English Electric Lightning

[Admiral Beez]

With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.

Hmm.... very high landing speed and spindly undercarriage.... maybe not.

 

[GTX]

With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.

Not with that hook, though there were designs for carrier based versions:

 

[nuuumannn]

With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.

On the majority of aircraft fitted with arrestor hooks that were not naval aircraft designed for landing on carriers, this couldn't be done for the simple fact that the hook was not strong enough to restrain the aircraft within the space a carrier aircraft lands at. The arrestor hooks on non-carrier based aircraft were designed to restrain the aircraft on airfield emergency arrestor systems that don't provide anywhere near the strain capability of carrier arrestor systems, bearing in mind that they're located on long concrete runways that provide plenty of rolling distance once the aircraft's movement has been arrested.

A wee pictorial representation of what we're dealing with. This is the arrestor hook on the Lightning, the boom is less than half an inch thick. In the picture with the hook, the drag chute stowage door can be seen.

DSC_0471

DSC_0456

This is an A-4's arrestor hook. Even though the A-4 is smaller and lighter than the Lightning, it's boom is beefier.

DSC_2273

For comparison, this is an F-4's arrestor hook. A mite more substantial given the Phantom was a bigger beast, but the point is obvious.

DSC_8504

 

[ww2restorer]

Is it true that the Lightning was the only interceptor that could from a standing start, catch an aggressor doing supersonic?

 

[Admiral Beez]

On the majority of aircraft fitted with arrestor hooks that were not naval aircraft designed for landing on carriers, this couldn't be done for the simple fact that the hook was not strong enough to restrain the aircraft within the space a carrier aircraft lands at. The arrestor hooks on non-carrier based aircraft were designed to restrain the aircraft on airfield emergency arrestor systems that don't provide anywhere near the strain capability of carrier arrestor systems, bearing in mind that they're located on long concrete runways that provide plenty of rolling distance once the aircraft's movement has been arrested.

A wee pictorial representation of what we're dealing with. This is the arrestor hook on the Lightning, the boom is less than half an inch thick. In the picture with the hook, the drag chute stowage door can be seen.

View attachment 684909DSC_0471

View attachment 684910DSC_0456

This is an A-4's arrestor hook. Even though the A-4 is smaller and lighter than the Lightning, it's boom is beefier.

View attachment 684911DSC_2273

For comparison, this is an F-4's arrestor hook. A mite more substantial given the Phantom was a bigger beast, but the point is obvious.

View attachment 684912DSC_8504

I wonder if the RCAF's CF-18s keep naval spec hooks for their land based arrested landings. Did USAF F-4 Phantoms have naval spec hooks?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wonder if the RCAF's CF-18s keep naval spec hooks for their land based arrested landings. Did USAF F-4 Phantoms have naval spec hooks?

I believe there was no "naval spec hooks" on either aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I believe there was no "naval spec hooks" on either aircraft.

I wonder what the weight or cost savings the RCAF accomplished by using a different hook.

I didn't know the Eagle had a hook.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wonder what the weight or cost savings the RCAF accomplished by using a different hook.

Not much - and more than likely there would be changes to the structure to support a such a modification. You're dealing with such powerful aircraft that the weight saving wouldn't make a difference in the end.

I didn't know the Eagle had a hook.

So does the F-117A - not very many photos of it - it was contained within the fuselage.

I saw the mock up and the first 2 F-117As being built. At the time none of us who were cleared on the program knew the designation or who was going to operate the aircraft. I assumed at the time that it was going to be a naval aircraft because of the tailhook on the mock up.

Credit FFRC

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not much..

Looking at the CF-18 image above and USN F-18s pics online the hook looks the same to me.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Looking at the CF-18 image above and USN F-18s pics online the hook looks the same to me.

They are probably the same

 

[rochie]

Also the Lightning had tyres that were good for only 12 landings, not very economical on-board a carrier where they probably wouldn't last even that long !

 

[nuuumannn]

Also the Lightning had tyres that were good for only 12 landings, not very economical on-board a carrier where they probably wouldn't last even that long !

Mains' pressure 360 psi, apparently... woulda been a few nasty bangs on a carrier. The Lightning was a maintenance hog, according to an ex-RAF engineer I got talking to once. He was amazed that they managed to keep them serviceable!

 

[rochie]

Mains' pressure 360 psi, apparently... woulda been a few nasty bangs on a carrier. The Lightning was a maintenance hog, according to an ex-RAF engineer I got talking to once. He was amazed that they managed to keep them serviceable!

Thanks Grant, i knew they were some ridiculous pressure but couldnt remember off hand and didnt want to make it up !