PDA

View Full Version : what tail hook skipper



stugumby
06-13-2005, 10:18 PM
had some fun playing the b25 carrier mission and my daughter decided to help me fly back to base while i was doing a honey-do run, things went exceptionally well until i reminded her that navy planes have this thing called a tailhook, at that she promptly abandoned her post and let me finish up, so i decided to try a carrier landing using my patented "belgian waffle technique" needless to say i made a good landing but no way to stop and was standing on the brakes with engines shut off just before touchdown
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/stugumby/planeoverboard.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
06-14-2005, 12:42 AM
Landing twins on an aircraft carrier is fun, and challenging!!

As part of my squads carrier qualificaton, they have to take off and land an A-20 on the deck of a moving carrier three times in succession without damaging the aircraft.

It's tough!! I haven't managed to do it yet, and it was me who devised the training missions!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Vlad381
06-14-2005, 03:20 AM
At least the B-25 and A-20 hahave trycicle landing gear, so if you slam the brakes it doesnt flip the plane over. Try that in a taildragger without a tailhook, maybe something like a TB-3 or He-111 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slightly OT, but have you noticed its very difficlut to break the Corsair? I've had massive landing bounce, cought the wire on the way up and slammed back down...nothing. In 3.04 that kind of stunt would have at least snapped the gear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

stansdds
06-14-2005, 04:25 AM
The U.S. Navy did it with a PBJ-1H (B-25H) fitted with an arrestor hook. They proved it could be done, but the project went no further.

SkyCobra
06-14-2005, 06:23 AM
Later on the US Navy even put a tail hook on a C-130 Hercules and put it through taking off and landing on carriers but it was abandoned

SkyCobra
06-14-2005, 06:25 AM
nope i've just checked my facts, it wasn't fitted with a tailhook but they still tried it on carriers

VT-51_Razor
06-14-2005, 08:02 AM
In the late 40's, early 50's, the Navy was competing with the Air Force for those prescious defence dollars, while playing the "keeping up with the Joneses" game. They didn't have a nucular strike ability, and were scrambling maddly to obtain one. Their answer was the new sub hunter from Lockheed, the P2V Neptune. They arranged a world record breaking stunt where they flew from Perth Australia, all the way to Columbas Ohio. This was to show off it's extreme range. Next, they hoisted one aboard a Midway class CV and launched it. BINGO! The Navy now had a "carrier based" attack plane that could carry the big one with enough range to deliver it and get far enough away so the crew could die in peace rather from radiation poisoning. They were just beginning carrier trials with it when North American delivered the AJ-1 Savage. This plane, slightly larger than a Grunam S2F Tracker, had two piston engines plus one jet engine in the fusealage. An interesting time in our history! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Waldo.Pepper
06-14-2005, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by stansdds:
The U.S. Navy did it with a PBJ-1H (B-25H) fitted with an arrestor hook. They proved it could be done, but the project went no further.



Here ya go. Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www3.telus.net/public/a5a03316/vickmaster/b25******.jpg

Nimits
06-14-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by SkyCobra:
nope i've just checked my facts, it wasn't fitted with a tailhook but they still tried it on carriers

The C-130 has inherent STOL capability, so I belive the tailhook was considered unnecessary. The project was abandoned because, despite being a much more capable transport than the C-2, its large wingspan made plane handling precarious and forced the carrier to suspend other flight ops while recovering and lauching the C-130.

AerialTarget
06-14-2005, 06:31 PM
So how did the Mitchells in Doolittle's raid land on the carriers, if they didn't have tailhooks?

Crash_Moses
06-14-2005, 06:53 PM
They didn't. The plan was to take off from the carriers, bomb Tokyo, and high tail it to China.

A nasty storm and an unfortunate headwind forced most of them to bail out over the Chinese coast. Most of 'em made it. Jimmy himself, flying with two injured legs (he'd broken them awhile back) was fortunate enough to parachute into a pile of excrement.

CM

S!

II JG2_Oesau
06-14-2005, 08:18 PM
Yep, it can be fun to land on them!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/a1413/b-2501.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/a1413/b-2503.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/a1413/b-2505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/a1413/b-2509.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
06-14-2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
So how did the Mitchells in Doolittle's raid land on the carriers, if they didn't have tailhooks?

I weep for the future. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AerialTarget
06-14-2005, 08:25 PM
No, really! They had to get on the carriers in the first place, somehow.

II JG2_Oesau
06-14-2005, 08:45 PM
They would have used a crane at the dock (most aircarft were brought onto carriers that way).

Nimits
06-14-2005, 08:52 PM
They were lifted on by crane (at San Diego, I believe). The planes were supposed to land in Naitonalist China.

Treetop64
06-14-2005, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
No, really! They had to get on the carriers in the first place, somehow.

It's wonderful the knowledge one can get out of reading books.

You should try it sometimes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tailgator
06-14-2005, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyCobra:
nope i've just checked my facts, it wasn't fitted with a tailhook but they still tried it on carriers

The C-130 has inherent STOL capability, so I belive the tailhook was considered unnecessary. The project was abandoned because, despite being a much more capable transport than the C-2, its large wingspan made plane handling precarious and forced the carrier to suspend other flight ops while recovering and lauching the C-130. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.theaviationzone.com/media/c130_forrestal_landing.mov

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Vlad381:
At least the B-25 and A-20 hahave trycicle landing gear, so if you slam the brakes it doesnt flip the plane over. Try that in a taildragger without a tailhook, maybe something like a TB-3 or He-111 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Have you noticed that HE111 is not tend to 'flip over' much. I doubt that you would succeed to flip it over in such scenario (very low approach speed).

I know that I have *never* flipped HE111 over once all three wheels are on ground.. I really can't remember not one single time..

Tooz_69GIAP
06-14-2005, 11:04 PM
He-111 is pretty stable in landing provided you keep your airspeed above 130kph. Landing on a carrier, it's not easy as it gets pretty heavy on approach, but it's brakes are good, and doesn't flip. Least, that was on ver 3.01m, dunno how it acts now!

Asgeir_Strips
06-15-2005, 10:36 AM
i've managed to crash land the betty.. the landing isn't hard..
the hardest thing is to survive without a scratch!