PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jovian

Jovian

Junior Member
bd popeye said:
Correct.. However I served aboard 5 carriers. John F Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America & Nimitz. Never once in seven deployments did a catapult failure ever occur. Never.

As for the wheel chocks.. I have no idea. Perhaps someone schooled in that area may respond.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response Popeye, and for sharing your experience.

I was only thinking of possible scenario, as I believe it is a good engineering practice to consider how things might fail as well as how they work. For catapult on CATOBAR, it seems straight forward that if the cat fail, the plane just have to shut down their engine fast ... is that why they have a shooter on the deck? So that everyone else has a single point of command on the deck during the launch of a plane?

For STOBAR and their use of wheel chocks, there are two chokes to consider instead of one cat to deal with. Just wondering how each of the three very similar by yet very different STOBAR carrier today deal with this potential iissue.


Jovian
 
Last edited:
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Jovian said:
Thanks for your response Popeye, and for sharing your experience.

I was only thinking of possible scenario, as I believe it is a good engineering practice to consider how things might fail as well as how they work. For catapult on CATOBAR, it seems straight forward that if the cat fail, the plane just have to shut down their engine fast ... is that why they have a shooter on the deck? So that everyone else has a single point of command on the deck during the launch of a plane?

For STOBAR and their use of wheel chocks, there are two chokes to consider instead of one cat to deal with. Just wondering how each of the three very similar by yet very different STOBAR carrier today deal with this potential iissue.


Jovian
Click to expand...

Cat failures do occur..I've never been aboard when any cat failed. The prescribed procedure is to eject out of the aircraft via ejection seat. I looked for a video of an ejection during a cat failure and did not fined one.

By the way.. no one with the USN uses the terms CATOBAR or STOBAR. Nobody. In fact I never read or heard those terms until I saw them on line about 13 years ago.
 
Jovian

Jovian

Junior Member
bd popeye said:
Cat failures do occur..I've never been aboard when any cat failed. The prescribed procedure is to eject out of the aircraft via ejection seat. I looked for a video of an ejection during a cat failure and did not fined one.
Click to expand...

Wow... didn't expect they have this kind of procedure. Thanks for the info!


bd popeye said:
By the way.. no one with the USN uses the terms CATOBAR or STOBAR. Nobody. In fact I never read or heard those terms until I saw them on line about 13 years ago.
Click to expand...

So who actually started these terms then? Anyway, that's not important. At least it help us in discussion forum today.

Thanks and Happy New Year

Jovian
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
jacksprat said:
Hope your are not saying that 554 is a production aircraft. It's a prototype, same series of side numbers and has the camera regisrtation markings, definitely not production.
Click to expand...
I was referring to its paint scheme.

Jeff Head said:
in PLAN colors soon, like the one, number 554
Click to expand...

Sorry if that was not more clear. We know that the J-15 is in serial production, I figure LRIP, but we do not know. Those aircraft, are the ones we are hoping will make it out to the Liaoning soon...and when they do, their paint scheme will be like 554.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jovian said:
So who actually started these terms then? Anyway, that's not important. At least it help us in discussion forum today.
Click to expand...
Some one described their main operational parameters for aircraft launch and recovery/landing...and then made an acronym:

Catapult Assisted Take Off, Barrier Assisted Recovery = CATOBAR

Short Take Off, Barrier Assisted Recovery = STOBAR

Who knows who first came up with it?
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
A-4, F-4, F-8, and A-3 take-off and landing mishaps 1962-1962 aboard US Carriers:


[video=youtube;wD0bxwdccnk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0bxwdccnk[/video]
​
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
bd popeye said:
Cat failures do occur..I've never been aboard when any cat failed. The prescribed procedure is to eject out of the aircraft via ejection seat. I looked for a video of an ejection during a cat failure and did not fined one.

By the way.. no one with the USN uses the terms CATOBAR or STOBAR. Nobody. In fact I never read or heard those terms until I saw them on line about 13 years ago.
Click to expand...

That's probably because the USN never operated STOBAR, so there never was the need to use terms to distinguish two types of operation.
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Jovian said:
I think Jeff was referring to production plans will be painted similar to the prototype 554.

Anyway, just wondering if the following had been discussed before. Regarding possible safety issues with the STOBAR method of launching aircrafts off a carrier, comparing to that of a CATOBAR/catapult system.

Well, as far as a landlubber like myself know, if there is a fault with a catapult on a CATOBAR carrier, planes just don't launch (from that catapult). If a plane is hooked up to a catapult, and the catapult fail in the last moment before firing (?), the plane just don't launch... correct?

What will happen on a STOBAR carrier, if a plane is choked against the two wheel blocks and one (not both) of the wheel block failed to close down (and release the plane for take off)? My questions are:

1. Will the plane "spin" to one side?
2. Do we know of any safety measures that had been implemented on the Russian, Chinese and Indian carriers (which use such system, of different generation and/or by different design teams)?
3. If such situation do happen, what steps (do we know of) are taken to train the deck crew to handle the situation.
4. Would they have someway (mechanical?) to ensure that both block close down together or not at all?

For point 4, I am hopping the reason the Liaoning's wheel block look the way it does is because they have considered such a scenario; that there is some mechanical and/or electrical safety measures that prevent situation where only one wheel block closes down. What about the design on the Kuznetsov and the Vikramaditya?

Well, Happy New Year! If I don't get to sign on until next year!

Jovian
Click to expand...


I didn't realize there were mechanical wheel chocks on the liaoning. I though it was just the plane's brakes holding it back, and brakes were controlled by some take off control software in the plane that would coordinate releasing brakes with lighting full afterburners when the plane starts to ensure best performance in carrier take off mode.

But it would be simple to mechanically ensure the two chocks don't move out of sync. They can be connected by a shaft to ensure they are either both up or both down.
 
T-U-P

T-U-P

The Punisher
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jovian said:
I think Jeff was referring to production plans will be painted similar to the prototype 554.

Anyway, just wondering if the following had been discussed before. Regarding possible safety issues with the STOBAR method of launching aircrafts off a carrier, comparing to that of a CATOBAR/catapult system.

Well, as far as a landlubber like myself know, if there is a fault with a catapult on a CATOBAR carrier, planes just don't launch (from that catapult). If a plane is hooked up to a catapult, and the catapult fail in the last moment before firing (?), the plane just don't launch... correct?

What will happen on a STOBAR carrier, if a plane is choked against the two wheel blocks and one (not both) of the wheel block failed to close down (and release the plane for take off)? My questions are:

1. Will the plane "spin" to one side?
2. Do we know of any safety measures that had been implemented on the Russian, Chinese and Indian carriers (which use such system, of different generation and/or by different design teams)?
3. If such situation do happen, what steps (do we know of) are taken to train the deck crew to handle the situation.
4. Would they have someway (mechanical?) to ensure that both block close down together or not at all?

For point 4, I am hopping the reason the Liaoning's wheel block look the way it does is because they have considered such a scenario; that there is some mechanical and/or electrical safety measures that prevent situation where only one wheel block closes down. What about the design on the Kuznetsov and the Vikramaditya?

Well, Happy New Year! If I don't get to sign on until next year!

Jovian
Click to expand...

As chuck said above, my gut feeling is that the two wheel blocks are actually a single structure underneath the deck, so that they can't physically move independent of each other. Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top