Carrier Ops Korea: Something about this photo really scares me . .

[expat]

For someone devoted to all things NavAir and spending time practicing cats&traps in FS (unless its in the Crusader, in which case it's cats&rampstrikes), there is something especially eerie and off-putting about this photo. The usual challenges of juggling, rate of decent, AOA, airpseed of course, but also look at how much more turn is needed to line up before hitting the deck. What is really striking here is how small, narrow and crowded the deck looks - with no angled deck and with the pack waiting at the other end - and the contrast with the seemingly infinitely vast, windswept cold sea to swallow and perish the unlucky airman. These guys had brass ones.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7808/h97412ussoriskanyonline.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/h97412ussoriskanyonline.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[mal998]

Take a look at the movie "Men of the Fighting Lady". You'll see the same thing with the Pathers in that movie; really close-in quick left hand turn approaches, and bam down on the deck 1-2-3. No long set ups, just turn and land. Scarey!

[Taco]

I have an uncle who flew off the USS Oriskany about this time. He tried for years to get me into flying for the Navy, but I always told him I liked long, long runways that stayed still!

[mal998]

I have an uncle who flew off the USS Oriskany about this time. He tried for years to get me into flying for the Navy, but I always told him I liked long, long runways that stayed still!

:icon_lol:

[Helldiver]

It was always the case with a straight flight deck. You always sidled in to watch the LSO. He'd tell you when you were in the groove. That sorted the men from the boys.
The angled decks, with their flashing lights, took all the sport out of it. Now they line up a couple miles away. You get the angle right and there you are. It's all so mechanical. No flying skill required.
The old way you'd approach, nose high, just above a stall. When youre just over the wires, cut the throttle and catch a wire.
Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.

[Bone]

It was always the case with a straight flight deck. You always sidled in to watch the LSO. He'd tell you when you were in the groove. That sorted the men from the boys.
The angled decks, with their flashing lights, took all the sport out of it. Now they line up a couple miles away. You get the angle right and there you are. It's all so mechanical. No flying skill required.
The old way you'd approach, nose high, just above a stall. When youre just over the wires, cut the throttle and catch a wire.
Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.

LOL. You know, Helldiver, I'll bet you're a fun guy to drink whiskey with. Notice I didn't say Bourbon or Scotch...that's girly-man speak. :)

[michael davies]

Notice also the ship is turning to Port as well.

When landing on straight deck Essex it was sometimes known to sail with the wind a few degrees off the Port bow, the slight crosswind counter acted by the sharp left turn on approach we see here, also the slight cross wind pushed the heavily turbulant air aft of the bridge structure over the Starboard aft quarter and away from the deck and ramp area.

Best

Michael

[Bjoern]

Now they come in going like hell and hope they can "trap" the airplane. We never called it "trapping". We just called it catching a wire.

Because they're flying Mach 1+ jets and not aircraft with the landing speeds of a snail.

[fliger747]

In the days of FS9 Real Old Salt and I did a Panther rework of the old (now) AH one. We did a lot of flight test using Big E and Hornet, which are a bit smaller than the Essex ships. A lot of fun requiring a steady hand. Approach was about 112 knots and a flat approach was used to keep the engine well spooled up as spoolup time of the early engines was quite slow from mid range RPM. Not so different than the technique we use to land a Supercub in a tight space. The tip tanks had ram powered dumps, and reducing the landing weigh to a minimum was essential.

T

[thunder100]

Pls remeber this were all former prop boys.There is one still in the calClassic forum(which teached me this in FS).Because of the huge nose/taildragger they always had to fly a "curved approach" otherwise dont see anything.So why should they change for the first jets?

Roland

PS:For me the seafire pilots on carriers with this narrow gear track are real hero's

[Helldiver]

Maybbe them 1+ mach oil burners are flying so fast they haven't had time to win a war. Ever think of that?

[vora]

Maybbe them 1+ mach oil burners are flying so fast they haven't had time to win a war. Ever think of that?
My thinking exactly. As a former "boot on the ground" guy I'd prefer a Spad or Bronco over a F-16 or F-35 anytime. Helos are good for transport but seem too fragile for CAS work.

[fliger747]

Note the size of the barrier, which is up!

T

[Bone]

Note the size of the barrier, which is up!

T

Ah, yes, good eye.

[Bjoern]

Maybbe them 1+ mach oil burners are flying so fast they haven't had time to win a war. Ever think of that?

Desert Shield/Storm.
Allied Force.
Iraqi Freedom.

All flown with "mach 1+ oil burners", all military successes.

[ShawnG]

and if we're talking about Korea, not exactly one that's firmly in the "win" column. great pic BTW and I don't care what anyone says, anybody who can land on a carrier, angled deck or not gets my support.

[MenendezDiego]

You get the angle right and there you are. It's all so mechanical. No flying skill required.


No skill required? How about constant drift correction? Night traps in NVG's, I could go on...

[Rezabrya]

Just because they aren't your beloved old WWII planes doesn't mean they require no skill. I actually think it takes more skill now to land than it did back then.

[expat]

I can't have but the most admiration and respect for naval aviators who landed planes on carriers through all eras.

The older prop planes of course had comparitively lower approach and stall speeds, and probably relied on more seat-of-the-pants pilot intuition (that's not bad, that's good), but there weren't, as Helldiver says, a lot of the more modern landing aids, technology and know how that were developed in the jet age.

At the same time, landing a Crusader on an Essex sized deck at night in the rain or an RA-5C, with its size, weight and high landing speed was a very dangerous thing indeed requiring skills at the absolute limit of human ability.

[Bone]

Each era had trade offs of good and bad, that for all practical purposes makes it a wash. No need to argue about which era had the toughest, ballsiest, most skilled pilots....they're all high on the scale.

Just my opinion.

[noddy]

Each era had trade offs of good and bad, that for all practical purposes makes it a wash. No need to argue about which era had the toughest, ballsiest, most skilled pilots....they're all high on the scale.

Just my opinion.

Agreed, anybody mad enough to do that for a living in any era are highly skilled.

[vora]

Desert Shield/Storm.
Allied Force.
Iraqi Freedom.

All flown with "mach 1+ oil burners", all military successes.

...and all without opposing air force. In that context there were also Grenada, Panama and Bosnia.

With respect to aerial combat against an enemy with real air assets post-WWII there were only Korea and Vietnam. That's what Helldiver was refering to, I think.

[SkippyBing]

against an enemy with real air assets post-WWII there were only Korea and Vietnam.

Falklands. Although the landing speeds there were far more sensible...

[fliger747]

It was generally agreed (paraphrased from AlGore...) that the early jets were probably the most demanding era of Naval Aviation from a flying point of view.

All of the eras are different. During the war (#2) the experience level was not generally high due to the demands of the fleet for more and more pilots. A loss rate was acceptable. My dads training class lost about 5% from accidents (killed), which was typical. The Korean aviators were mostly experienced WWII types, though the Carrier flight operations were still in development without a lot of "aids". More is capable today, as it true in many facets of aviation.

I fly with a lot of Marine and Naval Aviators and they are certainly skillful, but no more so than many that have made a career in aviation and perhaps have started out as someting more arcane as an Alaska Bush Pilot. What it does take is really good training and then experience. A friend of mine used to be a LSO, he said that about the only way he would give an "OK three wire" was if it was a single engine approach at night in a storm.....

The sort of thing that gets a bit more challenging on a bad day.... and always requiring your full attention.

Cheers: T

[vora]

Falklands. Although the landing speeds there were far more sensible...
I was just discussing from a US perspective here, otherwise I'd also had to include those countless Mideast wars... and of course the Falklands. Interestingly the aircraft the ground troops were fearing the most (thus triggering the SAS missions AFAIK) was an Argentinian prop...

Of course, my bias comes from having been an infantry man and now flying props :icon_lol:

[Bjoern]

...and all without opposing air force. In that context there were also Grenada, Panama and Bosnia.

I've left that fact out for a reason.

(Because it wasn't relevant to the argumentation.)

;)