wws@rruxd.UUCP (W W Scott) (03/10/89)
In article <2110@laidbak.UUCP>, jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: > > Which leads to a question. How do they open the nose > of the C-5 in flight to launch and recover the Aurora? :') > However they do it, they'll have to be IFR since the nose will block the view from the cockpit! Maybe they'll open the rear cargo doors and do a "carrier-type" landing with net, cable and tailhook.
jlo@elan.UUCP (Jeff Lo) (03/14/89)
In article <350@rruxd.UUCP> wws@rruxd.UUCP (W W Scott) writes: >In article <2110@laidbak.UUCP>, jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: >> Which leads to a question. How do they open the nose >> of the C-5 in flight to launch and recover the Aurora? :') > >Maybe they'll open the rear cargo doors and do a "carrier-type" landing >with net, cable and tailhook. What if you have a "bolter" and the Aurora misses the cable? I know a C-5 is big, but I don't think there's enough room for a plane to "go around again" if he misses the landing. A net would probably do nasty things to the airframe if it's going very fast. I can see a case where the C-5 could be going close enough to the speed of the Aurora for it to land, but not so fast that it'll need arresting cables. I'll bet it'll drop pretty quick once inside though, not much airspeed inside a C-5! -- Jeff Lo ..!{ames,uunet}!elan!jlo Elan Computer Group, Inc. Before March 15: (415) 322-2450 / After March 15: 415-964-2200
space@mvac.UUCP (Sci.Space netmail) (03/18/89)
>What if you have a "bolter" and the Aurora misses the cable? I know >a C-5 is big, but I don't think there's enough room for a plane to >"go around again" if he misses the landing. A net would probably do >nasty things to the airframe if it's going very fast. I can see a case >where the C-5 could be going close enough to the speed of the Aurora for >it to land, but not so fast that it'll need arresting cables. I'll bet >it'll drop pretty quick once inside though, not much airspeed inside a C-5! Now this seems a bit outrageous to me. My volkswagon has enough trouble when following a truck due to the wind turbulance. And that is in only two axis of motion. I would imagine that a C-5 creates a pretty high amount of wind turbulance as well, and in the air one has three axis to worry about. - tom lapp ============================================================================== (Nope, Reply will *not* work. Choose one from below to use for replying to me). uucp: ...!udel!mvac!space BITNET: space!mvac%udel.edu@CUNYVM Internet: mvac!space@udel.edu or space%mvac.uucp@udel.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (03/21/89)
In article <7.UUL1.3#5131@mvac.UUCP> space@mvac.UUCP (Sci.Space netmail) writes: } }>What if you have a "bolter" and the Aurora misses the cable? I know }>a C-5 is big, but I don't think there's enough room for a plane to }>"go around again" if he misses the landing. A net would probably do }>nasty things to the airframe if it's going very fast. I can see a case }>where the C-5 could be going close enough to the speed of the Aurora for }>it to land, but not so fast that it'll need arresting cables. I'll bet }>it'll drop pretty quick once inside though, not much airspeed inside a C-5! } } Now this seems a bit outrageous to me. My volkswagon has enough trouble } when following a truck due to the wind turbulance. And that is in only } two axis of motion. I would imagine that a C-5 creates a pretty high } amount of wind turbulance as well, and in the air one has three axis to } worry about. You are extrapolating problems where they do not exist. The Air Force (and the Navy) have managed to come up VERY closely behind some very fast and very large aircraft with very small aircraft. Look for a picture of in-flight refueling. Tough, but possible. Way back when there were blimps (remember them, space jocks?) we had aircraft launched from and recovered from blimps. The trick is that you fasten them securely BEFORE you bring them in. Sort of like substituting a arresting/grappler hook for the refueling nozzel and get the bracing done up right on the plane. I looked into the dynamics of this at the Naval Postgraduate School - it should work. Use the Ground effect aircraft and you got a REAL fast aircraft carrier! (BTW: not a classified study, and real simple to do at your local library) For good size/weight values, look into the book "Nuclear Flight"... Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck
steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (03/21/89)
In article <3412@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >In article <7.UUL1.3#5131@mvac.UUCP> space@mvac.UUCP (Sci.Space netmail) writes: >} Now this seems a bit outrageous to me. My volkswagon has enough trouble >} when following a truck due to the wind turbulance. And that is in only >} two axis of motion. I would imagine that a C-5 creates a pretty high >} amount of wind turbulance as well, and in the air one has three axis to >} worry about. > >You are extrapolating problems where they do not exist. >The Air Force (and the Navy) have managed to come up VERY closely behind >some very fast and very large aircraft with very small aircraft. >Look for a picture of in-flight refueling. Tough, but possible. The problem does exist, is a problem, and would make a "fly into fuse- lage" system very difficult to implement. The "extrapolation" is quite a reasonable one. Every aircraft has a significant wake behind it, both from disturbed airflow over the fuselage and downwash from the wing. Close formation flight at high speed is an art, and requires in-depth knowledge of the flow patterns around enach aircraft. Aerial refueling systems and procedures are very carefully developed so that the receiver stays out of the worst part of the wake of the tanker. Both flying boom and drogue and hose systems allow the receiving aircraft to remain in an area of reasonably smooth flow. Even so, the tanker pilot has to adjust his pitch trim as the refueling aircraft moves into position, as his "bow wave" can produce an upward force on the horizontal stabilizer of the tanker. These procedures are regarded as fairly critical and somwhat hazardous. Remember the crash of the XB-70? A chase plane moved into an area of turbulent flow under and to the rear of the wing. The flow pattern forced the nose of the chase plane up into the wing of the bomber, resulting in collision and fatal crashes for both aircraft. Just to set the record staight, a C-5 cannot open its front cargo door in flight -- the front "door" is the nose section of the aircraft (including the cockpit), which opens UP. Thus, the only way to recover an object would be (as Jim points out) to make secure attachments to it while it is in stable position, then bring it in. This still would be very difficult with any large object, particularly one that develops lift, as forces would be large and change magnitude rapidly. >Way back when there were blimps (remember them, space jocks?) we had >aircraft launched from and recovered from blimps. ... Blimps are fairly modern airships, and we still have 'em. I don't think any ever were capable of retrieving fixed wing aircraft. Some DIRIGIBLES were capable of such operations, but they had a much easier task than would a C-5 recovering a jet -- the flight speed of the bi- planes that were operated from them was fairly low (decreasing the body wake problems), and there was no wing downwash to contend with. Sure, this kind of recovery could be done, but it's not worth the expense and risk given the number of other, more practical alternatives. This discussion is really in the domain of rec.aviation, but it is clear that there is interest here. If you really don't want to see more of this, just use your "K" key. -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) (03/23/89)
In article <2953@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes: >... Thus, the only way to recover >an object would be (as Jim points out) to make secure attachments to it >while it is in stable position, then bring it in. This still would be >very difficult with any large object, particularly one that develops >lift, as forces would be large and change magnitude rapidly. There was a project that used a B-36 to carry small fighters around (F-86's?) and they did launch and recover them in flight. They did use a system where the fighter flew in formation under the B-36 until an attachment was made, then the B-36 hauled the fighter in. I believe that they tried out two systems, one carried a single fighter under the belley, another carried two planes, one under each wing. > This discussion is really in the domain of rec.aviation, but it is >clear that there is interest here. If you really don't want to see >more of this, just use your "K" key. Yes, I agree, but..... marcus hall There's always time for one more.. marcus@illusion.UUCP ..!mcdchg!illusion!marcus
steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (03/28/89)
In article <385@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes: >There was a project that used a B-36 to carry small fighters around (F-86's?) >and they did launch and recover them in flight. They did use a system where >the fighter flew in formation under the B-36 until an attachment was made, >then the B-36 hauled the fighter in. I believe that they tried out two >systems, one carried a single fighter under the belley, another carried two >planes, one under each wing. The project never got beyond the research stage, and was deemed impractical for operational use. Also, the advent of mid-air refuelling helped to kill the "parasite fighter" programs. One of the test fighters for this system is available for public viewing at the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino airport (east end of the Los Angeles basin). Some interesting features of the plane are horizontal stabilizers canted DOWN to avoid interference with the mother ship, and a large hook attachement in front of the canopy. The material that the hook is made of is quite interesting... after many years under the sun, the aluminum skin of the aircraft appears somewhat worn and corroded, but the hook shines brightly as if it just came right off a production line. Chrome moly steel perhaps? -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) (03/31/89)
In article <3014@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes: >In article <385@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes: >>There was a project that used a B-36 to carry small fighters around (F-86's?) >>and they did launch and recover them in flight. >>... I believe that they tried out two >>systems, one carried a single fighter under the belley, another carried two >>planes, one under each wing. > > The project never got beyond the research stage, and was deemed >impractical for operational use. Also, the advent of mid-air >refuelling helped to kill the "parasite fighter" programs. No, actually one of the systems was put into service. The single-fighter version was called FICON (FIghter-CONveyor). It was initially designed and flight tested with the XF-85. This was changed to the F-84E and the modified B-36F (49-2707) made its first retrieval and re-launch on April 23, 1952. By Feb. 20, 1953 it had made 170 aerial launch and retrievals. The swept-wing YF-84F was then used in the system. In May 1953 contracts were given for 10 RB-36D's and 25 RF-84K's modified for FICON use. The system was originally intended for bombers to carry their own fighter escort, but this was changed to providing extended range for reconnaissance. The GRB-36D could go out to a 2810 mile radius then the RF-84K would go an additional 1180 miles over the target area. This system was in service with the 99th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (for the GRB-36Ds) and the 91st SRS's RF-84Ks by the end of 1955. After about a year, the 91st SRS was disbanded and the system was discontinued. Another system that was tried was called Tom-Tom. This involved using wingtip hooks to hook up RF-84Fs on the B-36's wing tips. This system was very dangerous due to the B-36's slipstream and wingtip vortices. In early 1953 the first hookup was made using this system, but later on that year severe oscillation caused an RF-84F to tear loose from the hookup arm and the program was terminated. At any rate, using such a system for recon work does have real-live precedent, so it isn't unreasonable to suppose that a C-5 could be modified to act as a FICON-like carrier vehicle for Aurora. It would need a bomb-bay like opening for the parasite, but with its high wing (so that most of the structure is high in the plane) this shouldn't be impossible. marcus hall marcus@illusion.UUCP ..!mcdchg!illusion!marcus