Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bengali3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bengali3

>Yeah, yeah they can't fly off a carrier

I want to believe we have the technology to make this happen

View on HN

This thread discusses some issues:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533255

Among them are size (it's wingspan exceeds the F-14) and the structure of the airframe (which wasn't designed for catapults/arrestors).

The other question is how the operational success of the thing doesn't stand up to the political process than creates mudballs.

my understanding is that with the new non-steam electric driven catapults..they in fact can

The USS Ford can probably safely launch one. So you could do one-way Doolittle style raids. But their landing gear and the lack of an arrester hook means they're not strong enough for the controlled-crash that is a carrier landing.

You could probably do short landing using the GAU (fire the sucker while approaching as a gigantic, expensive and completely insane brake)

I bet the deck crews will love that.

Sigh. I really wish that HN supported "+1 funny" moderation. :)

"Hey guys, don't mind those DU shells flying over you! I just need to slow this bird down!"

Their relatively slow speed requires a longer runway, I presume

A plane that can fly at a slower speed means you need a shorter distance to take off (all other things being equal).

I think the biggest problem is their huge wingspan. They don't have folding wings, so there is no storage space.

No, just the opposite. Think of low speed as meaning it can fly in spite of low relative air-speed. If a plane could fly at 20 knots, say, then it could take off with 0 runway length if the carrier is steaming at 20 knots into the wind. It would just appear to hover up into the air relative to the carrier.

Alaskan bush pilots manage zero-roll takeoffs and landings, in favorable conditions. YouTube videos if you look for them.

I flew with negative groundspeed in a Taylorcraft once. That was a "fun" day.

Some examples:

http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bPSElw8qEsI

http://fixyt.com/watch?v=lv5BtJMKamM

Getting competitive: http://fixyt.com/watch?v=tvT5LMhvogw

And a non-Alaskan entry:

http://fixyt.com/watch?v=0zDo7hkmCNY

Those planes have ridiculously big knobby tires. It makes total sense, but certainly not something I'd have thought of.

Not so much knobby as balloon tires.

If you're landing on a wide range of terrain, much of it unimproved, soft, and/or uneven, large tires will float you over the soggy stuff and smooth out the lumps (large wheels experience less shock with terrain / surface variation than small ones)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com