Don't forget the hook

Lol just repeating my request for the hook to get modelled.

I'm going to annoy ED now by asking the same for FC3.:D

If you do the hook -please give us also the possibility to call a emergency and strap the ropes over dedicated runways.

+1

I think I would have an "emergency" just about every time I saw a carrier.

If the hook is modelled together with proper aircraft carrier launches the F-15E will be the best plane in simulation history!

I can see it before me: Me and my buddy (front and back-seat) experience the imaginary forces from the catapult ;)

Only problem with that: The F-15E is not CATOBAR compatible. It has no launch bar, and the hook would probably have to be undeployed by the ground crew. It is also designed for lower tension cables, and the landing gear are not designed to carrier specs, so there is a good chance of structural damage or tip over when landing on a carrier. The launch ramp on the Kuznetsov should work just fine though.

edit: another thread on the topic: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104945

The arrester hook is not for carrier landings its for emergency landings on solid land runways in a attempt to save an expensive aircraft. In the event of carrier landings there is a protocol to prepare for broken landing gear usually an eject is done over the sea if possible. It has been done but once on a carrier the aircraft is stored until at port they won't cat launch it. They will transport the F-15 off the carrier by craine. It's taken apart and a shipper request is done if needed or if the fix is simple it's flown to a AFB. It's recycled and its fixed again and tested the process is expensive. They usually will just dump the aircraft it's to risky and expensive to land on a carrier.

They usually will just dump the aircraft it's to risky and expensive to land on a carrier.

And it's not just the plane, it could block the carrier deck; preventing any carrier-based planes from landing/taking off.

Yeah it's a bit pointless to model, unless arresting cables are modeled on land airbases. That is what those things are for. Almost all, well at least most fighter aircraft has an arrestor hook, even thuogh they are no where near carrier capable. Even F-104 has one, can you imagine it having anything to do with carriers with it's super high landing speed and those tiny stubby wings? :) Most F-16 has it too, but would most likely get seriously damaged if it tries to land on a carrier.

it boggles my mind how many people assume because an Air Force jet has a Tail Hook that it's "Carrier Capable".

The Hook is used to land on shorter runways or in the event of a failure in the gear system,

ie,

They can Land with no Brakes and use the Hook to slow the aircraft,

They can belly land with no gear and use the tail hook to catch emergency cable to stop the aircraft.

The F-15s, F-16s, F-100s or any Air Force jet for that matter doesn't have the landing gear strength to survive carrier landings.

it boggles my mind how many people assume because an Air Force jet has a Tail Hook that it's "Carrier Capable".

Does it really?

I mean, it's not common knowledge.

While it's not common knowledge, there should be enough knowledge that a person should understand what makes an aircraft a USAF or USN. The biggest difference isn't tail hooks. It's folding wings. However, I digress and will say that the F-15C's or any USAF aircraft equipped with a tail hook is not meant for carrier landings and that we shouldn't be looking for arresting cables to catch on a carrier deck, but on a runway for future updates ;)

The Yanks have there Hook and the Russians have there Brake Chute.

It serves the exact same job.

To slow the aircraft down on emergency landings or if u have no other way to stop before u run out of runway.

An example:

Min: 5:35

Would of been smoother without the hook grabbing the cable...

it boggles my mind how many people assume because an Air Force jet has a Tail Hook that it's "Carrier Capable".

 

The Hook is used to land on shorter runways or in the event of a failure in the gear system,

 

ie,

They can Land with no Brakes and use the Hook to slow the aircraft,

They can belly land with no gear and use the tail hook to catch emergency cable to stop the aircraft.

 

The F-15s, F-16s, F-100s or any Air Force jet for that matter doesn't have the landing gear strength to survive carrier landings.

If I remember correctly, the RNZAF had incident with a TA-4K where the pilot ripped off one of the landing gear on a touch and go. Ended up doing an arrested landing on drop tanks. In the backseat was a ground crew going for a joyrid who couldn't get out of the aircraft fast enough.

and this...

it boggles my mind how many people assume because an Air Force jet has a Tail Hook that it's "Carrier Capable".

 

The Hook is used to land on shorter runways or in the event of a failure in the gear system,

 

The F-15s, F-16s, F-100s or any Air Force jet for that matter doesn't have the landing gear strength to survive carrier landings.

While this is true, I believe that the F-4 was built as a navy airplane, and the air force took it. So, wouldn't that mean that it's gear could take the stress, as that is what it was built for (aside from the tires of course)

While this is true, I believe that the F-4 was built as a navy airplane, and the air force took it. So, wouldn't that mean that it's gear could take the stress, as that is what it was built for (aside from the tires of course)

I believe the USAF variants of the F-4 lacked the stronger/heavier landing gear of the Navy/Marine variants. I think the only USAF aircraft that were "carrier capable" were some of the A-1s and later A-7s that the USAF picked up second hand from the USN.

If can land and takeoff from a carrier, its "carrier capable", Viggen and jeff are great at this.

On 9/17/2014 at 1:11 PM, USSInchon said:

 

I believe the USAF variants of the F-4 lacked the stronger/heavier landing gear of the Navy/Marine variants. I think the only USAF aircraft that were "carrier capable" were some of the A-1s and later A-7s that the USAF picked up second hand from the USN.

Not only that, but in relation to Air Force spec F-4 aircraft, (I’m going by the RAF aircraft in this case) although they do have the hook which was still stressed to Naval specs, they could not land aboard a carrier in an emergency due to the tyre pressures being too low. It would stuff the gear and likely severely foul the deck. Naval tyres are typically at a higher pressure than their land based counterparts. Aircraft like the F-15 could not survive a Naval wire trap as the retardation is too severe, and the hook attachment points are not stressed for VERY short/rapid wire stops. Naval aircraft tend to stop in a couple hundred feet on the wire, land based hook engagements the wire spools out to over 1000 feet, the deceleration being not as dramatic as a Naval “arrival”. RAF F-4 also lacked the strop attachment points for the catapult, these being faired over.

8 hours ago, Riojano said:

If can land and takeoff from a carrier, its "carrier capable", Viggen and jeff are great at this.

Haha, only in video games...

On 9/1/2014 at 6:10 PM, SkateZilla said:

it boggles my mind how many people assume because an Air Force jet has a Tail Hook that it's "Carrier Capable".

 

The Hook is used to land on shorter runways or in the event of a failure in the gear system,

 

ie,

They can Land with no Brakes and use the Hook to slow the aircraft,

They can belly land with no gear and use the tail hook to catch emergency cable to stop the aircraft.

 

The F-15s, F-16s, F-100s or any Air Force jet for that matter doesn't have the landing gear strength to survive carrier landings.

THANK YOU! 

The F-15E (or C variant) is NOT carrier compatible in any way, whatsoever; no carrier landings, and no carrier takeoffs. 

Well, the Viggen could probably land on a carrier the same way a C-130 can. It just needs a patch of flat, hardened surface of about 300m in length, and the carrier has that. Any aircraft with a landing run of less than the carrier's full length is theoretically capable of landing on it, though it would be a harrowing experience and not really a safe thing to do. However, that kind of STOL performance is rare in jets.

16 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, the Viggen could probably land on a carrier the same way a C-130 can. It just needs a patch of flat, hardened surface of about 300m in length, and the carrier has that. Any aircraft with a landing run of less than the carrier's full length is theoretically capable of landing on it, though it would be a harrowing experience and not really a safe thing to do. However, that kind of STOL performance is rare in jets.

You mean like the U-2?