xylstra
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 23 October 2018
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 37
A knotty design conundrum! Using some 'imagineering', what if the Curtis XP55 'Ascender' and the Kyushu J7W 'Shinden' went into production and both spawned navalised variants for carrier deployment. The thorny issue of deck landing arises; 3-point tricycle landing gear means the awkward visibilty problem is inherently solved - tick the box and a round of applause! However, another awkward problem (potentially) arises, namely arresting the landing roll. Is a rearward-located tail-hook feasible for a single-engined pusher fighter? Is it even necessary? (this particular question has a huge number of variables associated with; landing-weight, employment of a reversible-pitch propeller, braking effectiveness, etc.). Perhaps a nose-first flexible barrier-fence or even a nose-wheel arrestor cable is the answer - nose-wheel mounted retro-rocket, maybe??
It's interesting that some Japanese carrier-borne aircraft eschewed arrestor hooks in their design. It's also curious as to what the Germans intended for their carrier aircraft, had the Graf Zeppelin not been aborted.
Be interested to hear responses from those with carrier deck operations experience who may care to speculate on the risks of propeller entanglement with wayward arrestor cables (both primary and back-up).
It's interesting that some Japanese carrier-borne aircraft eschewed arrestor hooks in their design. It's also curious as to what the Germans intended for their carrier aircraft, had the Graf Zeppelin not been aborted.
Be interested to hear responses from those with carrier deck operations experience who may care to speculate on the risks of propeller entanglement with wayward arrestor cables (both primary and back-up).