SR-22 ditching 200nm from Hilo

Ryanb said:
Very interesting to watch, he looks so chilled and relaxed sitting in that raft waiting to be rescued.
Click to expand...

He knew in 30 mins he would be standing in line at the buffet holding a fufu drink with an umbrella in it. :lol:
 
35 AoA said:
actually the more I think about it, the difficult part that would require skill would just be timing your flare. This is assuming most civilian singles which don't fly AoA all the way to touchdown or at all in many instances.....unlike every carrier based aircraft. So you would be flaring behind the fantail or potentially just as you cross it (I have no idea where it would be but that would be my guess) to actually touch down in a desirable part of the LA from where you could stop un-arrested. Mess up that judgement call and you are dead smeared all over the fantail. Float a little bit, and now you have a pretty scary go around. I don't think the stick and rudder skills would be the big challenge, just trying to land a plane that isn't optimized for landing in a very precise spot. Obviously there would be no meatball to scan, as the setting for the lens is different for every aircraft (to actually read accurately) and there of course wouldn't be a setting for anything other than an F/A-18A-D, E/F, G, F-14, EA-6B, E-2, C-2, S-3 at this point in history. So you would have nothing to go off of to judge glideslope, and you would have to correctly guess when to flare above a moving runway. Of course you could probably just fly a flatter approach, but then you are really running into backside of the power curve problems, especially in a single without really any thrust available in that regime. Random rantings, in really no particular relation to the original topic :)
Click to expand...

I think you are way over thinking this. If the carrier was stationary, yes the flare could be an issue. With the boat moving 30 knots into the wind you could flare after passing the fan tail and still have plenty of stopping room. I think. :lol:
 
I might have to think about the math on this - since the deck is moving away from you, would it actually be getting "longer"? So it isn't quite as short as it seems? I'm thinking about it from a 172 perspective, not an F18.
 
Geico266 said:
I think you are way over thinking this. If the carrier was stationary, yes the flare could be an issue. With the boat moving 30 knots into the wind you could flare after passing the fan tail and still have plenty of stopping room. I think. :lol:
Click to expand...

You could have 50 knots across the deck under the right conditions. That would mean maybe 15 knots of relative forward motion at touchdown. You would probably be best doing it like the helicopters do. Approach parallel to the ship on the port side and slide over (forward and over) to the deck. This would keep you out of the turbulent air behind the ship.

If you wanted to get really fancy and could get going slow enough you could do like some helos do on the tin cans. Attach a cable to the aircraft and winch it to the deck!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAbm2XDpx9w

Action starts at 1:35. Keep in mind that this is a training flight for the pilot and that the guy on the deck is under instruction also so it took them a LOT longer than this normally takes.
 
With a 50kt headwind in a light GA aircraft, I think landing would be the least of the problems. Keeping it from getting blown up, over, and around once stopped sounds like the bigger problem.
 
I posted the math about 4 pages ago on this -

Unclassified speed of carrier: 30kts.

Avg wind at sea? 14kts. Speed over the bow: 44kts, speed over the landing zone? 42kts.

Max stall speed of a Cirrus: 61kts. 1.2Vso: 73kts.

Over the rail landing speed: 65kts. Differential? 23kts.

If a pilot cannot stop a Cirrus in 700' at 23kts relative motion? Something is seriously wrong.
 
That settles it: we clearly need to revitalize the popularity of spot landing contests. Where's my white spray-paint to put lines on the tires?
 
comanchepilot said:
I posted the math about 4 pages ago on this -

Unclassified speed of carrier: 30kts.

Avg wind at sea? 14kts. Speed over the bow: 44kts, speed over the landing zone? 42kts.

Max stall speed of a Cirrus: 61kts. 1.2Vso: 73kts.

Over the rail landing speed: 65kts. Differential? 23kts.

If a pilot cannot stop a Cirrus in 700' at 23kts relative motion? Something is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

That is great and all, but I'm more concerned about the pitching of the deck and the turbulence behind the ship than I am about the length of the landing roll, hence my last comment.

BTW, I have seen well in excess of 44 kts across the deck...
We got a 1 am call that there was a F-14 coming in with split flaps one dark and windy night. We played our games down in the belly of the beast to give him as low of a relative speed as we could...they asked...we delivered. We don't get to have much fun down there. Its was nice when they told us WHY they were asking for what they wanted, and being a pilot I understood exactly what they wanted and why it was an issue. It helps break up the "time to make the donuts" feeling you get in reactor.
 
comanchepilot said:
Over the rail landing speed: 65kts. Differential? 23kts.

If a pilot cannot stop a Cirrus in 700' at 23kts relative motion? Something is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't the forward speed that is the issue, it is the deck pitching up and down. Timing the speed and flare to plant it without a big bounce from crunching it on is the problem. In 10+' swells, the deck is going to be moving up and down a few feet. It may be big, but it is still floating.
 
DJTorrente said:
That settles it: we clearly need to revitalize the popularity of spot landing contests. Where's my white spray-paint to put lines on the tires?
Click to expand...

We had one at Fullerton last year. I wasn't able to participate, but did get to watch a few landings. Marker was done with a few strips of white duct tape across the runway. Apparently it wasn't wide enough, as the pilots were saying it was too hard to see. (Once again, the solutions to life's problems is...more duct tape...)
 
DJTorrente said:
That settles it: we clearly need to revitalize the popularity of spot landing contests. Where's my white spray-paint to put lines on the tires?
Click to expand...

NAS Whidbey Island has and area the size of the angle marked off on their runway. I was fun to try and get a T-34 down inside of the marks!
 

Attachments

  • Whidbey Island.jpg
    Whidbey Island.jpg
    108.6 KB · Views: 30
Matthew said:
I might have to think about the math on this - since the deck is moving away from you, would it actually be getting "longer"? So it isn't quite as short as it seems? I'm thinking about it from a 172 perspective, not an F18.
Click to expand...


This is like an "Airplane on a REVERSE Treadmill." Should we start a new thread?
 
comanchepilot said:
I posted the math about 4 pages ago on this -

Unclassified speed of carrier: 30kts.

Avg wind at sea? 14kts. Speed over the bow: 44kts, speed over the landing zone? 42kts.

Max stall speed of a Cirrus: 61kts. 1.2Vso: 73kts.

Over the rail landing speed: 65kts. Differential? 23kts.

If a pilot cannot stop a Cirrus in 700' at 23kts relative motion? Something is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...


I saw that before and you are spot on. :yes:
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
That is great and all, but I'm more concerned about the pitching of the deck and the turbulence behind the ship than I am about the length of the landing roll, hence my last comment.
Click to expand...

As you know the pitching of a carrier deck is relatively slow due to the size and weight. I don't think it would be that big of an issue landing at 20 mph depending on sea conditions. :dunno:

I would do it. No problem! :yesnod:

Wouldn't be my first time in the brig. :rofl: :eek: Actually, I stood watch in the brig, was never in it. :rolleyes2: :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
I might have to think about the math on this - since the deck is moving away from you, would it actually be getting "longer"? So it isn't quite as short as it seems? I'm thinking about it from a 172 perspective, not an F18.
Click to expand...
You already had one bite of that cherry with the increased headwind. You don't get another, as far as I can see.

There's no difference (at least, not for these purposes) between an 800' deck moving away at 30kts into a 10kt headwind, and a 800' runway with a 40kt headwind.
 
Geico266 said:
As you know the pitching of a carrier deck is relatively slow due to the size and weight. I don't think it would be that big of an issue landing at 20 mph. :dunno:

I would do it. No problem! :yesnod:

Wouldn't be my first time in the brig. :rofl: :eek: Actually, I stood watch in the brig, was never in it. :rolleyes2: :rofl:
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVgBayUfPJU

Any idea what the sea state was in the video? I'm not even seeing white caps so it can't be that bad.

Seas were 9-12 feet for that Cirrus.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVgBayUfPJU

Any idea what the sea state was in the video? I'm not even seeing white caps so it can't be that bad.

Seas were 9-12 feet for that Cirrus.
Click to expand...

In the pacific you get rollers so you really don't see many white caps but it still might be 10-15 ft swells. That's what the seas look like there to make that carrier pitch like that.
 
BG305 said:
In the pacific you get rollers so you really don't see many white caps but it still might be 10-15 ft swells. That's what the seas look like there to make that carrier pitch like that.
Click to expand...

I was a Pacific sailor...but since I was a mole man I rarely saw the sun or the sea...
 

Attachments

  • photo.PNG
    photo.PNG
    169.4 KB · Views: 25
tiger said:
There's no difference (at least, not for these purposes) between an 800' deck moving away at 30kts into a 10kt headwind, and a 800' runway with a 40kt headwind.
Click to expand...
If it's a plain ol' visual approach the approach to the moving deck will be shallower ;)

While all of this is certainly possible keep in mind that guys that do it every day, slow or fast, train for it. To (a) find a ready deck and (b) get aboard with *no* training and *no* experience is unlikely. The burble is going to be an unwelcome surprise to a slow airplane and unprepared pilot.

Nauga,
who says, "RV ball, point oh six"
 
nauga said:
If it's a plain ol' visual approach the approach to the moving deck will be shallower ;)

While all of this is certainly possible keep in mind that guys that do it every day, slow or fast, train for it. To (a) find a ready deck and (b) get aboard with *no* training and *no* experience is unlikely. The burble is going to be an unwelcome surprise to a slow airplane and unprepared pilot.

Nauga,
who says, "RV ball, point oh six"
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree it presents challenges! I was responding only to the comment about whether the runway moving away effectively lengthened it. That effect has already been accounted for with the headwind.

The way I see it, the approach path is indeed different relative to the 'ground' between a) a static runway with a 40kt headwind and b) a runway steaming into a 10kt headwind at 30kt. But the sight picture, in terms only of angle to the runway at a given distance from the 'numbers', is exactly the same for the pilot in both cases.

Tiger,
who doesn't normally add autobiographical remarks to the bottom of his posts but might make an exception just this once
 
nauga said:
If it's a plain ol' visual approach the approach to the moving deck will be shallower ;)

While all of this is certainly possible keep in mind that guys that do it every day, slow or fast, train for it. To (a) find a ready deck and (b) get aboard with *no* training and *no* experience is unlikely. The burble is going to be an unwelcome surprise to a slow airplane and unprepared pilot.
Click to expand...

how 'bout a good ol' 180-to-land? start the turn abeam the island and avoid the burble altogether...or get into the burble just enough to lose it altogether...
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Just do it like the Helo's do and come in from the port aft corner. Avoid the burble and slide in to land.
Click to expand...

if they can give me 50 kts across the deck then maybe but then I'll need wingwalkers until they get it slowed down
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Just do it like the Helo's do and come in from the port aft corner. Avoid the burble and slide in to land.
Click to expand...
Possible? Certainly, especially with training and practice. Likely for an untrained pilot? Not.

Heck, just fly close in abeam and jump onto the deck.

Nauga,
who in the spirit of Tiger's response will not post a tagline this time ;)
 
tiger said:
Oh, I agree it presents challenges! I was responding only to the comment about whether the runway moving away effectively lengthened it. That effect has already been accounted for with the headwind.

The way I see it, the approach path is indeed different relative to the 'ground' between a) a static runway with a 40kt headwind and b) a runway steaming into a 10kt headwind at 30kt. But the sight picture, in terms only of angle to the runway at a given distance from the 'numbers', is exactly the same for the pilot in both cases.

Tiger,
who doesn't normally add autobiographical remarks to the bottom of his posts but might make an exception just this once
Click to expand...

you got it man, the only thing I would say however, is that that picture is always a snapshot in time. So if you were to base your flare on one sight picture, in a millisecond that will be different. Actually that makes no sense how I have explained. But in an aircraft with a velocity vector, we see the effects easily. You see the velocity vector not on the wires, because if you were to do that it would mean that in a moment when you translate through time with the ship moving away, you are actually flying behind the wires. It is related to distance from the ship. So like shooting the gun, I will pull more lead on a target that is further away (and moving away from me) than one that is closer...... so at the boat I'll put that velocity vector right in the "crotch" where the angle meets the bow portion of the flight deck at the beginning of the pass as I roll out behind the boat in the groove. As I get closer, the velocity (instantaneous) vector slowly walks back down to the wires. I don't use this as a reference, but if you were to watch video recordings, this is what you would see. Basically, if you are a little ways from the ship, maybe 1000 feet behind it, and you flare based on one sight picture, in a second or two, you will be seeing a different (lower) sight picture because the ship is moving away from you. I guess the easiest way to describe it is that you are trying to lead the ship......as in project your touchdown point slightly ahead of what you are seeing right now, so that as the ship translates forward, you intercept it in the right place. So in that sense, higher closure with the ship would actually reduce this effect since you just get there more quickly. If you are slow to close with it, ie your relative motion is less, then you have to lead it more. Does that make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Somebody posted this video on Backcountrypilot.com - as it is somehow related to this discussion, I though I'll post it here.

C-130, performing a full stop landing, followed by a take off. On an aircraft carrier, no hook, no catapult, not even backtaxiing after the landing! :eek: :yikes: :yesnod:

http://youtu.be/uM5AI3YSV3M?t=2m48s
 
BG305 said:
In the pacific you get rollers so you really don't see many white caps but it still might be 10-15 ft swells. That's what the seas look like there to make that carrier pitch like that.
Click to expand...

White caps really don't tell you what the sea conditions are. The "rollers" are spawned from storms 1,000's of miles away. I really don't think it would be a huge issue landing a plane at 20-30 MPH.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I've got my FRZ pin but never landed at VKX. I was flying in the summer and wasn't sure if I could get back out. Trees on both ends...
Click to expand...

I had a Warrior when I was based there. Those trees look awfully tall on a hot day. People fly Cirri in and out of there, you just have to be on the numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top