broadsword
Brigadier
If the device can throw dead-loads hundreds simulating a 30 or 40 tonne plane akin to the frequency in an actual scenario, I think it is fair to say the device is ready.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Ultra
Junior Member
Not quite. A dead-load is not a person. Nor is it an aircraft. Especially an aircraft that carries bombs on its wings. If you accelerate too quickly you could risk killing the pilot or making him pass out from extreme G-force. Accelerating too quickly could also damage the plane or more specifically the landing gear which could have catastrophic consequences considering the area where such device is operating in (lots of bombs and missiles on the deck, aviation fuels, other planes). Accelerating unevenly even just very slightly (from 0 to 260 km/hr in less than 100 meters) can also have catatrophic consequences as plane could be hurl towards other plane, or the plane simply crash with the bombs that's strapped to the wings exploding on the deck creating explosive chain reaction as more planes exploding/caught on fire.
So for such system to succeed, it absolutely must go through very thorough testing and refinements to ensure it will run safely and perfectly every single time because thousands of lives at sea depends on it.
Ultra
Junior Member
PS. I wanted to just add few more sentences to the above post but for some reason the system set a time limit of just 10 minutes which means I can't even delete it.
Not quite. A dead-load is not a person. Nor is it an aircraft. Especially an aircraft that carries bombs on its wings. If you accelerate too quickly you could risk killing the pilot or making him pass out from extreme G-force. Accelerating too quickly could also damage the plane or more specifically the landing gear which could have catastrophic consequences considering the area where such device is operating in (lots of bombs and missiles on the deck, aviation fuels, other planes). Accelerating unevenly even just very slightly (from 0 to 260 km/hr in less than 100 meters) can also have catatrophic consequences as plane could be hurl towards other plane, or the plane simply crash with the bombs that's strapped to the wings exploding on the deck creating explosive chain reaction as more planes exploding/caught on fire. There are also ground based aerodynamics (Ground Effect) at play here which are extremely trickly as every plane is different due to the difference in airfoil design and fuselage, which in turn could tip the plane causing it to be launch out unevenly which again could be quite catastrophic.
So for such system to succeed, it absolutely must go through very thorough testing and refinements to ensure it will run safely and perfectly every single time because thousands of lives at sea depends on it.
Not quite. A dead-load is not a person. Nor is it an aircraft. Especially an aircraft that carries bombs on its wings. If you accelerate too quickly you could risk killing the pilot or making him pass out from extreme G-force. Accelerating too quickly could also damage the plane or more specifically the landing gear which could have catastrophic consequences considering the area where such device is operating in (lots of bombs and missiles on the deck, aviation fuels, other planes). Accelerating unevenly even just very slightly (from 0 to 260 km/hr in less than 100 meters) can also have catatrophic consequences as plane could be hurl towards other plane, or the plane simply crash with the bombs that's strapped to the wings exploding on the deck creating explosive chain reaction as more planes exploding/caught on fire. There are also ground based aerodynamics (Ground Effect) at play here which are extremely trickly as every plane is different due to the difference in airfoil design and fuselage, which in turn could tip the plane causing it to be launch out unevenly which again could be quite catastrophic.
So for such system to succeed, it absolutely must go through very thorough testing and refinements to ensure it will run safely and perfectly every single time because thousands of lives at sea depends on it.
Skywatcher
Captain
Even if the EMALS as it exists can launch planes now, there will have to be a lot of work done to make sure it actually works on a carrier.
What I'm trying to get at is if the blocker is the PLAN it's almost certain they're at or past the stage of throwing dead loads.
They would be foolish to do so.
They have a land based facility expressly for this purpose. They will get it working there before they begin trying it at sea for obvious reasons.
Safety of their pilots. Protection of expensive aircraft. And the huge cost of installing these onto carriers. They do not want to go through that cost and risk a faulty system that has to undergo major modifications.
They will get the aircraft being able to be reliably launched on ground, in as many different conditions simulating the carrier, before they do so at sea.
Time will tell...but I am very certain of this.
Depends on what we mean by "getting it perfect".
I have been neglecting this thread for days - very unusual for me - and I noticed that no-one mentioned the blurry photo of a Flanker nose gear that was different from others, shown some months ago, and that looked as if it was designed for use with a cat. I would think that for PLAN to allow this photo to escape is a sign that testing with aircraft is going well. We just do not know where.
Also PLAN may be testing flat EM cats while still considering/developing cats for use in a ski ramp. Questions, questions, questions. There will be questions until they stop using cats.
Also PLAN may be testing flat EM cats while still considering/developing cats for use in a ski ramp. Questions, questions, questions. There will be questions until they stop using cats.
Brumby
Major
That is an overly simplistic view of testing, both the breadth and the nature needed. A comparable example in Lakehurst would be instructive.
1967 dead-load launches of which 201 failed. The 240 mean cycles between critical failures is five times higher than target. Clearly this not a system that can go live. Altogether over 3000 dead-load launches to-date but no failure statistics had been released on the wider testing and so we don't know whether a fix had been identified. In addition, 452 actual aircraft launches had been made comprising across a broad spectrum of planes (F-18; E-2; et al) with different loadings. There is a known excessive holdback release dynamics issue with no fix identified at this stage. Technically, known risk with this technology had been flushed out at an operational level where no known fix had been officially released. This has not even moved onto the carrier yet where further problems might still crop up. The goal of the Ford class was to achieve a 33 % improvement in launch rates at normal pace and 12% at surge. Clearly at this stage there are problems ahead.
It depends on whether what the spread of the failures look like over time. If failures are more strongly concentrated towards the start of testing, it implies a more rapid and easier testing process than if it's more evenly spread along the entirety of the testing timeline. Honestly even that 1967 tests with 201 failures and 204 mean cycles is too little information to assess how difficult or not this technology is.
- Status