Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

marky sparky

Tailsitter for take off

Recommended Posts

Hi.

This might seem a dumb question for many, but I've seen photo's of Scimitars' and Buccaneers ready for take off on aircraft carriers tail sitting, I just wondered how they did it. (sarcastic comments accepted but don't be too boring, thanx).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They use the tail bumper and pull the bridle taut against the shuttle, tipping the aircraft. It is released when the cat fires and breaks the holdback.

I'll post a video link when I find it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The why is to put them in a high lift attitude for climbing away after being catapulted, so I suggest that the connection to the catapult is aft of the cg, do that it pulls the tail down when tensioned.

 

PS what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why the FG1 Phantom had the extendable nosewheel leg. It produced a high angle of attack which allows greater lift initially. Eminently sensible. You'd wonder why the Americans never copied it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, noelh said:

That's why the FG1 Phantom had the extendable nosewheel leg. It produced a high angle of attack which allows greater lift initially. Eminently sensible. You'd wonder why the Americans never copied it.

It wasn't needed. Even the Essex class ships were bigger than Ark Royal and Eagle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Procopius said:
12 hours ago, Procopius said:

It wasn't needed. Even the Essex class ships were bigger than Ark Royal and Eagle.

 

Bare in mind that I'm just a simple "pongo" and don't know much about floaty things on the water, but why would the size of the carrier have anything to do with it? Would not the length of the catapult be similar?

 

John. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, noelh said:

That's why the FG1 Phantom had the extendable nosewheel leg. It produced a high angle of attack which allows greater lift initially. Eminently sensible. You'd wonder why the Americans never copied it.

Actually, US Navy Phantoms do have an extendable nosewheel leg, it just wasn't the double length type as used on Royal Navy Phantoms. It seemed to be the F-4Bs that it was used the most on and, even then, it wasn't used all the time. I don't know that I've seen an F-4J using it, maybe the engines developed more thrust by that time and it wasn't necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silverkite211 said:

Actually, US Navy Phantoms do have an extendable nosewheel leg, it just wasn't the double length type as used on Royal Navy Phantoms. It seemed to be the F-4Bs that it was used the most on and, even then, it wasn't used all the time. I don't know that I've seen an F-4J using it, maybe the engines developed more thrust by that time and it wasn't necessary.

The F-4J also needed the extendable nose landing gear strut for a catapult launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

The F-4J also needed the extendable nose landing gear strut for a catapult launch.

You would certainly be the man who would know. 👍

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

×
×
  • Create New...