User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:10:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Holy balls...there's something that you don't see everyday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:11:16 PM EDT
[#2]
probably didn't need a tail hook either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:12:21 PM EDT
[#3]
I think a U-2 landed on one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:12:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
I think this might be a front runner in that competition. C-130 landing on the USS. Forrestal. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9e_1249675844 (made it hot) Thats the boat my dad was on 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:16:03 PM EDT
[#5]
There was a navalized U-2 variant they tested off carriers as well.
Not quite as large as the C-130, but still pretty impressive considering the low-speed handling characteristics of the plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:16:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Freaking amazing. ++
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:18:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
probably didn't need a tail hook either. It states in the vedio that everything was done simply with engine control- for a landing they kicked in the prop reversers when the plane was 4 feet off the deck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:18:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Damn
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:19:31 PM EDT
[#9]
I was about to say B-25 but obviously not now....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:21:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Could a c-130 with the rocket assist take off from a carrier?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:24:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Could a c-130 with the rocket assist take off from a carrier? Apparently a C-130 without rocket assistance can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:24:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Woot to VX-6 (later VXE-6, my old squadron)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:26:00 PM EDT
[#13]
watch the vid, they did it all with the engines, they were not R.A.T.O. launches or it would appear cat launches, for the landing it stated the only modes to the carrier were the removal of the arresting wires, and adjusting the hydrollics on the land gear. i have no idea why they would need to do this, but it is nice to know that we have the capability
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:27:32 PM EDT
[#14]
wow, that was cool. Had no idea they could land a C-130 on a carrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:28:49 PM EDT
[#15]
thats flipi'in nuts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:32:21 PM EDT
[#16]
But can they land a C-130 on a Carrier with a treadmill?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:42:23 PM EDT
[#17]
As I remember, the F-111 was being considered for deployment on carriers. i think it went through some testing before the concept was abandoned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:45:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Could a c-130 with the rocket assist take off from a carrier? They were experimenting with COD (carrier onboard delivery) using C-130s... It was eventually decided that a specialized aircraft would be bought for that role, so they went with the C-2 Greyhound... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:46:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: As I remember, the F-111 was being considered for deployment on carriers. i think it went through some testing before the concept was abandoned. The F111 was the original 'Joint Strike Fighter'... All services were going to fly them... In the end, it got scaled down to 'just the Air Force', and the weapons system that was going to be on the USN F111s eventually went on the Tomcat... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:46:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Cause the C-130 guys were tired of not getting invited to Tailhook (pre-Schroeder...BITCH! ) 
TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:46:31 PM EDT
[#21]
My dad flew these... AF-2S Guardians
"the largest single-engine, piston-engined aircraft ever used by the US Navy"
 But it is no C-130. btw, they flew as a pair.. the hunter with all the electronics and radar and the killer with stuff that goes boom. Not as cool as the nuclear depth charge, but that is a story for another thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:48:38 PM EDT
[#22]
C130. The ship has to be moving fast enough to get enough headwind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:49:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think this might be a front runner in that competition. C-130 landing on the USS. Forrestal. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9e_1249675844 (made it hot) Thats the boat my dad was on i hope it was before the fire and not during |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:55:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Could a c-130 with the rocket assist take off from a carrier? Apparently a C-130 without rocket assistance can. It could take off without a cat shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:02:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
My dad flew these... AF-2S Guardians "the largest single-engine, piston-engined aircraft ever used by the US Navy"
But it is no C-130. btw, they flew as a pair.. the hunter with all the electronics and radar and the killer with stuff that goes boom. Not as cool as the nuclear depth charge, but that is a story for another thread. Thanks, that is a rare and obscure Naval aircraft I did't know about. Have anymore info about it or your fathers tales please share... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:03:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why did they land the c-130 on the carrier. Just because or other reasons? Could a c-130 with the rocket assist take off from a carrier? Apparently a C-130 without rocket assistance can. It could take off without a cat shot. This is why the C-130 is the most awesome plane we have. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:07:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Very impressive.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:19:47 PM EDT
[#28]
The prize has to go to the 130 pilot followed up by the 111B.
Don't forget about the North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante. Those critters were huge for a carrier based aircraft...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:21:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
I think a U-2 landed on one. Other than having a lot of wing, the U2 is pretty dinky... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:25:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
I was about to say B-25 but obviously not now.... The B-25s from the Doolittle Raid were loaded onto the carrier. They never landed on it. Once they took off for Tokyo, they were to land in China. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:25:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Very cool stuff!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:34:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was about to say B-25 but obviously not now.... The B-25s from the Doolittle Raid were loaded onto the carrier. They never landed on it. Once they took off for Tokyo, they were to land in China. Not to mention they were pretty small. I think landing one would have been a snap compared to the actual launch they "had" to do...! Specification
MODEL B-25J CREW 5 ENGINE 2 x Wright R-2600-92 Cyclone, 1268kW WEIGHTS Take-off weight 15876 kg 35001 lb Empty weight 8836 kg 19480 lb DIMENSIONS Wingspan 20.6 m 67 ft 7 in Length 16.13 m 52 ft 11 in Height 4.98 m 16 ft 4 in Wing area 56.67 m2 609.99 sq ft PERFORMANCE Max. speed 438 km/h 272 mph Ceiling 7375 m 24200 ft Range 2173 km 1350 miles ARMAMENT 12 x 12.7mm machine-guns, 1300-1800kg of bombs |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:47:18 PM EDT
[#33]
so why would a c-130 be able to take off without the catapult and a smaller, lighter fighter not be able to?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 2:51:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Balls Of Steel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:06:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: so why would a c-130 be able to take off without the catapult and a smaller, lighter fighter not be able to? Because the fighter aircraft have ridiculously high rotation speeds, in order to maintain a clean enough aerodynamic profile for their mission... The C130 is a lumbering slug of a bird, but because of this it can have a much lower rotation speed, and thus a much shorter takeoff roll... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:11:39 PM EDT
[#36]
C-130 takes the prize.
Historical honorable mentions: North American AJ-2 (A-2B) Savage and Douglas A3D (A-3) Skywarrior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:19:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Ah, the 1960s; such a cool time for advances in aviation. Ejecting bears out of B-58 Hustlers at the speed of sound, and now this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:22:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
My dad flew these... AF-2S Guardians "the largest single-engine, piston-engined aircraft ever used by the US Navy"
But it is no C-130. btw, they flew as a pair.. the hunter with all the electronics and radar and the killer with stuff that goes boom. Not as cool as the nuclear depth charge, but that is a story for another thread. Thanks, that is a rare and obscure Naval aircraft I did't know about. Have anymore info about it or your fathers tales please share... My dad wasn't a pilot, but his squadron flew these obscure aircraft for a while - the North American AJ Savage nuclear bomber. They had a jet engine in the tail for taking off with the 10,000 lb nukes they had in the late 1940's - early 1950's.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:23:13 PM EDT
[#39]
747
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:24:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: But can they land a C-130 on a Carrier with a treadmill? They could but it wouldn't be able to take back off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:27:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
so why would a c-130 be able to take off without the catapult and a smaller, lighter fighter not be able to? Because the fighter aircraft have ridiculously high rotation speeds, in order to maintain a clean enough aerodynamic profile for their mission... The C130 is a lumbering slug of a bird, but because of this it can have a much lower rotation speed, and thus a much shorter takeoff roll... They're like a big Super Cub. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:28:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I was about to say B-25 but obviously not now.... same here, but it was on a slightly smaller deck wasn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:37:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Very cool, always loved teh C-130's. So this may be a stupid question, but...
The video mentioned something about the Herc's would go to full reverse throttle, and would be in reverse by the time they hit the deck. Does this mean the engines would reverse the rotation of the prop? So spin counter-clockwise during flight, cut throttle, come to a stop, and then spin backwards? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:40:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Very cool, always loved teh C-130's. So this may be a stupid question, but... The video mentioned something about the Herc's would go to full reverse throttle, and would be in reverse by the time they hit the deck. Does this mean the engines would reverse the rotation of the prop? So spin counter-clockwise during flight, cut throttle, come to a stop, and then spin backwards? They would reverse the pitch on the props. Not put the engine in reverse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:55:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was about to say B-25 but obviously not now.... same here, but it was on a slightly smaller deck wasn't it? As already noted, the B25 did not land on the carrier deck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 3:58:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
747 Are you saying that a 747 landed on a carrier deck? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 4:04:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
The prize has to go to the 130 pilot followed up by the 111B. Don't forget about the North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante. Those critters were huge for a carrier based aircraft...! Were the F111, the A-5, and the S-3 Viking bigger than the A-3? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 4:05:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The prize has to go to the 130 pilot followed up by the 111B. Don't forget about the North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante. Those critters were huge for a carrier based aircraft...! Were the F111, the A-5, and the S-2 Viking bigger than the A-3? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/A3D_Skywarrior.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/EA-3B_VQ-2_CV-63_1987.JPEG/800px-EA-3B_VQ-2_CV-63_1987.JPEG I think the A-3 was slightly bigger than the A-5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 4:14:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I think a U-2 landed on one. I am sure that was USS CONSTELLATION in the Pacific I don't know if she at Yankee Station at the time, or if they did it closer to KOR or JPN |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 4:16:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The prize has to go to the 130 pilot followed up by the 111B. Don't forget about the North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante. Those critters were huge for a carrier based aircraft...! Were the F111, the A-5, and the S-2 Viking bigger than the A-3? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/A3D_Skywarrior.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/EA-3B_VQ-2_CV-63_1987.JPEG/800px-EA-3B_VQ-2_CV-63_1987.JPEG I think the A-3 was slightly bigger than the A-5. The A-3 was bigger than all of them. That thing was huge. The Air Force borrowed the design for their B-66. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
