Are we ramping up to war with North Korea?

[boyst]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

The protocol is: eject.

Nobody crash lands on a carrier if they can avoid it...and they can generally avoid it unless they're already committed to landing.

I'm saying for emergency situations have they ever and would they ever land on another carrier?

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

I'm saying for emergency situations have they ever and would they ever land on another carrier?

 

Generally...what sherpa said.  Even historically, planes might land on different carriers of the same country.  But I can't think of an example of a plane landing on a carrier of a different country.  Operational practices are different enough between navies (Japanese, British, and American carriers had significantly different landing control practices and equipment, for example) that it's dangerous except in an extreme emergency.  And in any emergency that extreme, it's safer to eject or ditch (depending on era) and get picked out of the water.  

 

The only instance I can think of where a country's planes landed on another country's carriers was when the De Gaulle and Truman each tested landing their planes on the others' carrier about 10 years ago.  And that was highly planned and scripted...and even then there were some difficulties (French pilots had to worry about the deck park on landing, American pilots had to land on a shorter deck with much tighter constraints.)  In any sort of an emergency situation, they'd just ditch the plane.

[sherpa]

 

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Generally...what sherpa said. 

 

There is no "generally" about  the issue.

It simply would never be done.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely complicated.

Not possible.

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by sherpa

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

 

There is no "generally" about  the issue.

It simply would never be done.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely complicated.

Not possible.

 

 

Generally.

 

Given that he said "have they ever," it's possible - though unlikely - it happened pre-1945.  And given that once Harrier pilot in an emergency fuel situation landed his plane on a container ship (no, not the Atlantic Conveyer), it's possible that you could land a VTOL aircraft on a foreign deck in an emergency situation.  

It's important to note, though, that the Harrier pilot above had a functional plane in an emergency fuel situation, and still intended to eject until he saw he had enough space on the ship's deck to land - and it was probably not the best decision he ever made.  So generally it's not done, even in very rare situations where it could be.

[sherpa]

Harriers don't deploy anywhere near deployed US Navy carriers, so it doesn't matter.

 

On this subject, we were once invited to fly near the Australian carrier, HMS Melbourne.

Gave them the best flyby ever, then flew a landing pattern towards their deck.

They waived us off at 500', but I continued to about 50'.

Good guys. Good sense of humor.

 

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

 

There is no "generally" about  the issue.

It simply would never be done.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely complicated.

Not possible.

 

I so want to make up a story about before I was this black father of 3 Vietnam veteran I was a navy flier in wwi and landed many planes.

 

But I'm grateful. Thanks guys. 

[DC Tom]

57 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Harriers don't deploy anywhere near deployed US Navy carriers, so it doesn't matter.

 

On this subject, we were once invited to fly near the Australian carrier, HMS Melbourne.

Gave them the best flyby ever, then flew a landing pattern towards their deck.

They waived us off at 500', but I continued to about 50'.

Good guys. Good sense of humor.

 

 

 

What were you flying?  

 

You're lucky that jinxed boat didn't shoot you down.  

[sherpa]

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I so want to make up a story about before I was this black father of 3 Vietnam veteran I was a navy flier in wwi and landed many planes.

 

But I'm grateful. Thanks guys. 

 

If you do make up that story, don't use the phrase "Navy flyer."

Use "Naval Aviator."

That's what we call ourselves.

Anything else would be suspicious.

"Flyer" would be fatal.

Best wishes.

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

What were you flying?  

 

You're lucky that jinxed boat didn't shoot you down.  

 

A7.

They invited us via message, and we were in contact with them.

Great flyby.

As my wingman said, you know its a great flyby when you're at three miles astern and they ask you where you are.

They were looking up and we below flight deck level right at mach, so they couldn't hear us.

I took the left side and he the right. We went by on both sides at 90 degrees bank, so all they saw was our bellies.

Then we joined up and flew the approach, as I mentioned.

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

I so want to make up a story about before I was this black father of 3 Vietnam veteran I was a navy flier in wwi and landed many planes.

 

But I'm grateful. Thanks guys. 

I'm guessing that in WW1 there weren't any Navy Aviators. I could be wrong but I don't think there were any from the Air Force either. Sherpa or our very own Cliff Claven would most likely know, but I think the Flyboys were attached to the Army then.

[boyst]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

I'm guessing that in WW1 there weren't any Navy Aviators. I could be wrong but I don't think there were any from the Air Force either. Sherpa or our very own Cliff Claven would most likely know, but I think the Flyboys were attached to the Army then.

i was stationed on the Nimitiz for WWI, actually.

helped bomb pearl harbor.

[3rdnlng]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

i was stationed on the Nimitiz for WWI, actually.

helped bomb pearl harbor.

Then you must be German.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

If you do make up that story, don't use the phrase "Navy flyer."

Use "Naval Aviator."

That's what we call ourselves.

Anything else would be suspicious.

"Flyer" would be fatal.

Best wishes.

 

A7.

They invited us via message, and we were in contact with them.

Great flyby.

As my wingman said, you know its a great flyby when you're at three miles astern and they ask you where you are.

They were looking up and we below flight deck level right at mach, so they couldn't hear us.

I took the left side and he the right. We went by on both sides at 90 degrees bank, so all they saw was our bellies.

Then we joined up and flew the approach, as I mentioned.

 

Reason I asked is because I was wondering what you were flying in a "landing pattern toward the deck" of a WWII-era light carrier.  An A-7's a might big to touch down on the Melbourne.  I'd have laughed my ass off if you'd said RA-5.

 

One of the other big reasons you don't land on dissimilar carriers - not all carriers can handle all carrier-capable planes.  No one's landing anything larger than a Harrier on the Thai Royal Yacht any time soon, under any circumstances.

21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm guessing that in WW1 there weren't any Navy Aviators. I could be wrong but I don't think there were any from the Air Force either. Sherpa or our very own Cliff Claven would most likely know, but I think the Flyboys were attached to the Army then.

 

US naval aviation began before World War 1 - between 1903 and 1910, depending on how you define "begins."  Seaplanes, mostly, but probably some dirigibles too (which were popular world-wide as fleet scouts).

 

US naval aviation has always been separate from the Army Air Corps.  The British consolidated all their airpower in to the RAF, which is one of the reasons the British used so many US naval aircraft in World War 2 - since the Fleet Air Arm was was part of the RAF, it limited Royal Navy input into design and operational requirements, and they ended up with some sadly insufficient planes.

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Reason I asked is because I was wondering what you were flying in a "landing pattern toward the deck" of a WWII-era light carrier.  An A-7's a might big to touch down on the Melbourne.  I'd have laughed my ass off if you'd said RA-5.

 

One of the other big reasons you don't land on dissimilar carriers - not all carriers can handle all carrier-capable planes.  No one's landing anything larger than a Harrier on the Thai Royal Yacht any time soon, under any circumstances.

 

US naval aviation began before World War 1 - between 1903 and 1910, depending on how you define "begins."  Seaplanes, mostly, but probably some dirigibles too (which were popular world-wide as fleet scouts).

 

US naval aviation has always been separate from the Army Air Corps.  The British consolidated all their airpower in to the RAF, which is one of the reasons the British used so many US naval aircraft in World War 2 - since the Fleet Air Arm was was part of the RAF, it limited Royal Navy input into design and operational requirements, and they ended up with some sadly insufficient planes.

Thanks.

[sherpa]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Reason I asked is because I was wondering what you were flying in a "landing pattern toward the deck" of a WWII-era light carrier.  An A-7's a might big to touch down on the Melbourne.  I'd have laughed my ass off if you'd said RA-5.

 

Simple.

They asked us to.

That isn't unusual at all when allied ships are in the same operating area.

Flying a landing pattern to a go around is not landing on it.

I believe Melbourne had a wooden deck.

The A7 would go right through it if you ever touched down.

We did one flyby, one landing pattern to a go around, then rejoined for a low, close formation flyby so their sailors could get their pics.

[boyst]

8 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Simple.

They asked us to.

That isn't unusual at all when allied ships are in the same operating area.

Flying a landing pattern to a go around is not landing on it.

I believe Melbourne had a wooden deck.

The A7 would go right through it if you ever touched down.

We did one flyby, one landing pattern to a go around, then rejoined for a low, close formation flyby so their sailors could get their pics.

What year was that?

[DC Tom]

48 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

What year was that?

 

1913.

[3rdnlng]

47 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

1913.

It's amazing what progress was made in the first ten years of flight. I even think bi-planes were accepted by the general public by then.

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

What year was that?

 

1981. 

[Nanker]

 

 

[B-Man]