Undercarriageless fighters and flexible decks

P

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
4 June 2006
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,260
Did anyone else look at this idea or was it confined to the UK?
 
PMN1 said:
Did anyone else look at this idea or was it confined to the UK?
Click to expand...

The Germans in WW2
the USA in ZEL and ZELF Program
(plane lands on rubberbags first test kill almost the Test Pilot)
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html

some VTOL Concept for US-Navy
and Soviet Project

this forum is full of this stuff.
 
With regards to carrier aviation, I think, only the british navy started
experiments with this concept. Regarding to Paul Beavers "The British
Aircraft Carriers" the main reason, that it wasn't adopted, was the need
for widespread new installations not only on the carriers, but on land, too.
And the gain in performance wasn't that large.
 
Once I've read about at least one experiment conducted by British with a DH100 Vampire without landing gears and an Aircraft Carrier (but I don't remember the name) with flight deck filled with a sort of rubber in order to mitigate the impact.
It seems that the aircraft didn't suffer any damage, due to this unconventional landing technique, but the system was found too impractical to be adopted by RN.
 
Again from the mentioned book:
Fot the first tests, a concrete filled Hotspur glider was used, landing
on a rubber landing strip at Farnborough. The a DH Sea Vampire F.21
was modified and flight tested by Eric Brown, at first again on the land
based installation, until November 1948, when the HMS Warrior was fitted
with a rubber deck aft of the island. Eric Brown described the landings
as succesful, with the exception of the very first, which was "hairy" ...
 
Jemiba said:
The a DH Sea Vampire F.21
was modified and flight tested by Eric Brown, at first again on the land
based installation, until November 1948, when the HMS Warrior was fitted
with a rubber deck aft of the island. Eric Brown described the landings
as succesful, with the exception of the very first, which was "hairy" ...
Click to expand...

Gotcha!! :)
 
Could the Sud-Aviation SE-5000 Baroudeur be included? Didn't need a fexible deck either: trolley for take off, skids for landing.

KB
 
Oh, yes, the Baroudeur !
Good example for this thread. And a good example, too, why the whole
idea failed. Just imagine a diversion to an airfield, where no trolley is
available ...
The idea died a natural death, when jet engines became more fuel efficient,
I think. Acceptable maybe for a point defence interceptor, but not for
a ground attack aircraft, where turn-around time is important.
 
"So the Komet will be included as well?"

Then we could include the Arado 234A, too. A recce a/c and not really a fighter, but
single seated and with fighter speed.
But I think, the original question meant carrier borne fighters ... ;)
 
Topic revival - does anyone have any ship design concepts that might have resulted if this idea had progressed beyond the trial stage?

Regards,

Greg
 
Some information on the proposed systems for use in conjunction with the Supermarine Type 543.
 

Attachments

  • Type543.JPG
    Type543.JPG
    110.7 KB · Views: 580
  • Type543Launch1.JPG
    Type543Launch1.JPG
    467.8 KB · Views: 579
  • Type543Launch2.JPG
    Type543Launch2.JPG
    386.7 KB · Views: 550
  • Type543Launch3.JPG
    Type543Launch3.JPG
    198.2 KB · Views: 523
Many thanks GTX ! Wasn't aware of the two storeyed flight deck before ! Suitable for fighters,
but bomber/attack a/c would have needed internal weapons carriage, I think.
 
Some of the history can be found here (pages 89 - 98 / PDF pgs 106-115) Among other things, there was an interesting connection to the development of the angled deck.
 
GTX said:
Some information on the proposed systems for use in conjunction with the Supermarine Type 543.
Click to expand...


That's the first time to see this concept,


thank you my dear GTX for sharing.
 
hesham said:
thank you my dear GTX for sharing.
Click to expand...

x 2.

Interesting 'what if' to replace traps and cats. If this had gotten up and fitted to all carriers does this mean I wouldn't have an "Order of the Hook" but rather an "Order of the Bounce"!
 
Surely one of the big limitations of this approach is how to handle the aircraft on the deck (or on the training airfield). Purpose built trolleys and tugs are all well and fine, but an aircraft with its own wheels can be towed or pushed by a wide range of vehicles - or assembled man power. It can also maneuver quite nicely under its own power. All this is lost when the wheels are removed.
 
Hi! Type 543 three side view. And Sea Vampire carrier landing test video.

http://blog.livedoor.jp/janome_gotyou/archives/cat_136375.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0DDkzS6p7E
 

Attachments

  • 7d1b139b.jpg
    7d1b139b.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 274
  • The pilot made the landing by the world's first jet aircraft in 1945, Eric Winkle Brown..jpg
    The pilot made the landing by the world's first jet aircraft in 1945, Eric Winkle Brown..jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 271
  • 30de489a.jpg
    30de489a.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 276
  • 543.jpg
    543.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 330
Supermarine's first design for a Naval fighter without undercarriage was the Type 505 in 1946
 

Attachments

  • Supermarine_505.jpg
    Supermarine_505.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 244
Maybe a flight elevator car on an armature that matches the Planet's speed and puts it down. A travel plate with forklifts.

You might snatch more than could land on their own..
flying chopsticks
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom