|
Posted on 01/29/2006 6:05:15 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Sounds like the crash happened during a recovery cycle. Once the plane went down the carrier would have immediately changed course and slowed to assist in the recovery of the pilot, possibly even launching additional helicopters or the ship's boats. This would have prevented the other five planes from landing. Had the ship been operating out of range of a dirvert field then the five others would have been recovered onboard but, since there was a divert option they sent all of the airborne aircraft there and went immediately into search mode.
It is also possible, but not stated in the article, that the plane crashed after attempting a landing, possibly dropping parts of itself onto the flight deck and creating a danger to any other planes trying to land. That would also have created the need to divert the airborne aircraft to shore.
There would be very few large pieces left after the plane impacted the water and there is almost certainly no way to repair the plane. When planes hit the water at several hundred MPH they make lots of little pieces.
The book "Flight of the Intruder" written by a naval aviator gives a great insight into carrier landings during combat operations.Stephen Coonts is an excellent author, and has an excellent fiction storyline that rivals Clancy.
Plus I understand the remaining three are stronger, and allow traps of heavier aircraft.
|
I am glad the pilot is safe.
I am sorry we lost an aircraft.
I am a pilot.
There is no word in any language that can explain away running out of fuel.
I admit I dont have the full story, could be another reason. I hope it was something operational and the pilot can go back on flight status. To 'screw the pooch' is to turn in you wings (wether you want to are not).
Carrier pilots have been found to have higher heartrates during night carrier landings than they do in combat.
I thought the same thing, that it seems like it would take the other 5 jets more fuel to fly back to land than to actually land on the carrier who is within a smaller small range, that's assuming the other 5 jets were with the same squadron as the one the crashed.
Do you know how many successful launches and recoveries they've made before this incident? Get a grip.
shouldnt all that be a part of the training? I mean, for them to be ingaged in combat and suddenly stop everything to rescue one plane, wouldnt that interupt combat missions that are very important? I'm not very well educated on carrier landing and missions or military operations, just an inquiring mind.
**When planes hit the water at several hundred MPH they make lots of little pieces.**
You most likely correct. I read the word 'ditch' and slipped into another era, when piston pounders were actually carefully stalled at the point of 'landing' on the water. Speed for such were probably around 60knts IAS (landing gear up), and with a headwind the actual ground speed reduced accordingly.
I'm not familiar with the USN practice of ditching while ejecting. Do they do their best to 'clean it up'? If so, I assume they do so with wings configured to best slow speed lift, slow the AC in the same fashion as the piston pounder (although I'm sure it is traveling at least 120 knts at that point), before punching out. If they are flying a controllable AC, do they plan to give the 'salvage option' the best possible conditions?
Here's one from my neighborhood:
Ground effect (smooth surface) reduces the stall speed as well. I know a pilot that force landed a Cessna 310C gear up (the nose near would not extend) about 37 yrs ago. After conferring with the co-owner, who had been contacted by the ATC manager at Moline,IL, he chose to take it back to the homebase airstrip. Not sure of the damage a foamed runway would cause, they felt that there would still be rivet heads on the bottom side by landing on the grass beside the local oiled runway.
He was by himself and burned off the fuel to a minumum. It had two bladed props, so he shut one down, feathered the prop, and tapped the starter to place the it parrallel to the wing. Once he had the grass strip 'made' he shut down the other engine in the same fashion. Clean and with ground effect, he had to force it down through the effect, since he was running out out airstrip. He said his last glance at the AI showed just over 40 knts, when he forced it down. The bottom of a 310C is very flat, there was no damage to the AC!
The pilot was my dad. Which reminds me, I need to get the news clipping and photo from him and make a copy or two.
The co-owner's business was selling and installing grain handling systems. He brought his boom truck and straps, and they picked up the plane, lowered the gear (securing the nose gear lock), and taxied it to the hanger. The co-owner called a few months later, about 10 pm, to ask dad to come over to the strip and help pick it up again. That time the props 'got it'. Yep, he forgot to lower the gear! :0
Thank you both for your explanations. I was named for my uncle who flew F4Fs in WWII. He had just landed on his carrier and shortly thereafter volunteered for another mission. His engine failed upon takeoff and he crashed into the sea. The carrier ran over him but apparently he was still alive but unconcious. Rescue efforts were not what they are today. His plane sank and he was lost at sea.
What is the "Strategery" of the USS being by Australia? Common Defense? Or Is it putting heat on Korea\China\SouthEast Asia Muslims.
In combat they would have recovered the remaining planes and looked for the pilot later. However, in training it is better to be safe and divert the airborne aircraft, when possible, and go get the pilot.
What do you think of an Aussie squadron operating onboard a US carrier? It would be a good way for the RAN to get back in the game a bit at a time.
I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it. Frankly, I think it'd be a very wise move, otherwise when we do get our pseudo-carriers (and I am assuming we will - not everyone agrees with me), we'll have a serious lack of skills needed to deal with that.
What we are likely to get is really closer to a US Wasp class than a true carrier, so operating off something like that could be pretty close to ideal.
They're still doing a lot better than the last time the Kiwi's were here.
http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20010521/peacenz.html
[NZ had 19 fighter aircraft and sent a aquadron to train in war games with Australia. Lost 2 craft and 1 pilot. Strangely the fighter wing was disbanded not long after that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
