'Videos of the Day' an ongoing thread (1 Viewer)

[Royzee617]

Pretty Russian lady makes this a worthwhile download!

 

[Gnomey]

Nice video Roy. She wasn't bad.

 

[Royzee617]

Probably have seen this but just in case....

 

[Gnomey]

I hadn't seen that before Roy, good video!

 

[evangilder]

I saw the C-130 one a few years ago. Still an amazing piece of footage!

 

[102first_hussars]

That is cool. I wonder if it could stop, and then take off without a catapault.

 

[evangilder]

Yes, it did both. No wire to stop, no cat to take off.

 

[Gnomey]

Yes, it did both. No wire to stop, no cat to take off.

That makes it even more cool

 

[evangilder]

Yep, but talk about pucker factor! With the size of the C-130, I could imagine that clearance might be a bit nerve-wracking as well.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes they were trying out the herc for the Carrier On-board Delivery role, somewhat ironically shortened to COD.......

 

[Aggie08]

Yes, it did both. No wire to stop, no cat to take off.

How did it do that without jet assisted takeoff?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

they were designed with some degree of short feild ability in mind, and remember it would be empty by this point as the cargo would've been unloaded..........

 

[Royzee617]

I wonder what other big planes have made it aboard a US carrier? I saw a clip once of a U2 landing. Not exactly big but rather wide. Maybe the C130 was the only 4-engined plane to do it.

Anyway, back to the clips. Another big plane for you first up - the rara avis version of the Mighty Hunter, the Nimrod R1 at RAF Waddington show a few years back.

 

[102first_hussars]

It must have been a much lighter version. Because an F-18 needs a flippin catty to get off the deck.

 

[evangilder]

Yes, it did both. No wire to stop, no cat to take off.

How did it do that without jet assisted takeoff?

Well, the C-130 actually has a good short takeoff capability. Add the carrier cruising along at (I'm guessing here) about 20 knots into the wind and you likely already have 40 or so knots under the wings. I don't know the takeoff speed of a 130, but I do remember that even loaded, it could takeoff in a short distance.

 

[102first_hussars]

I guess it must have to do with acceleration, but still the aircraft loaded and everything must way well over 50tons, whereas the the average fighter ways what 15 to 20?

 

[Royzee617]

Looks like it took off after stopping so it was from a standing start. Even more interesting is that it went off the 'side' runway rather than the full length of the deck.

Plus it seems it did not need a wire to bring it to a halt so the Herky Bird must have had good brakes.

One wonders tho if this was viable with a worthwhile cargo. Likely this demo was 'hollow' and underweight.

Will they try to put a C17 thro the same test?

A useful plane for this kind of work would be the Avro 146 methinks.

 

[evangilder]

There is a good writeup on the tests below:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml

During the tests, they did run full cargo!

All told, the flight tests included 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights ranging from 85,000 lb (38,555 kg) to 121,000 lb (54,885 kg). At the lower weight, the aircraft managed to come to a complete stop in only 267 ft (81 m), which is little more than double the plane's wingspan. Even at maximum weight, the C-130 required only 745 ft (227 m) for takeoff and 460 ft (140 m) for landing. Landings were made shorter by reversing the propellers while the aircraft was still a few feet above the flight deck. Videos documenting the landing and takeoff attempts are available on-line.

 

[Gnomey]

Nice find Eric. Good site there, enjoyed reading what they had to say.

 

[evangilder]

They have a lot of good info there. There is a link at the bottom of that page to one on the U-2 landings on the carrier decks.