Tomcats on the Ark Royal?

No, I am referring to the ramp on Invincible, etc, which is possible a bit too steep and/or the available runway too short for conventional aircraft to take advantage of it. The Shar still needs some element of vertical thrust dialed in to get off the ground when using the ramp I believe, so maybe you should post your question on the modern military forum where they might understand some of your terms (Kuznetsov? STOBAR?).

Right, I shall now leave you historic aviation affecionados alone and put this question where it belongs – modern aviation. 🙂

by the way,
Kuznetsov = Only Russian Aircrat carrier around at present. operates SU 27s
STOBAR = Short take off but arrested recovery.

thanks for your time.
USS.

No, it (you are referring to the MiG29K right?) is not V/STOL, but I have seen it described as capable of STOL. Also, it seems that the harrier’s capacity for Vertical take off is rarely used in operations as it consumes a lot of gas. I suppose this is what necessitates the ski jump apparatus. Point is can’t the MiG 29 avail itself of this same apparatus? Apparently, it is undergoing trials on the Kuznetsov using STOBAR apparatus (isn’t Viraat the same?)

USS

No, I am referring to the ramp on Invincible, etc, which is possible a bit too steep and/or the available runway too short for conventional aircraft to take advantage of it. The Shar still needs some element of vertical thrust dialed in to get off the ground when using the ramp I believe, so maybe you should post your question on the modern military forum where they might understand some of your terms (Kuznetsov? STOBAR?).;) -Nermal

So, we are left with the phrase “shoot a landing”. This is an Nav-Air (Naval Air) (maybe others too) term describing the process of simulating a landing, touching the surface without stopping (also called a “touch & go” in the USAF…. silly pampered flyboys).

.. also known as the “Crash & go” or Crash & bounce…. :diablo:

Would it benefit from the ski ramp as used by Sea Harriers? Is it VSTOL?
Somehow I doubt it…;) – Nermal

No, it (you are referring to the MiG29K right?) is not V/STOL, but I have seen it described as capable of STOL. Also, it seems that the harrier’s capacity for Vertical take off is rarely used in operations as it consumes a lot of gas. I suppose this is what necessitates the ski jump apparatus. Point is can’t the MiG 29 avail itself of this same apparatus? Apparently, it is undergoing trials on the Kuznetsov using STOBAR apparatus (isn’t Viraat the same?)

USS

You talk as if from a point of authority, Bager1968, thank you.
Do you know if the wingspan of the Tomcat would have exceeded the safety margin on the Ark? Even for mimed landings?

Flood

Hi,

I don’t want to side track this thread, but I have a question that is similar. Could a MiG 29K (the latest variants for the IN), with increased thrust, folding wings, smaller airframe etc be used on the Invincible? If modifications would be required, would they be major or something relatively simple? These are general questions from a layman, so expert opinions are welcome.

kind regards,
USS.

Would it benefit from the ski ramp as used by Sea Harriers? Is it VSTOL?
Somehow I doubt it…;) – Nermal

Hi,

I don’t want to side track this thread, but I have a question that is similar. Could a MiG 29K (the latest variants for the IN), with increased thrust, folding wings, smaller airframe etc be used on the Invincible? If modifications would be required, would they be major or something relatively simple? These are general questions from a layman, so expert opinions are welcome.

kind regards,
USS.

The USN still had bridle-launch gear on their CV (& CVN) through the late 1980s, because they operated EA-3B Skywarriors from them, and the “Whales” only used the bridle, so no problem launching RN Phantoms.

The A-7 & A-6 were first designed before the development of the nose-gear launch (and later modified to use it) so they still had the fuselage bridle attachment points, so no problem operating off the Ark.

The F-14 was not designed for bridles, so there is NO place to attach them, and the airframe isn’t strengthened for them, so no possibility of launching from the Ark with bridles!

To modify a bridle-only cat to allow nose-gear launches, the entire catapult shuttle must be replaced, which requires opening up the catapult track! The USN had a special end on its bridles that fitted into the new shuttles for launching the older planes, so Ark would need to mod its cat just for the one operation, then change them back. NOT bloody likely!

But if, for some bizzare reason they did, the F-14A required the C-13 catapult AND at least 10 knots wind over the deck to launch at light weight (30 kn. with a warload), the cats on the Ark were much weaker, very comparable to the older US C-11s. The Ark would need to steam at 25+ kn. into a 15+ kn. wind to have a prayer of launching a light-load Tomcat. Highly improbable!

Two very small chances, both of which must happen, make a near impossibility.

So, we are left with the phrase “shoot a landing”. This is an Nav-Air (Naval Air) (maybe others too) term describing the process of simulating a landing, touching the surface without stopping (also called a “touch & go” in the USAF…. silly pampered flyboys). A related term is “shooting an approach”, the process of simulating a landing without actually touching the surface. Neither includes stopping. I have personally watched (in the 8 years in the 1980s that I was in the USMC repairing A-6E Intruder avionics systems) many aircraft making a landing approach that ends with the plane raising its nose in a “flare”, then dropping it as if the main gear had hit, then upping the throttle to re-gain altitude…. all at least 100 feet above the runway or flight deck.

If they had actually stopped on the Ark, he would have said “made a landing”, “trapped”, “caught a wire”, or another phrase with the same clear meaning.

One of the earlier posts referred to the Clemenceau operating with USN CV(N)s. In 1987, in the Arabian sea, an F-8 from the “C”, flown by their ship’s Captain, landed on the CV-61 Ranger, to pay his respects. I watched him land and take off an hour later.

Found this from Air-Pic 1974.
phil.

Details gleaned from Paul Beavers Ark Royal – A Pictorial History say that she was heavily involved in Display Determination on 2nd October 1976 with Nimitz, America, and Clemenceau; the exercise finishing for Ark Royal when she visited Toulon for 5 days from the 12th.
Interestingly there is mention of Ocean Safari, an annual autumn NATO exercise, in 1975, where Ark Royal teamed up with Independance, who took part of the Arks air group. Before this, in 1975 whilst the Ark was in dry dock, three Phantoms were seconded to Nimitz, so obviously they could still be trapped and shot from the American carrier. But no pictures…

Flood

What is the wingspan of a landing F14?
What was the maximum wingspan the Ark Royal could comfortably accept for landing and/or take off?
What is the landing weight of an F14?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals wires could take on landing?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals cat could accommodate?
Was the mirror landing system on the Ark Royal adjustable for use by other types or just those types in FAA service?
Was it possible that this event might just have been a touch and go? – Nermal

These are the kinds of questions that prompted me to start this thread, and thanks to everyone so far for their contributions, its certaily interesting. More than ever if this did take place then I’d love to see any pics. I still can’t believe (assuming it took place) that there aren’t photos of this event in the public domain, especially when one considers he prominance of the Tomcat since ‘Top Gun’. I suppose its possbile the Tomcats just made rollers/touch and gos?

touch and goes

just to throw another angle in the mix i wounder if the tomcat was flown by a british crew 😮

airforces monthly did a story about a british crew flying 14s back in the early eighties. Would the ark royal have been decommisioned by then?

First image to come to mind when I read the thread. 1969 cross deck ops on the Saratoga.

Dan

Wasn’t the deck burnt through,heavily scorched, by the Speys and because of the higher nose wheel so directing the force of the reheat directly down?
Alan. 😮

Thatas the pic I was thinking of, now can someone find the pic of the USN F4 with a roundal in the star & bar?

Hi
Just been through all Air Pic for 1976 -1978, this is the only thing i can find,
no mention of F14s at all.
Phil.

What is the wingspan of a landing F14?
What was the maximum wingspan the Ark Royal could comfortably accept for landing and/or take off?
What is the landing weight of an F14?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals wires could take on landing?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals cat could accommodate?
Was the mirror landing system on the Ark Royal adjustable for use by other types or just those types in FAA service?
Was it possible that this event might just have been a touch and go? – Nermal

Nermal,

I’m think it was a Touch and Go myself.

RER

What is the wingspan of a landing F14?
What was the maximum wingspan the Ark Royal could comfortably accept for landing and/or take off?
What is the landing weight of an F14?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals wires could take on landing?
What was the maximum weight the Ark Royals cat could accommodate?
Was the mirror landing system on the Ark Royal adjustable for use by other types or just those types in FAA service?
Was it possible that this event might just have been a touch and go? – Nermal

Alright Fplks,

According to VF-142 and 143 official History yes they did land F-14 on the Ark Royal, now they don’t say anything about doing Cat. Shots in their Logs but they do talk about shooting landsing and how they had to use the outside ramps for this .

Also in 76 142 and 143 where one of the first Squadrons to complete go to A model 14s this would make sence. Also remember folks this was the Year at RIAT that the USS America sent 14s their. I recall in the 25 Anv. video that they said that one of the three 14 their operated from the Ark because it still had some sort of paint to commerated the fact.

Before someone decides to jump down my thought saying I’m full of BS I took the effort to give Pensacola a call and ask them to look into VF-142 Squadron Log hopefully we will all have an idea I also post this question on both 142 and 143 Historical page.

RER

Having tested the axiom to destruction we can take than answer to the question is ‘no’. You choose between ‘definitely no’ or ‘almost certainly no’ as you prefer! 😀

slighty o/t

Hi
slighty o/t but on e bay
http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13983&item=6539290265&rd=1
Cheers
Jerry