put a sound track of Wagner on it.

 

First time I ever saw that Jet Assisted Landing. I guess burning the wings off the plane was a bit too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the random bits of aviation nuggets that this place digs up.

a description of the test from from wikipedia

The test's takeoff phase was executed flawlessly, setting a number of short takeoff records. The Lockheed test crew then assessed that the computer used to command the firing of the rockets during the landing sequence needed further calibration, and elected to manually input commands. The reverse-mounted (forward-facing) eight ASROC rockets for decelerating the aircraft's forward speed were situated in pairs on the fuselage's upper curvature behind the cockpit, and at the midpoint of each side of the fuselage beneath the uppers. Testing had determined that the upper pairs, fired sequentially, could be ignited while still airborne (specifically, at 20 feet), but that the lower pairs could only be fired after the aircraft was on the ground, with the descent-braking rockets also firing during the sequence.

The flight engineer, blinded by the firing of the upper deceleration rockets, thought the aircraft was on the runway and fired the lower set early. The descent-braking rockets did not fire at all. Later unofficial disclaimers allegedly made by some of the Lockheed test crew's members asserted that the lower rockets fired themselves through an undetermined computer or electrical malfunction, which at the same time failed to fire the descent-braking rockets.

As a result, the aircraft's forward flight was immediately reduced to nearly zero, dropping it hard to the runway and breaking the starboard wing between the third and fourth engines. During rollout, the trailing wing ignited a fire, but a medical evacuation helicopter dispersed the flame and crash response teams extinguished the fire within eight seconds of the aircraft stopping, enabling the crew to exit the aircraft safely. 74-1683 was dismantled and buried on-site for security reasons, but most of its unique systems were salvaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Caption: Which button is the fire extinguisher?  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost forgot about this one.. I am sure when Yuri got back on the deck he was all cool and collected...  and hoped the no one noticed the smell shit coming from the cockpit

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This place needs rebalancing, so far we have US landing, no problem and a Russian fail?  Really?

Do you guys need to continually do this shit to keep your self esteem up or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually pretty impressed with that Russian fail. That pilot saved an expensive bird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IStream said:

I was actually pretty impressed with that Russian fail. That pilot saved an expensive bird. 

Yeah, those things aren't really designed to tail stand like that. Looked cool as hell. The question is, did he then go around and make a successful trap, go to a land base, or did he eject over water?

 

6 hours ago, random said:

This place needs rebalancing, so far we have US landing, no problem and a Russian fail?  Really?

Do you guys need to continually do this shit to keep your self esteem up or something?

Tell us about successful Russian carrier ops. Last time I saw them try it, off the coast of Syria, they accomplished no military objective and burnt a lot of expensive gear.

Carrier ops are expensive and difficult. They are also a strategic high card.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuke carriers are a strategic 4 aces, not just a high card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Russian pilot must have thought he was at an airshow doing that Cobra maneuver on the carrier. All in a days work for those guys using vectored thrust. A little more practise and they could just land on the tails like Musk's SpaceX rockets and save a lot of deckspace! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 1:44 PM, Point Break said:

Back half of my enlistment was on a destroyer running plane guard for the Shitty Kitty (I think it was) for night ops. For us that means we are steaming along a little behind and to the side of the carrier. For me as one of the ship’s swimmers, it means sitting in a really crappy poorly fitting wet suit in a motor whaleboat hanging in davits but swung out over the side ready to lower quickly. In the boat is just me as the swimmer, two bosun mates one of which is the coxswain, and a gunners mate with a 14 for “sharks”.......

Anyway the up side is the view and sounds of the flight ops are frigging awesome.   The down side is after a while it just sucks. So one night a guy misses the cables and tries unsuccessfully to power off the bow back into the air. The plane veers off the port side a couple hundred yards under full power kinda lays over a quarter turn and goes into the drink. Pilot rode it into the water.....don’t know why, too low, not enough time, wrong angle? I know nothing about that pilot stuff. Well, I almost shit myself. “Holy shit something actually happened!” I had NEVER seen anything like that before. (Don’t know how many hours we did that and nothing ever happened). After a brief holy shit period we hit the lights, hard port and after just a few seconds it seemed, slowed to a near stop and lowered the whaleboat and off we went in the direction of the plane which we couldn’t really see. Fortunately, the real rescue guys (whose only job was pilot rescue, as opposed to myself who was “certified” by a week long class because I volunteered and was a extremely good swimmer) arrived in the helo, made the jump and extracted the pilot, made the hoist and headed back to the carrier almost before we even got near the plane. I never heard how he did. 

That night was the moment that reinforced that those guys had huge brass balls. Respect.

Fing Brown Shoes.

 

PB, probably on the same cruise as we have spoken before of (WetPac 73). I was on the Agerholm DD826 following the carrier group for plane guard. Was sitting on the fantail one Sunday afternoon and off in the distance see a large splash. Hard over, boat leans 35° in a powered turn to head back for the downed aircraft. Helo crew beat us to him. We pulled along side the Connie one night and was treated to the air ops from up close. Our masthead antennae were below the flight deck. Awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, those things aren't really designed to tail stand like that. Looked cool as hell. The question is, did he then go around and make a successful trap, go to a land base, or did he eject over water?

 

Tell us about successful Russian carrier ops. Last time I saw them try it, off the coast of Syria, they accomplished no military objective and burnt a lot of expensive gear.

Carrier ops are expensive and difficult. They are also a strategic high card.

-DSK

I agree.  Of course they are essential if you really need to terrorise the planet.  An absolute must!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

This place needs rebalancing, so far we have US landing, no problem and a Russian fail?  Really?

Do you guys need to continually do this shit to keep your self esteem up or something?

So the burning C-130 is a "no problem" in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guitar said:

PB, probably on the same cruise as we have spoken before of (WetPac 73). I was on the Agerholm DD826 following the carrier group for plane guard. Was sitting on the fantail one Sunday afternoon and off in the distance see a large splash. Hard over, boat leans 35° in a powered turn to head back for the downed aircraft. Helo crew beat us to him. We pulled along side the Connie one night and was treated to the air ops from up close. Our masthead antennae were below the flight deck. Awesome.

That would be likely since it was near the end of my gig. We were in company with the Algerholm once or twice....I think......it was a long time ago...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 9:23 PM, Rasputin22 said:

Thanks for that C-130 link IStream! Made me go look up this one

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/top-secret-c-130-with-rocket-boosters/912500478001

Even better! Makes me want to put a sound track of Wagner on it.

 

In each of those scenarios, did the rocket scientist even meet with any other pertinent engineers? Ingesting rocket exhaust into the engines could be an issue, sure, but what kind of instant broiler did the cockpit become on the forward thrust brakes experiment? If you landed on Donner pass at least the pilots would be pre-cooked for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't really need an aircraft carrier for crazy landings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, it was a C-130 after all. Those tough birds could usually handle all the abuse that was ever thrown at them. There are limits though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rato 130 was an attempt to build a 1 off to rescue the Iranian hostages by landing on a soccor field if I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lasal said:

You don't really need an aircraft carrier for crazy landings.

True Dat....  I was suppose to take mountian flying course this past summer in Idaho that promised some of this... but something came up and I had to cancel...  this summer for sure

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

True Dat....  I was suppose to take mountian flying course this past summer in Idaho that promised some of this... but something came up and I had to cancel...  this summer for sure.

That pilot is good. I've never done any big tire back country flying, but I would like to.

Here's some more STOL flying:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love me a Storch!

 

A Storch doesn't land, it taxies. It also doesn't take off. It taxies to the runway and flies.

That guy in the back looks fat enough to be Mussolini! Great story about the mountaintop rescue of that fat bastard.

The Storch was deployed in all European and North African theaters of World War II, but it is probably most famous for its role in Operation Eiche, the 1943 rescue of deposed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from a boulder-strewn mountain-top near the Gran Sasso. Even though the mountain was surrounded by Italian troops, German commando Otto Skorzeny and 90 paratroopers used gliders to land on the peak and quickly captured it. However, the problem of how to get back off remained. A Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 helicopter was sent, but it broke down en route. Instead, pilot Heinrich Gerlach flew in a Storch. It landed in 30 m (100 ft), and after Mussolini and Skorzeny boarded, it took off in 80 m (250 ft), even though the aircraft was overloaded. The Storch involved in rescuing Mussolini bore the radio code letters, or Stammkennzeichen, of "SJ + LL"[7] in the motion picture coverage of the daring rescue.

Another good tale!

Last dogfight of the Western Front where a Piper Cub Grasshopper take down a Storch with pistol fire!

A Storch was the victim of the last dogfight on the Western Front and another was downed by a direct Allied counterpart of the Storch, an L-4 Grasshopper, the military version of the well-known American Piper J-3 Cub civilian training and sport aircraft. The pilot and co-pilot of the L-4, lieutenants Duane Francis and Bill Martin, opened fire on the Storch with their .45 caliber pistols, forcing the German air crew to land and surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that a Piper Cub forced down the Storch with six shooters.

But, the Dooshel Snozzel doing the walk around with Sargent Shultz in the back seat is a fuckwit. That Storch has a freekin' swastika on the tail.

I guess I don't get the reenactment thing, especially reenacting SS anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

I love me a Storch!

These were some of the last planes out of Berlin before the Russians demolished what was left form the round the clock bombing from the 8th Air Force...  They way I got it as they turned the road from the Brandenburg Gate to the Victory Column into a runway....  more that enough room for take off... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nacra,

    Maybe you missed this part about the Storch,

A Storch doesn't land, it taxies. It also doesn't take off. It taxies to the runway and flies.

Sort of like this

 

 

If you want to really get serious,

10 foot landing roll

14 foot takeoff roll, if you can call it that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Nacra,

    Maybe you missed this part about the Storch,

A Storch doesn't land, it taxies. It also doesn't take off. It taxies to the runway and flies.

 

Like I said...."more than enough room..."  Note the clearing upper right of photo...

image.png.24a6382567dfda232ef3d0147e58342e.png

 

The Valdez competition is something to watch... thanks for sending that along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

Like I said...."more than enough room..."  Note the clearing upper right of photo...

image.png.24a6382567dfda232ef3d0147e58342e.png

 

The Valdez competition is something to watch... thanks for sending that along...

That area of Berlin looks a little different nowadays.

 

 

Berlin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

That Russian pilot must have thought he was at an airshow doing that Cobra maneuver on the carrier. All in a days work for those guys using vectored thrust. A little more practise and they could just land on the tails like Musk's SpaceX rockets and save a lot of deckspace! 

 

 

They were just copying this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

1955...... crazy shit

FB- Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Nuke carriers are a strategic 4 aces, not just a high card.

In 1952, yeah. But in the era of polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, have they lost a lot of their advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

In 1952, yeah. But in the era of polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, have they lost a lot of their advantage?

That depends.

Can polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, blow lotsa shit up? Sea skimmers meaning cruise missiles..... actually there are a number of guidance systems but the best rely on inertial guidance to target and optical terminal guidance. And they're vulnerable to air power such as a carrier projects.

IMHO the issue nowadays: are C3 systems vulnerable to hacking and malware? If all the fancy electronics goes tits up, nothing gonna happen. The US military is prepared fight 'cold iron' on many fronts but carrier ops is not one of them (I'm pretty sure, but maybe). The other big-picture issue, how long is the US economy going to stand up to keeping X (12.... 10....... 8..... and counting) carrier battle groups in readyness?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

That depends.

Can polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, blow lotsa shit up? Sea skimmers meaning cruise missiles..... actually there are a number of guidance systems but the best rely on inertial guidance to target and optical terminal guidance. And they're vulnerable to air power such as a carrier projects.

IMHO the issue nowadays: are C3 systems vulnerable to hacking and malware? If all the fancy electronics goes tits up, nothing gonna happen. The US military is prepared fight 'cold iron' on many fronts but carrier ops is not one of them (I'm pretty sure, but maybe). The other big-picture issue, how long is the US economy going to stand up to keeping X (12.... 10....... 8..... and counting) carrier battle groups in readyness?

-DSK

Good point. In an era when warfare is mostly centered around trade, a knife isn't the right tool to ward off an economic takeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

In 1952, yeah. But in the era of polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, have they lost a lot of their advantage?

That depends.

Can polar orbits, synthetic apertures, and satellite-guided sea-skimmers, blow lotsa shit up? Sea skimmers meaning cruise missiles..... actually there are a number of guidance systems but the best rely on inertial guidance to target and optical terminal guidance. And they're vulnerable to air power such as a carrier projects.

IMHO the issue nowadays: are C3 systems vulnerable to hacking and malware? If all the fancy electronics goes tits up, nothing gonna happen. The US military is prepared fight 'cold iron' on many fronts but carrier ops is not one of them (I'm pretty sure, but maybe). The other big-picture issue, how long is the US economy going to stand up to keeping X (12.... 10....... 8..... and counting) carrier battle groups in readyness?

-DSK

Mike,

Folks overselling the latest tech have predicted the demise of carriers for 30 years.  Double digit SAMS were going to obsolete all manned aircraft.  Didn't happen.  UCAVs will replaced manned fighters - if and when we decide autonomous kill authority is OK.  For any "limited" engagement, carriers have a place for a long time.  If we are collectively stupid enough to enter into unlimited warfare, a lot of shit will get broken and we will risk the future of humans on earth.  Without feeding the PA trolls, that is something that we should avoid.  Certainly China is waging more economic warfare than military but their actions in the SCS (Spratley Islands, reefs to military base conversions, Seven Dashed Line strategy) is a bet that no one regional will stop them and the US won't risk a major conflict if the regional countries won't fight for it themselves.  

SF.  That's the magic question.  Demand for carriers outstrip the budget.  If we decide that the DoD budget has to come down, we better revise our NSS and NDS from the National Security Council.  You and I both have lived through the "cut the defense budget but not the commitments and it gets ugly fast.  Lower budgets need to come from lower demand and that's a Civilian Leadership and political discussion.  How many CVBGs do we need?  Answer is "as many as it takes to meet the demands of the National Security Strategy.  If we want to play is every sandbox and local conflict that comes around, the answer is "lots."  If we are willing to let folks kill each other without our help, the number is a lot less.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

That area of Berlin looks a little different nowadays.

Berlin.jpg

PayPal me $20 and I'll show you where the nude sunbathing area is in Tiergarten....B)   Berlin girls love to show off their breast and I am also glad to see they now know what a razor is....  Munich girls not so much!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Mike,

Folks overselling the latest tech have predicted the demise of carriers for 30 years.  Double digit SAMS were going to obsolete all manned aircraft.  Didn't happen.  UCAVs will replaced manned fighters - if and when we decide autonomous kill authority is OK.  For any "limited" engagement, carriers have a place for a long time.  If we are collectively stupid enough to enter into unlimited warfare, a lot of shit will get broken and we will risk the future of humans on earth.  Without feeding the PA trolls, that is something that we should avoid.  Certainly China is waging more economic warfare than military but their actions in the SCS (Spratley Islands, reefs to military base conversions, Seven Dashed Line strategy) is a bet that no one regional will stop them and the US won't risk a major conflict if the regional countries won't fight for it themselves.  

SF.  That's the magic question.  Demand for carriers outstrip the budget.  If we decide that the DoD budget has to come down, we better revise our NSS and NDS from the National Security Council.  You and I both have lived through the "cut the defense budget but not the commitments and it gets ugly fast.  Lower budgets need to come from lower demand and that's a Civilian Leadership and political discussion.  How many CVBGs do we need?  Answer is "as many as it takes to meet the demands of the National Security Strategy.  If we want to play is every sandbox and local conflict that comes around, the answer is "lots."  If we are willing to let folks kill each other without our help, the number is a lot less. 

If you look at a carrier as a floating, mobile navy base, then it will never be obsolete. While I think that they may have some growing Achilles heels, with satellites and sea-skimmers, I would like to see them continually made, ideally for an increasingly peaceful world. They can and should be used as mobile hospitals and desalination/power centers like they were after the Haiti earthquake. And also as mobile airports/seaports, with cargo staging.

If the future of warfare is Mother Nature trying to constantly murder us, then paint the carriers blue and white and set them into the future of humanitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget about the B2. "On one bombing mission, two B-2s flew a 34-hour round-trip mission from Missouri to Libya, and were refueled in the air 15 times." This was done for the Guiness Book of World Records for the most expensive way to bomb the desert on the other side of the world.

We could have funded aircraft carriers for a long time instead of maintaining those ridiculously slow and expensive things. I'd like to see proof that Russian radar could not detect them too. Seems unlikely.

image.png.2b8b6c02d43a11ff15134403aadf6b92.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

If we are willing to let folks kill each other without our help, the number is a lot less.  

Makes sense to me to bomb the fuck out of them to stop them killing each other.

Makes sense also that members of the services have to believe that, instead of in the interests of Haliburton or Exxon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

came across this video today.... seems.... not so fun. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mustang__1 said:

came across this video today.... seems.... not so fun. 

 

Don’t know about today’s planes, but back when I was in the service, in our rescue swimmer training, they said with any damage at all, those things did not float very long......especially with even a moderate sea state. Surprisingly the parachute itself is a real problem. Having swam/trained in the pool with a chute, I can tell you it’s like a frigging amoeba quickly trying to envelop and immobilize you as you swim near it. Combine that with a trillion (or so it seems in the water) lines connected to the chute and pilot and you have to be pretty careful on approach of a downed pilot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Don’t know about today’s planes, but back when I was in the service, in our rescue swimmer training, they said with any damage at all, those things did not float very long......especially with even a moderate sea state. Surprisingly the parachute itself is a real problem. Having swam/trained in the pool with a chute, I can tell you it’s like a frigging amoeba quickly trying to envelop and immobilize you as you swim near it. Combine that with a trillion (or so it seems in the water) lines connected to the chute and pilot and you have to be pretty careful on approach of a downed pilot. 

I don't the fact or fiction behind this, but one of the "old guys" in our flying club in Long Beach told us  that somewhere in what is now the Boeing facility at the corner of Seal Beach Blvd and Westminster Blvd they use to practice the Apollo recovery disaster training and space/moon walking in a gigantic pool...  As well as assemble some of the Saturn V rocket there... 

Some of the cool stuff that happened right in our back yard B)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 1:02 PM, random said:

Makes sense to me to bomb the fuck out of them to stop them killing each other.

Makes sense also that members of the services have to believe that, instead of in the interests of Haliburton or Exxon.

Tell you what.....let's have all the US fleets pull back to US coastal waters. How soon before Chairman Keqaing island hops down and pays you a little visit. Hello friendly austrailians. Please send more coal. The larger volume can be sent cheaper yes?  Send your young blonde women to our mainland for cultural visit yes .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 1:02 PM, random said:

Makes sense to me to bomb the fuck out of them to stop them killing each other.

Makes sense also that members of the services have to believe that, instead of in the interests of Haliburton or Exxon.

Take it to PA and start your own thread.  The rest of us will enjoy seeing, reminiscing ,learning about one mankinds greatest feats, the Aircraft Carrier. 3000-5000 people on 1100 feet of seaborne steel all working as a team to safely launch and retrieve aircraft. I spent most of 1984 on the USS Coral Sea as a civilian Tech Rep, good times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Point Break said:

Don’t know about today’s planes, but back when I was in the service, in our rescue swimmer training, they said with any damage at all, those things did not float very long......especially with even a moderate sea state. Surprisingly the parachute itself is a real problem. Having swam/trained in the pool with a chute, I can tell you it’s like a frigging amoeba quickly trying to envelop and immobilize you as you swim near it. Combine that with a trillion (or so it seems in the water) lines connected to the chute and pilot and you have to be pretty careful on approach of a downed pilot. 

Pilot training is to deploy the raft (in the seat pan) during descent. When it hits the water hanging from its tether, release the Koch fitting to get rid of the parachute just befor you hit the water to try to avoid that entanglement. IRSK. Inflate the pfd, release the seat pan, snap the lower lobes of the pfd together and grab the Koch fittings. Funny how training from nearly 20 years ago comes back.

For a while, the tribal knowledge was to release the Koch fittings when you were level with the horizon. Had a CAG try that routine and released about 100’ in the air. Impact beat him up really bad. Survived but don’t think he ever flew again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Pilot training is to deploy the raft (in the seat pan) during descent. When it hits the water hanging from its tether, release the Koch fitting to get rid of the parachute just befor you hit the water to try to avoid that entanglement. IRSK. Inflate the pfd, release the seat pan, snap the lower lobes of the pfd together and grab the Koch fittings. Funny how training from nearly 20 years ago comes back.

For a while, the tribal knowledge was to release the Koch fittings when you were level with the horizon. Had a CAG try that routine and released about 100’ in the air. Impact beat him up really bad. Survived but don’t think he ever flew again. 

Ouch! My experience judging height over water is it’s really hard. I’ve made some helo jumps into water. You get the tap from the crew chief when you’re at jump height.......it was always a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Point Break said:

Ouch! My experience judging height over water is it’s really hard. I’ve made some helo jumps into water. You get the tap from the crew chief when you’re at jump height.......it was always a surprise.

Try not to run out of breath before you  hit the water. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Try not to run out of breath before you  hit the water. ..

And tightly cross your legs......that’s very important....never mind how I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Point Break said:

And tightly cross your legs......that’s very important....never mind how I know.

A smart man learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from a smart man... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 9:12 AM, Point Break said:

Don’t know about today’s planes, but back when I was in the service,

Like this PB.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madohe said:

Like this PB.....

 

:lol:

Not quite.....but close.......well played.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nacradriver said:

A smart man learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from a smart man... 

There those who can learn by watching, the precious few who can learn by reading.... And the rest of us need to piss on the third tail to figure it out for ourselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites