# Zero Length Launch of Manned Fighters



## MIflyer (Feb 26, 2021)

Wild! How would you like to be one of those pilots?

Anyone remember the Hawk F-84G kit?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 26, 2021)

This one looks a lot less fraught.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 26, 2021)

They tested a F-100 and F-104, too.

Of course, the Luftwaffe was somewhat ahead of the ZLL idea with their Ba349


----------



## Graeme (Feb 26, 2021)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2021)

Nice animated .GIF, Graeme - is that the MiG-19?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Feb 27, 2021)

Hi Dave. Yes, The SM-30 variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 27, 2021)

A long time ago now I did a couple of bungee launches in a glider at the Midland Glider Club does that count?

The attached is a clip of such a launch at the Midland Club, and I can assure you that I was just as nervous as the first timer in the clip.

Bungee launch. Midland Gliding Club. - YouTube

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 27, 2021)

And the USN was also pursuing this capability

The F4U launch shown at the bottom in this article from the 11-44 issue of All Hands, the magazine published by the USN BuPers, page 39, took place on 1 March 1944, taking off from USS Altamaha. That F4U is buno 56048 piloted by LCDR William N Leonard. I believe the 18 March date cited in the article is as the first carrier takeoff is incorrect, Leonard's pilot's log show the first three entries for March 1944 all on the 1st as the date of the tests. It also shows a land-based test on 31 Jan 44 in the same F4U, 56048, and again on 2 and 3 February. On 21 February he did a couple of FCLPs in F4U buno 02565 and then CarQuals on Altamaha on 24 Feb 44 in that same F4U as prep for this test.






The following shots are of Leonard aboard and taking off from Altamaha on 1 Mar 1944
















Somewhere around here I've a film snippet that I'll try to find. The F4U launch, he did two that day, was reported to me as not very noticeable until actually leaving the flight deck and by then the JATO was close to exhaustion. Eventually it was decided that the residue from the JATO units left a nasty white residue all over everything and the presence of salt spray made it a paste hard to remove and suspected of having corrosive effects on plexiglass. So, they did not actually use the capability during the war.

Leonard was an ace who had flown in combat with VF-42 (Yorktown CV-5), VF-3 (Yorktown CV-5) and VF-11 (ashore Guadalcanal). At the time of the JATO experiments he was Director of VF Training at ComFAirWest, NAS San Diego.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 27, 2021)

When at Caltech they were developing the rockets to be used on the Ercoupe test they noted that they would blow up on occasion. One did so on the Ercoupe. Then they figured out that the ones that blew up had been sitting around for a while. So they would get up early, cast some rocket motors, load them in a station wagon and drive them out to March AFB for the Ercoupe tests. 

Eventually they discovered that the ingredient in the rocket propellant that came to be known as the Plasticizer would dry out if it sat too long. When it did, ignition of the rocket motor would cause the now-brittle propellant to fragment, thereby increasing the burning area, resulting in a much faster increase in chamber pressure and ... Boom! They found that the best material available then for the propellant to keep it pliable was asphalt. Later developments led to CTPB and then HTPB propellant binders.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 27, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> When at Caltech they were developing the rockets to be used on the Ercoupe test they noted that they would blow up on occasion. One did so on the Ercoupe. Then they figured out that the ones that blew up had been sitting around for a while. So they would get up early, cast some rocket motors, load them in a station wagon and drive them out to March AFB for the Ercoupe tests.
> 
> Eventually they discovered that the ingredient in the rocket propellant that came to be known as the Plasticizer would dry out if it sat too long. When it did, ignition of the rocket motor would cause the now-brittle propellant to fragment, thereby increasing the burning area, resulting in a much faster increase in chamber pressure and ... Boom! They found that the best material available then for the propellant to keep it pliable was asphalt. Later developments led to CTPB and then HTPB propellant binders.



They were still having some of those problems with solid fueled rockets even in the late 60's.
One of my jobs at Hill, AFB was taking Minute Man 1st stage boosters out of storage and taking they to area where they tested them for thrust, to see how the thrust varied with storage time. 
We were waiting on a rim of hills about a mile from the testing testing fixture, ( we had to retrieve the used up shell, and take it for disposal )
The testing fixture was horizontal.
Suddenly a flame shot through the side near one of the hold downs, which failed. Then the rest failed.
The booster went bounding across the wasteland, at one point in our direction.
Finally it hit the ground at a steep angle and exploded, about 1/2 mile away. 

We didn't do anymore of that testing while I was there.
My guess is they were redesigning the testing fixture.

I remember when we were assembling 2.75 FFAR rockets, in the USAF and Army, if they showed any clue of being dropped, or rough handling, they were supposed to be turned over to EOD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 27, 2021)

Wasn't some of the WW2 carriers equipped with a catapult on the hanger deck that shot the aircraft out the side ?
Maybe not exact zero ground run , but close to it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2021)

The Yorktown and Essex class CVs had a hangar deck catapult, though it was rarely used.
While it might have seemed convenient, the launching aircraft didn't have the additional wind across the bow to help with getting airborn.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 28, 2021)

The RN sometimes used rockets in launching their aircraft from carriers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 26, 2021)

Europe 239 

The Luftwaffe threw themselves at the idea, being so close to the frontline. This F-104 is on display at the Luftwaffenmuseum at Gatow.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jul 16, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> Wasn't some of the WW2 carriers equipped with a catapult on the hanger deck that shot the aircraft out the side ?
> Maybe not exact zero ground run , but close to it.


Not to mention all the cruisers/battleships with catapults which were barely twice as long as the aircraft they launched. I wouldn't be surprised if the acceleration of a catapult is harder on the pilot than that of a rocket booster. The catapult has to accelerate a plane above stall speed in a matter of a few meters, while booster rockets like those employed for RATO usually burn for 10 seconds or more (and part of their thrust also serves to counter the weight of the plane till the wings start to do their work)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2021)

To expand on the above post a little, many catapult locations aboard Cruisers and Battleships were situated where the aircraft did not have the benefit of a headwind, as some were located at the stern or atop a rear turret.
Some catapults were even situated midship, launching over the side from between the superstructure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2021)

We often forget that the Hurricane and Fulmar CAM fighters were rocket launched.

If its of interest on a cable winch launch of a Glider acceleration can be up to 0 - 60mph in 2.5 seconds which feels pretty fast when your experiencing it for the first time


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2021)

The stall speed of a Fairey Swordfish was about 50MPH so with a good head wind it could take off flying backwards. The maximum speed of a Supermarine Walrus was around 130 MPH, I cant find a stall speed for it, but in that era aeroplanes were frequently called kites, for a good reason.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 16, 2021)

According to an unimpeachable source, "Air Stories March 1939," (attached) the landing speed of the Supermarine Walrus was 57 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> According to an unimpeachable source, "Air Stories March 1939," (attached) the landing speed of the Supermarine Walrus was 57 mph.


The walrus was a sea plane, in an open harbour it could be launched from a ship, skim down onto the surface and take off again. If the sea was flat it had no terror at all.


----------

