Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
j33l

Arresting hook

Recommended Posts


because the real aircraft has 1 to stop it in the event of brake failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are carriers in WOV... did you mean WOE? And it is for emergency landings as Buff stated... not for carrier ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are carriers in WOE not in WOV. And i dont think F15 have arresting hooks as backup because i never seen another Landbased plane having a hook and i have neither seen a Runway with wires on it. And if F15 has an hook why not the F4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are carriers in WOE not in WOV.

There are carriers in WOV

 

And i dont think F15 have arresting hooks as backup because i never seen another Landbased plane having a hook and i have neither seen a Runway with wires on it. And if F15 has an hook why not the F4?

F-15 definitely has a hook.

F-4 has a hook (see http://airpower.callihan.cc/images/Modern/...-MFAM-rF4-5.jpg )

Norwegian F-5 had a hook

F-104 has a hook

F-16 has a hook

F-117 has a hook

F-22 has a hook

etc. etc. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All NATO combat planes have this arrestor hook. It is part of the NATO emergency landing system.

THe WP used a different system, the so called MiG-Catcher. This is a big net, relative comparable with the US Carrier barrier net for emergency landings on carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that aircraft which were not designed to be carrier based cannot repeatedly be used for carrier landings regardless of whether they have a tailhook or not.

The landing gear (including the tailhook) has to be much stronger (and weigh more) than aircraft designed for normal runway landings.

It is easier to convert a carrier based aircraft to a land-based aircraft than the other way around:

 

For example, the F-4 Phantom was designed to be carrier based. The principal change required to make it land based was putting wider tires on the main landing gear to lower the psi exerted on runway surfaces, which in turn required addiing bulges to the wings to accommodate them. Ironically, the Navy's F-4J ended up using the wider USAF tires and wing bulges since its landing weight increased.

 

Compare this to the F-15 Eagle which was not designed to be carrier based. The Navy was asked to consider buying F-15s instead of the much more expensive F-14s: it was lighter, smaller, and had much better overall performance. However, the navalizing the F-15 and arming it with AIM-54 missiles would have increased its weight and cost substantially such that they ended up staying with the F-14. In theory, an unmodified F-15 could land on an aircraft carrier with a minimum of problems (assuming the pilot was trained to do so). However, it would simply be a matter of time before the landing gear and/or airframe failed in some way, perhaps even catastrophically.

Edited by streakeagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sony Tuckson

now this is funny

 

how can somebody claim things on matters he clearly don't know anything about.......

 

asking a question is nice, but claiming things is quite different, and doing so while making mistakes doesn't make one look bright

 

As said it's one of the emergency stopping sytem used on all front line NATO airbases, the second one being the "barrier"

 

both systems are developped from the carrier system, but are only a backup stuff, used when normal braking didn't work as expected

 

and it's very effective!

 

Some planes have even been modified in that way to be accepted as NATO combat planes (Dutch and Norwegian F-5's, Belgian Mirages.......) as the original version of those planes didn't have any arrestor hook due to other considerations (very long runway for american planes, drag chute and barrier for french fighters, not NATO members military wise)

Edited by Sony Tuckson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks kinda young, but I hear thats the way the russians like them.

 

I think I'll take the arrestor hook. I suppose, if the pilot managed to land more softly than the usual carrier traps a land based plane with a hook could work on a carrier. I dunno about the catapult launches though.

It also makes a decent emergency escape method, I'd rather risk a carrier landing in a plane not made for it than get left behind and stuck in a POW camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are carriers in WOE not in WOV.

 

:blink:

 

And i dont think F15 have arresting hooks as backup because i never seen another Landbased plane having a hook and i have neither seen a Runway with wires on it.

 

:blink::blink:

 

And if F15 has an hook why not the F4?

 

You can't be serious :crazy:

Edited by Sidewinder86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in a old TV series the try to land a F-16 "Agressor"(Super carrier) on carrier,in TV show the F-16 was a MiG-31 desertor.

but i think the F-16 crash,and the pilot eject.

the aproach speed of falco are too fast,and i think the 16 cant cach the cable .....

 

 

Almost every plane can cath the wire if it has a hook. well not the big planes but the small fighters ca defenatly cath the wire. Even a C130 Hercules has cought the wire without a hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about this guys. This clears it. But i am stil confused i have heared that there is AIr-Air-Refueling tankers and carriers in WOV but i cant find both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A2A refueling is not yet a default, or working feature of any of the SF-based sims. The YAP series for WoV has a "simulated" air to air refueling mission.

 

If you have WoV, and want to fly a strike mission off a carrier, try this: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...;showfile=1744#

No i dont have WOV and someone in this topic said that WOE has Carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost every plane can cath the wire if it has a hook. well not the big planes but the small fighters ca defenatly cath the wire...

 

Here's a big plane catching a hook :smile:

 

1807_fighter_a.jpg

 

And a bigger one here... :blink:

http://www.noolmusic.com/blogs/YouTube_Goo...t_Carrier.shtml

 

Useful for arresting aircraft after landing (as opposed to them using the carpark at the end of the runway to cushion it's landing) and for use in short field operations, most combat aircraft have had them since as far back as Korea I think. The USAF, USMC and USN used and perfected land based arresting techniques in Vietnam when operating from short strips. It's not all that uncommon. It's more of a safety feature these days. They couldn't, say, land on a carrier since the stresses on the airframe can truly fubar an airframe, particualarly since deck traps are pretty intensive and sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And a bigger one here... :blink:

http://www.noolmusic.com/blogs/YouTube_Goo...t_Carrier.shtml

 

Useful for arresting aircraft after landing (as opposed to them using the carpark at the end of the runway to cushion it's landing) and for use in short field operations, most combat aircraft have had them since as far back as Korea I think. The USAF, USMC and USN used and perfected land based arresting techniques in Vietnam when operating from short strips. It's not all that uncommon. It's more of a safety feature these days. They couldn't, say, land on a carrier since the stresses on the airframe can truly fubar an airframe, particualarly since deck traps are pretty intensive and sudden.

 

Except that for the C-130 didn't use a tailhook rather the pilots killed the engines at the right time and then they used the thrust reverse capabilities of the T56 engine to taxi the aircraft all the way to the fantail and took off again. An article about the C-130 flown on the USS Forrestal. THe pilot was awarded the Navy Cross, for this exercise. The pilot was also famous in his own right, he was then Lt. James Flatley III who was the son of the famous USN fighter pilot James Flatley II. The senior Flatley was the original skipper of VF-10 the Grim Reapers when they deployed with Carrier Air Group 10 onboard the USS Enterprise during the fight for Guladcanal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen photos to that particular event, a couple of grainey videos and so on, but never had a clue as to why they did that at all. Cheers, that's been bugging me for a while now!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saganuay82

C-130 + carrier

 

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp Vids are at the bottom.

 

Simulated air to air refueling. You get the tanker and I'll make ya the mission. Takes about 15 mins. You can use the KA6D, the A310 MRTT or I think the C130 might have a gen public release for the Herc to use refuel pods.

 

EDIT: Another link http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml

Edited by Saganuay82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other USAF aircraft that was tested and actually used to launch and recover onboard an Aircraft carrier was the U-2G. It had a strengthen tailhook, and strengthen landing gear. A U-2 was launched by the US Navy in the mid-60's off the USS Ranger to observe the French nuclear tests near Tahiti. There were a series of issues with the plan and in the end all three groups (CIA, US Navy, and USAF) backed out of using U-2's onboard. Those aircraft modified were reverted back to regular inventory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was also (arguably) the predecessor to the F-14. They had to abandon the project because of weight problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-111B was cancelled and the F-14 was indeed the plane acquired to replace it. The F-111B would've had the same AWG-9/AIM-54A combination the F-14A carried. It also used the same engine, which led to many problems for the F-14 for 20 years until the A+/B was introduced with the F110 engine.

 

In the SF games, the F-100 has a hook which like the other USAF planes mentioned is one-way only--you can drop the hook, but you can't retract it. Only the USN/USMC planes have that feature.

I've never tried it, but do the runways in SF/WoX have arrestor cables, or is it purely cosmetic for all but the naval planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen photos to that particular event, a couple of grainey videos and so on, but never had a clue as to why they did that at all. Cheers, that's been bugging me for a while now!!!

 

As a CDR, he was my first CAG way back when I was an Ens.

 

The why is that we (USN) were trying to find a way to get larger cargo lifts out to the carriers on station. In particular, engines. So the C-130 bit was a feasibilty test. On final, the Herc had the two outboard engines already in reverse and the two inboard went into reverse at touchdown. They did, I think, 20 recovery and launches. And no tailhook.

 

the final verdict was feasible, but not practical since the deck had to be almost completely cleared and extra lines painted on deck, etc.

 

and of course, knowing the guy, the pilot had to be both a good stick, and quite a bit on the crazy side......

 

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiG catcher as seen in the wild (post cold-war)

jillcatching.jpg

 

:biggrin:

 

 

Is this where your trusty wingman says, "I'll take the fat one."? :good::good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..