Intrepid
Major
The mock-up was kept very pragmatic and should make the interaction measurable having the deck outlines on the radar signal. It should also make an impact measurable having the parked aircraft or helicopter to the radar signal.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but I believe there are a number of other features whose presence were for aesthetic reasons and far less for pragmatism.
For instance, I doubt the windows on the island needed to exist for testing purposes, considering they're different in geometry compared to the real thing, and also considering the entire right side of the mock up's island is studded with windows that aren't present on the real thing either. Nor do I think the base of the island mock up needed to be so round and representative of the original CV-16.
In other words, I think there were ways they could have gone about doing their job without having to build such a closely representative model of the real thing.
I decided to take a look at the length of the Huangdicun facility, specifically to check out the length of the EM catapult and how it compared to the USN's EMALS.
During early construction of the Huangdicun catapults, it looked like the overall length of both catapults were about 120+ meters long based on the trenches, which was almost a quarter longer than the equivalent public measures of USN steam cats (99 meters).
However, the most recent picture from June turned out that the trenches included additional "back space" for parking the aircraft as well as the jet blast deflector, meaning the actual length of the EM catapult itself was quite similar to
This is based on measurements of the "dark line" in the trench which I thought would likely be the actual exposed part of the catapult, as well as based on the length of the covering roof in the June photo, which both should be consistent measures that can be used vis-a-vis the Ford's own EMALS cats during fitting out.
The results are below... and so based on some variance, and assuming that the red roof cover of the June 2016 photo is slightly longer than the "actual" exposed catapult itself, I think that the Chinese EM cat is probably around 110m long at most, if not a few meters shorter around 106m. This is relatively close to the EMALS publicly stated length of "300 feet," which equates to 91m.
This isn't to suggest either catapult is better or more powerful or more efficient or anything, but mostly just to say that both catapults are in the same general ball park length.
During early construction of the Huangdicun catapults, it looked like the overall length of both catapults were about 120+ meters long based on the trenches, which was almost a quarter longer than the equivalent public measures of USN steam cats (99 meters).
However, the most recent picture from June turned out that the trenches included additional "back space" for parking the aircraft as well as the jet blast deflector, meaning the actual length of the EM catapult itself was quite similar to
This is based on measurements of the "dark line" in the trench which I thought would likely be the actual exposed part of the catapult, as well as based on the length of the covering roof in the June photo, which both should be consistent measures that can be used vis-a-vis the Ford's own EMALS cats during fitting out.
The results are below... and so based on some variance, and assuming that the red roof cover of the June 2016 photo is slightly longer than the "actual" exposed catapult itself, I think that the Chinese EM cat is probably around 110m long at most, if not a few meters shorter around 106m. This is relatively close to the EMALS publicly stated length of "300 feet," which equates to 91m.
This isn't to suggest either catapult is better or more powerful or more efficient or anything, but mostly just to say that both catapults are in the same general ball park length.
I considered that a possibility, but considering the Huangdicun catapults are said to be there for a competition to determine their respective performances, and considering that the rest of the base is for training purposes, I imagine the catapults would be quite close and representative to the systems that they'd consider installing on the actual carrier.
MwRYum
Major
Lesser power, more acceleration track length to get more milage before overhaul perhaps?
danielchin
Junior Member
I'm pretty sure this one is new, total 8 J-15 on the deck of CV-16.
The key point I was making with my length comparison post, is that they have the same general length and are thus likely intended to serve the same role (i.e.: a viable catapult aboard aircraft carriers for launching aircraft). Whether one is more powerful than the other or whether one may be more efficient than the other or whatever is something I deliberately tried to steer the conversation away from.
Specifically, there's no reason to suspect that the Chinese EM cat would have had the same requirements as the USN's EMALS, so any detailed speculation to explain "why" the two catapults are differing lengths is essentially futile to begin with.
Intrepid
Major
The question is, whether one or both are EMALS or steam. And if they are EMALS and steam, whether 001 and 001A will be refitted with waist steam cats.
The new picture shown by @danielchin tells the whole story: with ski jump normal operation of more than a dozen aircraft on deck is nearly inpossible. With a waist cat the bow can serve as parking area.
The new picture shown by @danielchin tells the whole story: with ski jump normal operation of more than a dozen aircraft on deck is nearly inpossible. With a waist cat the bow can serve as parking area.
- Status