HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Teddy Lop said:

I think carriers are a fair bit shorter than static airfields that might make landing an aircraft slightly more demanding

We aren't talking about stopping distance FFS!

You do understand how we deal with X-Wind landings?

On a Carrrier you would manoeouvre to minimise te X-Wind

[Teddy Lop]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Teddy Lop said:

I think carriers are a fair bit shorter than static airfields that might make landing an aircraft slightly more demanding

We aren't talking about stopping distance FFS!

You do understand how we deal with X-Wind landings?

On a Carrrier you would manoeouvre to minimise te X-Wind

no we aren't talking about stopping distance per se, so much as the luxury of choosing where it starts.

[IforB]

Teddy Lop said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Teddy Lop said:

I think carriers are a fair bit shorter than static airfields that might make landing an aircraft slightly more demanding

We aren't talking about stopping distance FFS!

You do understand how we deal with X-Wind landings?

On a Carrrier you would manoeouvre to minimise te X-Wind

no we aren't talking about stopping distance per se, so much as the luxury of choosing where it starts.

Umm. Could I suggest you wind back a bit. For a start, you're wrong and G15 is correct here and secondly, we could do without another row!

[Mave]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

No, I think you need to think about it.

While it's not a perfect scenario (and the X-Wind will never be zero in your example it will be seriously less. A Carrier can alter the wind over the deck, a fixed airfield can't.
[/footnote]

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS! "

FWIW my comments were based on a conversation with one of the F35 trials pilots not long after I'd read Eric Brown's book, which discussed pros and cons of angled decks. If you want to keep ROFLing and FFSing I'll be sure to pass on your compliments next time I see him.

Edited by Mave on Monday 10th December 22:53

[IforB]

Mave said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

No, I think you need to think about it.

While it's not a perfect scenario (and the X-Wind will never be zero in your example it will be seriously less. A Carrier can alter the wind over the deck, a fixed airfield can't.
[/footnote]

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS! "

Good lord. No, the ship would need to be sliding sideways to completely get rid of the cross-wind component, but if a carrier jock cannot deal with a small bit of cross-wind like 9 degrees or so, then they wouldn't be allowed near a Cessna, let alone actually being involved with carrier ops.

Is this the place to come for a pointless argument?

[Mave]

IforB said:

Mave said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

No, I think you need to think about it.

While it's not a perfect scenario (and the X-Wind will never be zero in your example it will be seriously less. A Carrier can alter the wind over the deck, a fixed airfield can't.
[/footnote]

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS! "

Good lord. No, the ship would need to be sliding sideways to completely get rid of the cross-wind component, but if a carrier jock cannot deal with a small bit of cross-wind like 9 degrees or so, then they wouldn't be allowed near a Cessna, let alone actually being involved with carrier ops.

Is this the place to come for a pointless argument?

I hoped this was the place to come for a discussion but unfortunately it appears not. People like to get their horses out nice and early round here.

Glad I didn't mention his comment about angled decks making it harder to use the ship's wake to line up for finals on a night landing...

Edited by Mave on Monday 10th December 23:09

[Cold]

Anyone pop down to the seafront with a camera today?

[anonymous-user]

Cold said:

Anyone pop down to the seafront with a camera today?

Unfortunately I was travelling into wind but my camera was pointing to the side by nine degrees, making photography difficult.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th December 23:38

[MissChief]

So does that mean the French use Cats and traps and can also launch and recover simultaneously?

[IforB]

Mave said:

IforB said:

Mave said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

No, I think you need to think about it.

While it's not a perfect scenario (and the X-Wind will never be zero in your example it will be seriously less. A Carrier can alter the wind over the deck, a fixed airfield can't.
[/footnote]

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS! "

Good lord. No, the ship would need to be sliding sideways to completely get rid of the cross-wind component, but if a carrier jock cannot deal with a small bit of cross-wind like 9 degrees or so, then they wouldn't be allowed near a Cessna, let alone actually being involved with carrier ops.

Is this the place to come for a pointless argument?

I hoped this was the place to come for a discussion but unfortunately it appears not. People like to get their horses out nice and early round here.

Glad I didn't mention his comment about angled decks making it harder to use the ship's wake to line up for finals on a night landing...

Edited by Mave on Monday 10th December 23:09

Could I just ask how much flying experience you've got?

A discussion is great, but be aware there are many on here who are very experienced in both military and civvy flying and so a discussion isn't really possible when the levels of knowledge are sometimes so vastly different on even basic principles of flight.

In the case of modern carrier ops, then there are many methods for ensuring that you are on the right profile for landing. relying on the carrier wake is a little on the old fashioned way.

Winkle Brown (who I had the pleasure to meet a couple of times) was a legend and 10,000 times the pilot I'll ever be, but using a single comment of his that was based upon the technology of the time is misrepresenting things a wee bit.

I am not having a go, but just making a point about why things sometimes turn the way they do in discussions on here.

[hidetheelephants]

Mave said:

I hoped this was the place to come for a discussion but unfortunately it appears not. People like to get their horses out nice and early round here.

Glad I didn't mention his comment about angled decks making it harder to use the ship's wake to line up for finals on a night landing...

I'd hope the deck landing system would be guiding them in these days, bats and following wakes went out in the 1950s.

[Mave]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Mave said:

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then [b] the headwind is straight down the deck FFS!

I ddn't say that did I . I said that it'd would reudce the X-Wind.
[/footnote]

You said exactly that. I copied and pasted it from your post before you edited it!

Edited by Scrump on Tuesday 11th December 08:16

[Mave]

IforB said:

Could I just ask how much flying experience you've got?

I've got very little flying experience. Some basic aerobatics years ago. Many years working in aerospace, and some in naval. Worked on the F35 programme, and on the QE programme in the early days, working fairly closer with the operators.

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 11th December 07:37

[Steve vRS]

Yes. At least whenever their carrier isn’t in dock. Which I understand is quite a lot!

[Mave]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Oh you read a book. But you are an EXPERT on flying! :rolleyeyes:

I never claimed to be an expert. I expressed an opinion following a conversation with a flight test pilot (who I understood to be an expert) about comments written in a book (by someone who I also believe to be an expert).

[Mave]

hidetheelephants said:

Mave said:

I hoped this was the place to come for a discussion but unfortunately it appears not. People like to get their horses out nice and early round here.

Glad I didn't mention his comment about angled decks making it harder to use the ship's wake to line up for finals on a night landing...

I'd hope the deck landing system would be guiding them in these days, bats and following wakes went out in the 1950s.

Just to be clear - my comment about wakes was tongue in cheek.

[Cold]

IforB said:

I am not having a go, but just making a point about why things sometimes turn the way they do in discussions on here.

If it helps I can highlight the common denominator as to why these threads sometimes degenerate into unnecessary and unwanted abrasive exchanges.

[NDA]

El stovey said:

Bigger than the French!

Thanks for that (and everyone else) - now I know!

[Halmyre]

IforB said:

Mave said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

No, I think you need to think about it.

While it's not a perfect scenario (and the X-Wind will never be zero in your example it will be seriously less. A Carrier can alter the wind over the deck, a fixed airfield can't.
[/footnote]

Which is not the same as your previous statement "all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS! "

Good lord. No, the ship would need to be sliding sideways to completely get rid of the cross-wind component, but if a carrier jock cannot deal with a small bit of cross-wind like 9 degrees or so, then they wouldn't be allowed near a Cessna, let alone actually being involved with carrier ops.

Is this the place to come for a pointless argument?

Do you want the 5 minute pointless argument or the 500 post handbags-at-dawn argument?

[Scrump]

Halmyre said:

Do you want the 5 minute pointless argument or the 500 post handbags-at-dawn argument?

We do not want either.
Please can we stop the bickering and insults.