We are off

[Kreeft62]

second try

[gilly_is_alive]

interesting composition! I may be wrong but I thought F-16s couldnt be used on carriers?

[ThomasKaira]

That's better.

Just make sure you delete the dud topic to prevent confusion. OK?

[firemonte007]

sweet shot.....i would think that you can launch just about anything off a carrier using the steam cat but landing back on one now that a different story LOL 8-) good luck in the contest

[BAW0343]

I know all AF aircraft are fitted with a tailhook, whether or not they can be launched is unknown to me.

[Isak922]

Duct Tape and Bubble Gum can attach anything! Wouldn't take much to set up a temporary mechanism to attach the plane to the Catapult.

However, Air Force tailhooks aren't designed to withstand a Carrier TRAP. They're fine for using on actual runways in an emergency, however landing on a carrier will snap them right off.

[llamedos]

Duct Tape and Bubble Gum can attach anything! Wouldn't take much to set up a temporary mechanism to attach the plane to the Catapult.

However, Air Force tailhooks aren't designed to withstand a Carrier TRAP. They're fine for using on actual runways in an emergency, however landing on a carrier will snap them right off.

Like this  8-)

[chiptas]

Ive seen a vw launched of a carrier to test the catapult.

[loomex]

Actually the F-111 was originally designed for navy

[DonAlfonsoRoKil]

Actually the F-111 was originally designed for navy

Yes and no.

McNamara (I think that was his name, an american politican) wanted to give less money to the Armys. So he just said:

U.S.AirForce and U.S.Navy need so much money for their planes.
Why pay the development for two ones? They can use the same aircraft.

The result was the F-111 (I believe the AirForce still flys the EloKa-Version).
But Navy pointed out that the F-111 Adwaark can't operate from carriers.
Then they of course needed another fighter............... see below in my signature!  ;D

[swordfish1227]

there was a c-130 used for testing on the uss forrestall that was launched from the cat and landed unarrested.

nice smoke and ideas, but the jaggies(although small) are distracting

[Shavron117]

The F-111 was a heavy plane.  The navy version was canceled because they couldn't lighten it up enough for the requirements I believe.  And I think the F-111 is completely retired from the AF inventory.

As far as the C-130 goes, they did several tests I believe and it worked perfectly.  They never used it because you pretty much had to clear the entire deck to land the C-130.  Just wasn't practical in the long run. That and you had to rig the C-130 so you could reverse the props without the 'Weight-on-wheels' switches to be engaged.

If I remember correctly, the F-16 was briefly looked at by the Navy for carrier, but only on paper.  Too much needed done to beef up the gear for hard landings and such.  Don't think it would have looked much like a 16 after that. lol  Most every AF fighter has some sort of arresting gear.  The 16's was merely a heavy duty springsteel bar with a hook meant to catch an emergency cable at the end of the runway.  Worked on 16's for 3 years in the Air Guard.  130's for 13 now.

[swordfish1227]

the F-111, the c-130, and the f-16 would all be easier to get off the deck than a F-4...the phantom flew worse than a fully loaded AN-225 with all the engines turned off...

My dad was on the midway during vietnam, and even that old diesel carrier had to get up and run at 40 knots to get the F-4s off the deck on a calm day...

[Shavron117]

F-4  Amazing plane, but proof positive that if you put big enough engines on a brick, it will fly! lol