Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cva66snipe
From what I understand it simply still takes too much fuel to get them in the air thus cutting down on effective radius.

The problem isn't that the short takeoff burns too much fuel, it's that a shorter (or worse yet vertical) takeoff run significantly reduces allowed GTOW. You don't have a full load of fuel in the first place.

76 posted on 03/18/2006 11:05:11 PM PST by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: CGTRWK
Thanks for the explanation. It was odd watching them. We were roughly 5 miles or so away from the helo carrier just enough where you could see the plane disappear as it crossed the flighteck. We weren't close enough to watch them land with the naked eye. This was likely among the first sea trials. We heard such a plane was being developed. It was kinda like flying fish you think you saw something but you weren't quite sure LOL.
77 posted on 03/18/2006 11:29:54 PM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson