Largest aircraft on and off a carrier?

DC-9

Yes, safe to say the C-130 is the largest.

Never heard about the 727, but a modified DC-9 was a defintite COD proposal as discussed on secretprojects at
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,662.0.html

description of the C-9 is as follows. Nose gear moved 12.5 feet aft. Nose gear strut capable of extending to give the aircraft a 6-degree nose up attitude for takeoff. Local strengthening for the arresting hook which was positioned on the underside (externally) under the engine location. A large tail bumper added on the underside roughly in line with the exhaust end of the engine. Wing folding was explored with the fold being at either of two locations. On one, the folded span would be 58.5 foot. On the other the folded span would have been 47 foot. In flight refueling probe extending from the lower left fuselage angling up then leveling again ahead of the nose at a level roughly that of the lower edge of the windscreen. Pylon attach points about 12 foot inboard of each wing tip. These pylons could have held the “buddy” refueling system. Thrust reversers omitted and replaced with simple exhaust cones. Air-stairs omitted. — Paraphrased from Great Airliners Volume 4: McDonnell Douglas DC-9, Terry Waddington, 1998. Pgs. 81-82.

DC-9

Yes, safe to say the C-130 is the largest.

Never heard about the 727, but a modified DC-9 was a defintite COD proposal as discussed on secretprojects at
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,662.0.html

description of the C-9 is as follows. Nose gear moved 12.5 feet aft. Nose gear strut capable of extending to give the aircraft a 6-degree nose up attitude for takeoff. Local strengthening for the arresting hook which was positioned on the underside (externally) under the engine location. A large tail bumper added on the underside roughly in line with the exhaust end of the engine. Wing folding was explored with the fold being at either of two locations. On one, the folded span would be 58.5 foot. On the other the folded span would have been 47 foot. In flight refueling probe extending from the lower left fuselage angling up then leveling again ahead of the nose at a level roughly that of the lower edge of the windscreen. Pylon attach points about 12 foot inboard of each wing tip. These pylons could have held the “buddy” refueling system. Thrust reversers omitted and replaced with simple exhaust cones. Air-stairs omitted. — Paraphrased from Great Airliners Volume 4: McDonnell Douglas DC-9, Terry Waddington, 1998. Pgs. 81-82.

So I assume the Fat Albert is still the biggest/largest/heaviest that actually DID it?

I would think so. I had an inkling the YC-14 had had carrier trials, but I was thinking of the QSRA Buffalo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_eDutgh4IU

The space available between the flight line and the island would limit much larger than that.

So I assume the Fat Albert is still the biggest/largest/heaviest that actually DID it?

I would think so. I had an inkling the YC-14 had had carrier trials, but I was thinking of the QSRA Buffalo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_eDutgh4IU

The space available between the flight line and the island would limit much larger than that.

errr… I did say to operate – not flights of fantasy!!

So I assume the Fat Albert is still the biggest/largest/heaviest that actually DID it?

errr… I did say to operate – not flights of fantasy!!

So I assume the Fat Albert is still the biggest/largest/heaviest that actually DID it?

The key consideration in rejecting the C-130 as a COD (and I’d imagine the later F-28 studies) is that once down they would effectively monopolise the flight deck until they could take off again.

Fokker seems to solved that problem:

The landing gear would be completely new, and the twoposition noseleg needed for catapult launches would also be used to tilt the aircraft tail-down for carrier storage.

The key consideration in rejecting the C-130 as a COD (and I’d imagine the later F-28 studies) is that once down they would effectively monopolise the flight deck until they could take off again.

Fokker seems to solved that problem:

The landing gear would be completely new, and the twoposition noseleg needed for catapult launches would also be used to tilt the aircraft tail-down for carrier storage.

If you’re going to be silly, then I nominate the Antonov An-225 😮

The largest aircraft to land and takeoff from that unsinkable aircraft carrier – the United Kingdom !!!:D

Sorry – I’ll get my coat……

Ken

If you’re going to be silly, then I nominate the Antonov An-225 😮

The largest aircraft to land and takeoff from that unsinkable aircraft carrier – the United Kingdom !!!:D

Sorry – I’ll get my coat……

Ken

More recent American experiments have been less successful…..

Mind you, landing a C-17 on what appears to be an LPH/LHD is some feat

More recent American experiments have been less successful…..

Mind you, landing a C-17 on what appears to be an LPH/LHD is some feat

The key consideration in rejecting the C-130 as a COD (and I’d imagine the later F-28 studies) is that once down they would effectively monopolise the flight deck until they could take off again.

Certainly the C-130 was simply too large to allow for other operations to take place (significantly, I know they could have spotted it forward and used the waist cats and still kept the angled deck clear, however that did not fit with the operational view at the time…)

Also no chance of stricking it down below…maintenance would have been interesting.

But even so the film of it landing is simply awesome…like watching the RA-5Cs….

The key consideration in rejecting the C-130 as a COD (and I’d imagine the later F-28 studies) is that once down they would effectively monopolise the flight deck until they could take off again.

Certainly the C-130 was simply too large to allow for other operations to take place (significantly, I know they could have spotted it forward and used the waist cats and still kept the angled deck clear, however that did not fit with the operational view at the time…)

Also no chance of stricking it down below…maintenance would have been interesting.

But even so the film of it landing is simply awesome…like watching the RA-5Cs….

Guess, the F-111 was hardly smaller than the RA-5C.
http://www.usscoralsea.net/pages/f111.php

It originally was thought for the fleet defense requirements using the new Phoenix AAM but turned out too heavy for fleet ops. Later on the F-14 Tomcat did better.

Guess, the F-111 was hardly smaller than the RA-5C.
http://www.usscoralsea.net/pages/f111.php

It originally was thought for the fleet defense requirements using the new Phoenix AAM but turned out too heavy for fleet ops. Later on the F-14 Tomcat did better.

The Russians at one point planned to fly a variant of the An-72 as their AWACS aircraft off their never-completed supercarrier Ulyanovsk, but decided against it.

Hmmmm.. ‘planned’ might be the wrong word – ‘considered’ is better….

A parallel requirement emerged during 1982-83 for a carrier based tactical AWACS platform and consideration was given to using a navalised version of the An-71. After some deliberation it was decided that a specialised carrier capable aircraft was needed which resulted in the design of the E-2 Hawkeye lookalike, the Yak-44E.

The proposed naval An-71 would have been too heavy – which is why it was eliminated from the studies.

Ken

The Russians at one point planned to fly a variant of the An-72 as their AWACS aircraft off their never-completed supercarrier Ulyanovsk, but decided against it.

Hmmmm.. ‘planned’ might be the wrong word – ‘considered’ is better….

A parallel requirement emerged during 1982-83 for a carrier based tactical AWACS platform and consideration was given to using a navalised version of the An-71. After some deliberation it was decided that a specialised carrier capable aircraft was needed which resulted in the design of the E-2 Hawkeye lookalike, the Yak-44E.

The proposed naval An-71 would have been too heavy – which is why it was eliminated from the studies.

Ken

F-28 COD project 1981

There’s a page from Flight magazine in 1981 further down on the sim-outhouse page which suggests it was a serious study by Fokker
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%203133.html

also of interest
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1980/1980%20-%203356.html?search=727 US Navy COD

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%202386.html?search=727 US Navy COD

Must be true. I remember a Fokker drawing of a F-28 in USN colours onboard a carrier. And found it
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?54692-Not-a-big-tube-fan-unless…

F-28 COD project 1981

There’s a page from Flight magazine in 1981 further down on the sim-outhouse page which suggests it was a serious study by Fokker
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%203133.html

also of interest
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1980/1980%20-%203356.html?search=727 US Navy COD

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%202386.html?search=727 US Navy COD

Must be true. I remember a Fokker drawing of a F-28 in USN colours onboard a carrier. And found it
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?54692-Not-a-big-tube-fan-unless…