HMS Queen Elizabeth

[AshVX220]

Cold said:

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.

Indeed.
I went down to see her come in yesterday, having missed her inaugural entry into Pompey. Having spent 8.5 years on the project and the last 4 years on F-35 I always feel very proud at such moments.
Got some pics and videos, but don't know if I can upload a photo directly to here or if I need to link it through a 3rd party.

[anonymous-user]

AshVX220 said:

Indeed.
I went down to see her come in yesterday, having missed her inaugural entry into Pompey. Having spent 8.5 years on the project and the last 4 years on F-35 I always feel very proud at such moments.
Got some pics and videos, but don't know if I can upload a photo directly to here or if I need to link it through a 3rd party.

Yes you can indeed.

You just click upload an image when you get the post box open and then select it from your phone or whatever.

[AshVX220]

Thanks El Stovey.
For those interested some pics from yesterday, taken from the wall to the south of round tower.




They're just phone camera shots, so not the best, plus it didn't help that it was a bit overcast.

[IforB]

Mave said:

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

OK, but the question and comment was specifically about handling a small bit of cross wind component on an angled deck. Those of us that do or have flown for a living, wouldn't even think of a that sort of wind direction as much more than straight down the runway.

Just to put a number to it. If the ship was steaming a straight course into wind at a relative windspeed of say 45kts and the flight deck was 9 degrees off, then the cross wind component would be the equivalent of 7kts. From a quick google, then an F-18 has a crosswind limit of around 30kts. (I'm sure it's more in practice) and so you aren't really going to give two hoots about 7kts.

[anonymous-user]

Great pics Ash. We’re you quite close then?

[AshVX220]

El stovey said:

Great pics Ash. We’re you quite close then?

Hard to judge distance really, but I guess 100-150m maybe? I was just south from round tower. Circled in Yellow below.

[mikal83]

I knew an "ASH" in the RN a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. He was called Tash.

[AshVX220]

mikal83 said:

I knew an "ASH" in the RN a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. He was called Tash.

Ah, wasn't me, my nickname was Jack (due to my surname) when I was in the mob. I did know a Killick Dog called Ash though, good bloke, built like a brick sthouse.

[Mave]

IforB said:

OK, but the question and comment was specifically about handling a small bit of cross wind component on an angled deck. Those of us that do or have flown for a living, wouldn't even think of a that sort of wind direction as much more than straight down the runway.

Just to put a number to it. If the ship was steaming a straight course into wind at a relative windspeed of say 45kts and the flight deck was 9 degrees off, then the cross wind component would be the equivalent of 7kts. From a quick google, then an F-18 has a crosswind limit of around 30kts. (I'm sure it's more in practice) and so you aren't really going to give two hoots about 7kts.

I agree for an F18, performing a conventional landing. The issue I was referring to was for a slow approach and vertical landing, where there is far less control authority. IIRC a Harrier has something like a 10 knot / 10 degree crosswind limit for vertical landings by comparison.

[IforB]

Mave said:

IforB said:

OK, but the question and comment was specifically about handling a small bit of cross wind component on an angled deck. Those of us that do or have flown for a living, wouldn't even think of a that sort of wind direction as much more than straight down the runway.

Just to put a number to it. If the ship was steaming a straight course into wind at a relative windspeed of say 45kts and the flight deck was 9 degrees off, then the cross wind component would be the equivalent of 7kts. From a quick google, then an F-18 has a crosswind limit of around 30kts. (I'm sure it's more in practice) and so you aren't really going to give two hoots about 7kts.

I agree for an F18, performing a conventional landing. The issue I was referring to was for a slow approach and vertical landing, where there is far less control authority. IIRC a Harrier has something like a 10 knot / 10 degree crosswind limit for vertical landings by comparison.

That's as maybe, but I'm talking about conventional ops on a conventional slanted deck carrier using conventional aircraft. The QE and invincible class carriers didn't have slanted decks and so it isn't really relevant to them.

[Mave]

IforB said:

That's as maybe, but I'm talking about conventional ops on a conventional slanted deck carrier using conventional aircraft. The QE and invincible class carriers didn't have slanted decks and so it isn't really relevant to them.

Well, my comment that everyone jumped on was directly in response to a question about the design choice for QE, so I wasn't talking about CTOL ops ;-)

[AshVX220]

It's purely down to the capability of the aircraft. When we briefly started doing some work on a Cat and trap variant of QE, she was given an angled deck, then (probably within a year) the whole idea was canned and we were back to where we are with a straight landing deck.

In the main, certainly once Prince of Wales enters service all landings on our ships will be the SRVL variety probably. Ship-bourne Rolling Vetrtical Landing, which was tested during the recent flight trials. This is where the aircraft approaches directly from astern, in line with the flight deck with about a 40kt closing speed and gently drops onto the deck, rolling to a stop in a very short distance. This method enables aircraft to return with any un-spent ordnance (which is getting more and more expensive).

When STOVL aircraft follow their usual pattern and closing the ship on the port side, then slewing across the deck and dropping straight down vertically, they can't do this with so much un-spent ordnance.

[RizzoTheRat]

El stovey said:

Bigger than the French!

Have the French had a problem with pilots landing the wrong way? That's a huge arrow

[mcdjl]

RizzoTheRat said:

Have the French had a problem with pilots landing the wrong way? That's a huge arrow

Go on then, just one more vin rouge.....

[majordad]

No yellow vests.

[Europa1]

RizzoTheRat said:

Have the French had a problem with pilots landing the wrong way? That's a huge arrow

Lazy stereotype alert: it's to remind them which direction the war is in.

[mikal83]

majordad said:

No yellow vests.

[98elise]

Mave said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Mave said:

If you're trying to manoeuvre at low relative speed to the carrier, you want the wind over deck to be in the same direction as your direction of flight.

An angled flight deck on a carrier lies at about 9 degrees. Are you seriously telling me that WAFU Pilots can't cope with a less than 10 degree X-Wind?



Additionally, all the Carrier has to do is steer 9 degrees off the wind and then the headwind is straight down the deck FFS!

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Monday 10th December 21:17

Before you start ROFLing and FFSing think about what you wrote. Then think about what happens to the wind over the flight deck when the aircraft carrier is steaming along at 30 knots and turns through 9 degrees...

You really haven't thought about this.....and you're arguing with a pilot!

[Mave]

98elise said:

You really haven't thought about this.....and you're arguing with a pilot!

Which bit of what I wrote do you disagree with?

[NDA]

AshVX220 said:

It's purely down to the capability of the aircraft. When we briefly started doing some work on a Cat and trap variant of QE, she was given an angled deck, then (probably within a year) the whole idea was canned and we were back to where we are with a straight landing deck.

You worked on her? That must have been fascinating.... I was interested on the TV documentary how newcomers to the ship were getting totally lost. Understandable I guess as it's huge and everything looks remarkably similar. Having been alongside (as far as legally permitted) an American Nimitz class in my little 8m boat, I felt the word 'awesome' to be appropriate.

I know nothing about warships and planes - but I had always assumed that the angle of the runway had the advantage of taking the planes away from the control towers.