For aircraft enthusiasts: US built carrier planes used on non US Navy Carriers

[Saiyaman]

It's funny how it goes, when a plane is developed for use on carriers it also makes for a good plane for land use because of it being able to operate from airfields with short landing strips and the folding wings make it so much easier to store than a plane with the wings fixed.

McDonnel/Douglas F-4 Phantoms and Grumman A-6 Intruder planes on the start deck of the USS Midway with their wings folded.

But there aren't many naval air arms out there who use those carrier planes for what they were meant to: for use on carriers. So I figured it to be fun to point out the planes that were. Starting with the already mentioned MDD F-4 Phantom.

The only Naval Air Arm aside from the US navy to use the Phantom on carriers was the British Royal Navy.

British Phantoms were quite different from their US counterparts, they had different avionics and different engines, being powered by Rolls Royce "Spey" turbofans which were more powerful than the GE J-79 which powered the US Phantoms. The Brits operated their Phantoms from HMS Ark Royal until she was decommissioned after which they were used by the Royal Airforce for many years.

Then there's the Venerable Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, which has flown (and continues to fly) with many airforces but has also seen three other operators aside the US navy to fly them from carriers.

The Royal Australian Navy operated their fleet of Skyhawks from the HMAS Melbourne

The Brazillians fly them from the Sao Paolo

http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/ar25may.jpg
And the Argentinians flew them from the Veinticinco de Mayo, note also the French built Dassault Super Etendard fighters.

Now, far less glorious but a very important plane on US carriers is the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.

For over 45 years and counting, the Hawkeye has provided the US Navy with eyes in the sky and with such a good operational record it isn't that surprising that plenty of airforces have bought it for use in exactly that role but of those foreign users there's only one who uses theirs on a carrier.

The French Naval Air arm uses their Hawkeyes on the Charles Du Gaulle.

And I'll end this with one of the most bad ass fighters the US Navy ever had:the Chance-Vought F-8 Crusader.

Fondly remembered by those who flew it and the legend it has by the general public as being "the last gun fighter" the Crusader's place in history has been secured many times over. But what's less well known is that the only other naval air arm operator who used their fleet of Crusaders from carriers flew them much longer than the US Navy did.

the French used their F-8 Crusaders from 1964 until 1999, their longevity was mainly attributed to the fact that indigenous fighters which were developed to replace it, such as the Sepecat Jaguar M and the Dassault Rafale M, were either unsatisfactory in their performance or were taking too long in development.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

And this is relevant to authoring erotica in what way?

 

[Saiyaman]

And this is relevant to authoring erotica in what way?

In the same way as people who are posting political, environmental and religious threads on this forum and have nobody asking them about the link to authoring Erotica are.

I did plenty aviation threads before and people were always enthusiastic about them.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's funny how it goes, when a plane is developed for use on carriers it also makes for a good plane for land use because of it being able to operate from airfields with short landing strips and the folding wings make it so much easier to store than a plane with the wings fixed.

That's not true -- at least not without some modifications to make a plane suitable for dry-land basing.

Take the F-4 Phantom: The Navy versions use smaller tires and thinner brake stacks; that means they need more runway to stop on and suffer more hot brake incidents that Air Force models. Much of the carrier specific features were eliminated or modified in land based versions of the Phantom. Things like the extendible nose strut and small main tire/brake stack were changed with the F4C. Things like the hydraulic wing-fold actuators were dropped in later versions.

Speaking of folding wings, they nothing but a pain in the butt for land based aircraft. They add unnecessary weight and add maintenance hours for a feature that is seldom used and wouldn't be missed.

The Tailhook on the Air Force F4s was another anachronism that caused more trouble than it was worth. Almost all Air Force fighter do have a tail-hook for emergency landings, but the F4 tail hook is hydraulically actuated and about ten times as heavy as the hook on something like the F15 or F16. The F4 tailhook requires daily maintenance checks and nearly four hours worth of time added to periodic maintenance.

After 21 years working on F4 Phantoms, I can't recall a single "good thing" that was a hold-over from the carrier-based origins of the basic design.

 

[Weird Harold]

US built carrier planes used on non US Navy Carriers

PS:

You could have gone much further back in history.

The Chance-Vought F4U Corsair was used by most of the Allied navies aboard carriers, even though the US Navy resisted using them aboard our carriers until late in the war. England also used F4F Wildcats and F6F Hellcats aboard their carriers, IIRC.

I'm not sure about cross-navy utilization of Korean war era Jets, but American-built helicopters found their way into most western Navies from the '50s through the present day.

 

[Handley_Page]

" The only Naval Air Arm aside from the US navy to use the Phantom on carriers was the British Royal Navy.

British Phantoms were quite different from their US counterparts, they had different avionics and different engines, being powered by Rolls Royce "Spey" turbofans which were more powerful than the GE J-79 which powered the US Phantoms. The Brits operated their Phantoms from HMS Ark Royal until she was decommissioned after which they were used by the Royal Air Force for many years."

The Ark's Phantoms may well have done so, but please remember that the RAF had it's own stock of "Toombs" (which were damn good !)

 

[TE999]

The Chance-Vought F4U Corsair was used by most of the Allied navies aboard carriers, even though the US Navy resisted using them aboard our carriers until late in the war. England also used F4F Wildcats and F6F Hellcats aboard their carriers, IIRC.

Some trivia:

The US Navy considered the Corsairs landing speed too 'hot' for carrier landings after several accidents. This was due more to inexperienced pilots than the plane itself.

The Fleet Air Arm initially called Wildcats and Hellcats Marlets and Gannets, then adopted the US names to eliminate confusion.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah, though those names are less warlike, they make better sense for sea-going aircraft. But, as you say, keeping the original names saves confusion.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Interesting about the high landing speed of the f 4 U Corsair. I had always heard the problem with them for carrier landing was the high nose up attitude the needed to catch the wire. Because of the nose attitude needed the pilot could not see the carrier deck during the last couple of seconds before landing.

Although the USMC pilots didn't seem to have the same problems as the navy guys did initially.

Of course I'm getting old so my memory may not be what it used to be. (LOL)

Mike

 

[Weird Harold]

Some trivia:

The US Navy considered the Corsairs landing speed too 'hot' for carrier landings after several accidents. This was due more to inexperienced pilots than the plane itself.

It wasn't so much the landing speed as it was the US Navy's insistence on a straight-in approach which wasn't possible with the Corsairs' long nose. The only way to see the deck on a straight-in approach was to come in fast and that made the landings too "hot" for the arresting gear.

The Royal Navy solved the visibility/speed problem with a circling approach at higher angle of attack and lower speed which meant the Corsair actually landed slower than the wildcats and hellcats on their straight-in approaches.

Actually, the Royal Navy solved a LOT of carrier operations problems in ways the US Navy copied shamelessy.

 

[PayDay]

Actually, the Royal Navy solved a LOT of carrier operations problems in ways the US Navy copied shamelessy.

Vouch. The majority of carrier ideas and layouts are British.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Absolutely. The mirror landing system. the angled deck and maybe the steam cat. although I am not too sure about the latter. We steal it, file the serial number off and claim it as ours. (LOL)

Mike

 

[PayDay]

Absolutely. The mirror landing system. the angled deck and maybe the steam cat. although I am not too sure about the latter. We steal it, file the serial number off and claim it as ours. (LOL)

Mike

1. Yeah, we stole the angled deck.

2. All is fair in love and war.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nope. The steam cat is an American thing. Nobody who builds their own carriers (rather than buying ours war surplus) uses it. They all use a ramped deck instead.

 

[Weird Harold]

Nope. The steam cat is an American thing. Nobody who builds their own carriers (rather than buying ours war surplus) uses it. They all use a ramped deck instead.

From wikipedia:

Although Germans had utilized seaplane tenders using engine steam to launch their Dornier Do J mailplanes on their South Atlantic Air Mail service as early as 1933, the modern steam catapult was a British invention.[5] The use of steam to launch aircraft was suggested by Commander Colin C. Mitchell RNVR,[6] and trials on HMS Perseus, flown by pilots such as Eric "Winkle" Brown, from 1950 showed its effectiveness. Navies introduced steam catapults, capable of launching the heavier jet fighters, in the mid-1950s.
...

 

[Handley_Page]

The latest trick seems to involve Electro-magnetism.

 

[TE999]

The latest trick seems to involve Electro-magnetism.

Prolly the same tech as a Railgun.

 

[Saiyaman]

It wasn't so much the landing speed as it was the US Navy's insistence on a straight-in approach which wasn't possible with the Corsairs' long nose. The only way to see the deck on a straight-in approach was to come in fast and that made the landings too "hot" for the arresting gear.

The Royal Navy solved the visibility/speed problem with a circling approach at higher angle of attack and lower speed which meant the Corsair actually landed slower than the wildcats and hellcats on their straight-in approaches.

Actually, the Royal Navy solved a LOT of carrier operations problems in ways the US Navy copied shamelessy.

One thing the Royal Navy solved which the US Navy didn't take over involved THIS plane.

The Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber which was meant to replace the aging Douglas SBD Dauntless. On paper the Helldiver provided the US Navy with a plane that was faster than the Dauntless, better armed and with a larger range.

But in practice the Helldiver turned out to have a too fast landing speed, a top heavy nature, making it very unstable in a dive (which for a dive bomber is rather crucial) and a rather weak tail which often snapped off on impact.

These problems all came about because of the helldiver not having been properly tested, the Navy NEEDED planes ASAP and so the untested Helldiver went into production with the problems not fixed.

But leave it to the Brits to provide a solution. They got hold of a Helldiver through the Lend-lease deal with the Americans and their top Navy test pilots tried it out vigorously and came to the following conclusion:

Like hell were they ever going to go near an aircraft carrier with that flying coffin.

The Brits deemed totally unsuitable to use in combat, let alone on an aircraft carrier. Renowned test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown said that after flying the Helldiver, those US pilots and crews that insisted that "SB2C" stood for "Son of a bitch second class" had his profound sympathy.

 

[amicus]

Fantastic photography, Saiyaman, thank you, really enjoyable visuals.

Who is the shrivelled prune cunt land sea sky person? Another censorship idiot,with a whole 147 posts? Where do these pissants come from?

There is a series on t he Militaru Channel, 'At Se',I think, tha thas been very good with excellent footage.

Keep it going....


Amicus

 

[PayDay]

There is a series on t he Militaru Channel, 'At Se',I think, tha thas been very good with excellent footage.

Keep it going....


Amicus

www.imponline.com (International Masters Publishing) has a pimp little DVD titled 'US Navy Carriers' from the Weapons At War series.

It includes a booklet with a ton of useful little tidbits, even if the film is only like 40 minutes. Everything discussed here is on it, along with so much more.

 

[WantABWriter]

I agree about the F-4

Was stationed with the 388th during Viet Nam. We had F4E's they were just a little better than the F 105's they replaced mainly due to the fact they had 2 engines.

They required a lot of maintenance and many flew with systems not fully operationial. One persistant problem I recall was the air speed indicator. On many landings a pace plane would fly in with them and monitor their speed.

They were just a quick fix for the Air Force till the F 15 and F 16 were developed. In my opoinion.

The E's had a vulcan gun in the nose....if you see any photos of the era and note an F 4 with tiger teeth painted on the nose, they were from the 388th.

I did it and it was good for me but I do see the waste the war was. And I see the same waste in the Iraq and Afghanistan.

from a 316 stationed at KRTABT

Jack

 

[Handley_Page]

Didn't they call that "Puff the magic Dragon" ?

 

[TxRad]

Didn't they call that "Puff the magic Dragon" ?

The original Puffs were c-47 cargo planes with a row of mini guns down one side of the fuselage inside. They fired through the windows and were controlled by a "gunner" who had limited control of the planes roll. The copilot also helped with the "aiming".

They were replaced later on with c-130's which carried more mini guns, more ammo, and in a few cases, belt fed 40mm "grenade" launchers. They were called "Spook".

 

[Weird Harold]

The original Puffs were c-47 cargo planes with a row of mini guns down one side of the fuselage inside. They fired through the windows and were controlled by a "gunner" who had limited control of the planes roll. The copilot also helped with the "aiming".

They were replaced later on with c-130's which carried more mini guns, more ammo, and in a few cases, belt fed 40mm "grenade" launchers. They were called "Spook".

Actually, the call-sign "Spooky" was assigned to the AC-47s. The forgotten gunships, the AC119 were call-sign Shadow and the AC130 were "Spectre" (with the British Spelling) call-signs.

Spooky, aka "Puff the Magic Dragon," had just 4 x 7.62 NATO six-barrel gatling guns (aka mini-guns)

Shadow had four 20MM five barrel gatling guns, imaging IR aiming systems and a combining-glass gunsight for the command pilot. Some Shadow gunships had only three 20MM gatlings and one 40MM BOFORS cannon.

Spectre originally had four 20MM gatlings and two 40MM BOFORS. It also had improved imaging IR and low-light search and sighting systems tied into a combining glass gunsight for the command pilot. By the end of Vietnam, a 105MM Howitzer had been added.

It is said that a Vietnam era AC130 Spectre could put one 20MM HEI round in every square inch of a football field in 60 seconds. (HEI=="High Explosive Incendiary")

 

[TxRad]

Actually, the call-sign "Spooky" was assigned to the AC-47s. The forgotten gunships, the AC119 were call-sign Shadow and the AC130 were "Spectre" (with the British Spelling) call-signs.

Spooky, aka "Puff the Magic Dragon," had just 4 x 7.62 NATO six-barrel gatling guns (aka mini-guns)

Shadow had four 20MM five barrel gatling guns, imaging IR aiming systems and a combining-glass gunsight for the command pilot. Some Shadow gunships had only three 20MM gatlings and one 40MM BOFORS cannon.

Spectre originally had four 20MM gatlings and two 40MM BOFORS. It also had improved imaging IR and low-light search and sighting systems tied into a combining glass gunsight for the command pilot. By the end of Vietnam, a 105MM Howitzer had been added.

It is said that a Vietnam era AC130 Spectre could put one 20MM HEI round in every square inch of a football field in 60 seconds. (HEI=="High Explosive Incendiary")

It's been a long time and I was going from memory. It didn't matter which version was up there, everyone was happy to see them. Solid red lines of tracers were a good way to aim also.