Sea Dart gets top billing; awesome. I grew up down the road from NAS Willow Grove when they had an remarkable row of war birds directly off of 611. A lot of them were captured axis aircraft to include an Arado floatplane, a two seater Me262, and an IJN Rex float fighter. These were alongside a panther, a cutlass, and a SEA DART resplendent with gloss blue and yello tail. From the parking lot you could see the A-10s, A-4s, H-53s, Hercs, H-2s, and P-3s take off and land. It was a great time for a young kid.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Little known / experimental aircraft
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Some firefighting airplanes...
Besides the real estate consumption, what arguments exist/existed against proven airliner designs for COD aircraft?
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/airliners-landing-aircraft-carrier-oh-yes/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/airliners-landing-aircraft-carrier-oh-yes/
One, real estate is a big deal on the Boat. You couldn't embark a C-9 without clobbering the hell out of the flight deck. The requirement for a super-size COD doesn't really exist, certainly not enough to justify the engineering and development costs.
Two, they're not really "proven" designs for carrier operations. There's a lot more to making something carrier capable than a hook and new landing gear.
Every landing of those would be a potential ship-destroying disaster, I would think. Think 9-11 on the high seas.
I agree. I know I'm an old guy and from a different era... but WTF! Why would you need a COD that large? Crap, I was really on my toes and extra alert when working around Whales. The flight deck is a busy place and not very spacious. BZB was a COD driver for a while, I'd like to have heard his opinion... Man I miss that old fart posting and his phone calls.
Last edited:
The author also seems to have forgotten that the S-3 has served as a COD in the past, and an "artist rendering" is not required to know what it would look like……
Not a COD guy, and that was well before my time so I don't know what limitations it had or why it was withdrawn, but it seems like the most viable replacement in my mind, other than new build C-2's.
Not a COD guy, and that was well before my time so I don't know what limitations it had or why it was withdrawn, but it seems like the most viable replacement in my mind, other than new build C-2's.
The author also seems to have forgotten that the S-3 has served as a COD in the past, and an "artist rendering" is not required to know what it would look like……
Not a COD guy, and that was well before my time so I don't know what limitations it had or why it was withdrawn, but it seems like the most viable replacement in my mind, other than new build C-2's.
Miss Piggy!
Why isn't it a good replacement? It had very little cargo capacity even compared to the V-22. I think it could carry six passengers max (crammed in behind the pilots) and a comparable amount of cargo, and nothing bigger than could fit in the hatch so even pretty restrictive limits on size and not just weight. An okay trash hauler for small sized cargo, like the daily ATO to each of the boats in Desert Storm, but not a good COD replacement by any means.
Then there was the COD variant of the Hornet, dubbed the Cornet. It required so many modifications it was barely recognizable as an airplane. No one knows which was the front and which was the tail. We do know that it was to be powered by the hot air expelled from Washington. Here's an artist rendering:
Saw this at Prague-Kbely Museum - and can not remember its name - but what a weird looking machine.
Question for the audience: does a biplane have the flaps/ailerons on the top wing / bottom wing / or both wings - and why? Never thought about that before.
Question for the audience: does a biplane have the flaps/ailerons on the top wing / bottom wing / or both wings - and why? Never thought about that before.
Either just the top or bottom or in the case of some WWI fighters and aerobatic, both.
My understanding is the bottom wing of biplanes is really for stability, not so much the lift it generates. There's so much interference drag from the upper wing there wouldn't be much point in control surfaces unless the wings are very staggered.
I can't remember who or where I heard the quote, but I seem to recall an old-timer describe the way the US-3s were used as "an IG investigation waiting to happen." Guess there were a lot of bro deals made for cargo and/or seats?