Glitch with upgrading Wildcats to Corsairs

[RangerJoe]

You should see a C-130 landing then taking off from an aircraft carrier![X(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You should see a C-130 landing then taking off from an aircraft carrier![X(]

Didn't land or take off from a carrier, but when I was on C-130s we had to take off from a tiny DEW line base airstrip which was shortened further by a soft spot near one end where our landing blew out the soft sand and left exposed, sharp rocks. The pilot had to get the aircraft to the other end or the runway, turn around, then reverse the props to back up for another few feet of distance. After that it was the old "stand on the brakes and wind up to full power, leaving it there for a couple of minutes to produce a small weather system with winds over the wing. Release the brakes and pray. I am pretty sure we were up in 700 feet or so. Nearly empty airplane and half fuel helped.

Didn't the C-130 on the carrier use RATO to ensure they made it off the deck?

[RangerJoe]

The crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft’s wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll.

From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/c-130- ... rier/2627/

With video:

The Navy discovered that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet of flight deck for takeoff and 460 feet for landing. These achievements were confirmed by Lockheed’s Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130 and stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. “The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off.”

The plane’s wingspan cleared the Forrestal’s flight deck “island” control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line.

As explained by Dabney, Lockheed’s chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard the USS Forrestal to observe the testing. “The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain’s bridge. I watched a man on the ship’s bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet.”

The speed of the ship was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction: in this way, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 kts wind on the nose. “That airplane stopped right opposite the captain’s bridge,” recalled Flock. “There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, “LOOK MA, NO HOOK.”

The analysis of data collected by the U.S. Navy during the tests highlighted that the C-130 Hercules could carry 25,000 pounds of freight, fly for 2,500 miles and eventually land on a carrier. However, the procedure was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy decided to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

In the video below you can see the trials conducted by the Hercules on the USS Forrestal and described in the article.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/07/16/c ... n-carrier/

[Ian R]

On the topic of the F4U carrier certification, here are a couple of interesting videos.

The first is actually about the Seafire, which had some of the same landing problems as the F4U-1. Vision restrictions, sink rate, etc. It also had its wings clipped.

The second is about FAA Corsairs, and apart from the topics under discussion, I was more than a little surprised to hear that FAA SOP using Corsairs in the attack role, was to fly in at 8000 feet, roll over into a near vertical dive... and in essence use them as a dive bomber. The old Corsair driver talking about it didn't sound overly fond of the experience. EDIT - the dive bombing description is in the third video at about 1720.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnVJJ9BVLGU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quo-AgC4ZiU

There is an amusing anecdote at about 21:38 on the second video.

Part 2 of the Corsair video is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5XSwyb_EU

At 11:17 -

American aircraft, in the main, had good visibility. The Corsair, unfortunately, wasn't one of those aeroplanes.