• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Carrier Ops Korea: Something about this photo really scares me . .

E

expat

Charter Member
Carrier Ops Korea: Something about this photo really scares me . .

For someone devoted to all things NavAir and spending time practicing cats&traps in FS (unless its in the Crusader, in which case it's cats&rampstrikes), there is something especially eerie and off-putting about this photo. The usual challenges of juggling, rate of decent, AOA, airpseed of course, but also look at how much more turn is needed to line up before hitting the deck. What is really striking here is how small, narrow and crowded the deck looks - with no angled deck and with the pack waiting at the other end - and the contrast with the seemingly infinitely vast, windswept cold sea to swallow and perish the unlucky airman. These guys had brass ones.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Take a look at the movie "Men of the Fighting Lady". You'll see the same thing with the Pathers in that movie; really close-in quick left hand turn approaches, and bam down on the deck 1-2-3. No long set ups, just turn and land. Scarey!
 
I have an uncle who flew off the USS Oriskany about this time. He tried for years to get me into flying for the Navy, but I always told him I liked long, long runways that stayed still!
 
It was always the case with a straight flight deck. You always sidled in to watch the LSO. He'd tell you when you were in the groove. That sorted the men from the boys.
The angled decks, with their flashing lights, took all the sport out of it. Now they line up a couple miles away. You get the angle right and there you are. It's all so mechanical. No flying skill required.
The old way you'd approach, nose high, just above a stall. When youre just over the wires, cut the throttle and catch a wire.
Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.
 
Helldiver said:
It was always the case with a straight flight deck. You always sidled in to watch the LSO. He'd tell you when you were in the groove. That sorted the men from the boys.
The angled decks, with their flashing lights, took all the sport out of it. Now they line up a couple miles away. You get the angle right and there you are. It's all so mechanical. No flying skill required.
The old way you'd approach, nose high, just above a stall. When youre just over the wires, cut the throttle and catch a wire.
Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.
Click to expand...

LOL. You know, Helldiver, I'll bet you're a fun guy to drink whiskey with. Notice I didn't say Bourbon or Scotch...that's girly-man speak. :)
 
Notice also the ship is turning to Port as well.

When landing on straight deck Essex it was sometimes known to sail with the wind a few degrees off the Port bow, the slight crosswind counter acted by the sharp left turn on approach we see here, also the slight cross wind pushed the heavily turbulant air aft of the bridge structure over the Starboard aft quarter and away from the deck and ramp area.

Best

Michael
 
Helldiver said:
Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.
Click to expand...

Because they're flying Mach 1+ jets and not aircraft with the landing speeds of a snail.
 
In the days of FS9 Real Old Salt and I did a Panther rework of the old (now) AH one. We did a lot of flight test using Big E and Hornet, which are a bit smaller than the Essex ships. A lot of fun requiring a steady hand. Approach was about 112 knots and a flat approach was used to keep the engine well spooled up as spoolup time of the early engines was quite slow from mid range RPM. Not so different than the technique we use to land a Supercub in a tight space. The tip tanks had ram powered dumps, and reducing the landing weigh to a minimum was essential.

T
 
Pls remeber this were all former prop boys.There is one still in the calClassic forum(which teached me this in FS).Because of the huge nose/taildragger they always had to fly a "curved approach" otherwise dont see anything.So why should they change for the first jets?

Roland

PS:For me the seafire pilots on carriers with this narrow gear track are real hero's
 
Helldiver said:
Maybbe them 1+ mach oil burners are flying so fast they haven't had time to win a war. Ever think of that?
Click to expand...
My thinking exactly. As a former "boot on the ground" guy I'd prefer a Spad or Bronco over a F-16 or F-35 anytime. Helos are good for transport but seem too fragile for CAS work.
 
Helldiver said:
Maybbe them 1+ mach oil burners are flying so fast they haven't had time to win a war. Ever think of that?
Click to expand...

Desert Shield/Storm.
Allied Force.
Iraqi Freedom.

All flown with "mach 1+ oil burners", all military successes.
 
and if we're talking about Korea, not exactly one that's firmly in the "win" column. great pic BTW and I don't care what anyone says, anybody who can land on a carrier, angled deck or not gets my support.
 
Just because they aren't your beloved old WWII planes doesn't mean they require no skill. I actually think it takes more skill now to land than it did back then.
 
I can't have but the most admiration and respect for naval aviators who landed planes on carriers through all eras.

The older prop planes of course had comparitively lower approach and stall speeds, and probably relied on more seat-of-the-pants pilot intuition (that's not bad, that's good), but there weren't, as Helldiver says, a lot of the more modern landing aids, technology and know how that were developed in the jet age.

At the same time, landing a Crusader on an Essex sized deck at night in the rain or an RA-5C, with its size, weight and high landing speed was a very dangerous thing indeed requiring skills at the absolute limit of human ability.
 
Each era had trade offs of good and bad, that for all practical purposes makes it a wash. No need to argue about which era had the toughest, ballsiest, most skilled pilots....they're all high on the scale.

Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top