Jump to content

Talk:Carrier-based aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History focus should be on the aircraft

[edit]

Most of the history section could easily be cut and pasted into an article on aircraft carriers. The section does not have sufficient information on the history and development of aircraft suited for carriers. --Zeamays (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response, I deleted most of the carrier-centric material and added a statement regarding the necessity of specialized aircraft to operate from carriers. --Zeamays (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closing this thread per WP:Not a forum for non-relevance talk.

Aircraft encompass rotorcraft as well as fixed wing craft. This article doesn't seem to cover rotorcraft

[edit]

Shouldn't this article cover rotor craft as well?TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closing this thread per WP:Not a forum for non-relevance talk.

C-130 Hercules

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk check out the video above (after 2:00), c-130 can also land on aircraft carriers Orparask (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dude, the title reads as Carrier-based aircraft. Besides C-130, there's the U-2, B-25 and couple other aircraft as well but we don't include them because you won't find any of them being based on any aircraft carrier on any long term basis. Hope this clear things with you and another thing, please don't use this talk page for general discussion purpose as it is WP:Not a forum. Thank you! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JATO and helicopters

[edit]

Should the C-130 JATO experiments be mentioned? And per Dave, if you take that reasoning, any airplane that can take off or land in 1,000 ft would be listed in this article. Antonovs, pipers, etc.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all carriers are 1000 feet long. As to the C-130 and U-2 experiments, they could be mentoned in the article, if it's properly sourced. Not sure why the push on helicopters, though. The article deals primarily with fixed-wing aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of any Antonovs being flown from carriers, though the Piper L-4 was flown from converted landing ships... and in the same vein, several DHC-5 Buffalos were flown experimentally from carriers, testing out various engine layouts (which led to the YC-14 and 15) and an inflatable undercarriage for landing anywhere. I think they all should be listed, but clearly indicated that it was a limited number of aircraft strictly for experimental purposes. Helicopters are a different matter - they were initially excluded because any helicopter can land on a ship, and many not otherwise considered naval helicopters have done so - the list would degenerate into an almost indiscriminate list of helicopters, though that doesn't mean a seperate list of naval helicopters isn't possible.NiD.29 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were carrier-based airplanes then confining it to airplanes and excluding helicopters would make sense, although it would pose a problem for fence-sitters like the v-22. But this article is titled carrier based aircraft, and helicopters make up a large portion of carrier-based aircraft. Navalized helicopters deserve a proper mention, particularly carrier specific helicopters such as AEW helicopters. Someone argued that theoretically any helicopter could land on a carrier, so if AEW helicopters are allowed in carrier-based aircraft, then all helicopters must be listed, to which I replied, then, by that logic, all STOL Antonovs and pipers and other planes that could land on a supercarrier would have to be listed. And it's interesting that you use the term fixed-wing aircraft, although I suppose that term means non-rotating wing aircraft rather than non-folding wing aircraft. I don't think that a overly burdensome different number of helicopters have landed on helicopters, and I'm not looking to list every helicopter type that has ever landed on any carrier, for instance, I think that there have been the odd instance when an o-2 cessna has landed on a carrier with refuges, and things like that. When I look at an article about carrier based aircraft I would like to see a list of carrier based helicopters. Specific, navalized helicopters that have officially served for significant periods of time in formal carrier aviation squadrons. When reading about carrier-based aircraft I'd like to know how the UK developed AEW helicopters as a result of the falklands. I'd like to read about russian AEW helicopters. I'd like to read about what helicopters operate off french carriers, and the carriers of other navies.TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see is that most carrier based aircraft require special modification or abilities not general to all aircraft to be able to operate from carriers, including provision for catapult launches and arrested landings as well as a heavier, stronger structure to handle the greater stresses of landing on a pitching deck, and this page should be about those specific traits and the development of them rather than being a list of the aircraft types that have been operated from ships, as there is already a List of carrier-based aircraft (partially and pointlessly duplicated here). Helicopters on the other hand do not require any modifications to operate from ships of any kind, although many use wheels instead of skids to facilitate movement, have more extensive anti-corrosion measures and may use special equipment to help them land, such as the Beartrap (hauldown device). If you add helicopters, dirigibles will also need to be added as they too were operated from the decks of ships, and that then brings in kit balloons, which operated from many of the earliest aviation vessels, which, if ignored will give this article an excessive bias toward current practices.NiD.29 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most carrier based helicopters have modifications for their use on carriers such as folding rotors, sometimes folding tails, as well as modifications to address salt-water corrosion and such. Adding dirigibles and other carrier aircraft would be a good addition to this page.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed on Harrier Claim

[edit]

In the section Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing the author claims ski jumps are used because the Harrier can't hover with maximum load. This claim seems false.

The Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine requires water injection to provide enough thrust to hover a fully loaded Harrier aircraft. (See Water Injection.) The Hawker Siddeley Harrier aircraft only carries enough water for 90 seconds of hovering. This very short endurance seems to be the reason for the ski jump take off. Taking off vertically and accelerating to level flight from hovering would use up most of the water. Then there would only be a little water left to use when landing. This means the pilot would only have one shot at landing the aircraft, leaving no other option than to eject after a single failed landing attempt. The claim that it can't hover fully loaded seems false. Student342 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're overthinking it. Any VTOL aircraft that is capable of STO can carry more simply because of the wings providing more lift during a short take-off. That's simple physics and aerodynamics, and shouldn't need a cite. - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That claim can be debunked by simply looking at the specs of the Harrier. If it can hover fully loaded and land vertically with full load it can take off vertically with a full load. The load restrictions are often structural. Saying that an illogical claim shouldn't need proof isn't proof. Student342 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional reason would be damaging the flight deck. When landing on a carrier, the pilot always cuts the power to idle before touching the deck. According to a Harrier pilot I met at an air show, they can only take off vertically from a concrete surface. Any other surface would be damaged by the heat from the nozzles, if full vertical thrust was applied at ground level. Student342 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a reliable source somewhere to answer your question. I removed the citation needed tag in good faith that you'd accept my answer as reasonable. Hopefully you'll run into that Harrier pilot again, and he can answer this question for you. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of this source answers the question basically as I did. This isn't a reliable source per WP standards, so I'm not going to add it to the article. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrier-based aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrier-based_aircraft&oldid=1200663896"