Personal Aircraft Carrier

[Toot]

Ok. Let's get this out in the open. I'm not designing one, I'm not building one, and I never will. This is just a mental masturbation exercise that I play with when I've had a few too many beers. If you don't want to play along, I don't blame you one bit! :) I've just been thinking about this....

A light aircraft of typical construction and modern design can land at about 42-48mph (stall 30-38). Take off and landing, under its own power, in zero headwind, is about 200 feet. As a practical matter, an aircraft is alway taking off and landing into the wind on a carrier because you can turn the ship into the wind for this purpose. Also, the use of arresting cables can shorten the landing distance. A typical plane will brake at a rate of less than .5 G. A rate of 1G would halve the landing distance to about 100 feet and still wouldn't be applying but a fraction of the inflight loads (2G is common, 3G isn't uncommon, 6G is often the minimum intended max load). Obviously, gear would have to be stouter and attach points for arresting hooks would be necessary, but with such adjustments, 100 foot landing roll would be doable.

Take off is another story. Custom-designed steam catapults are expensive as all heck, I'd imagine. LOL. But, taking off, needing to reach an airspeed of 40mph, and with a 15mph headwind, means you're only accelerating 25mph (albeit from 15-40, not from 0-25, so there's drag issues there and whatnot). But I'd hazard to say that 150ft would be a conservative takeoff distance in this scenario, neverminding the aircraft that are REALLY designed for short-takeoff performance, that can stall around 25mph- they could almost lift off from a standstill!!!

So the capability of an aircraft to take off and land from a 100-125 foot deck shouldn't be in question. Sure, carrier landings are dangerous, but a part of that is the relative speeds. A jet fighter will be landing at 100mph+ with the carrier travelling at 20kts(?). That's an 80mph difference. Whereas, what I am proposing is a 10kt ship being approached by a 30kt plane, for an approach speed of 20kts. I can almost ride a bicycle that fast!


So why hasn't it been done? Surely there is some rich lunatic out there with lots of money to spend (and sadly, it is not I). Yes, it's dangerous, yes you would have to keep a crew on board to maneuver the ship into the wind for landings and takeoffs, but I would think that there would be at least one or two crazy rich people in the world who would want to be the first....

And you've got to admit, a small 2,3, or 4 seat airplane would be one heck of a lot cooler than your typical tender.


So what is your take on it? Why hasn't it been done? How long until it *is* done? What would it cost?




And once again, this is strictly a mental masturbation exercise. As such, please don't waste any time of effort that you don't truly want to spend on this question. If nobody responds, my feelings will not be hurt in the slightest.

Cheers!

[Robert Gainer]

Helicopter

[Toot]

Helicopter

In three words:
Not as cool. :)


In four words:
Not as much range. :)

[Robert Gainer]

It all depends on what you think is cool. I can fly a small plane but can’t fly a helicopter so the helicopter is the cool item to me.

I really don’t know how it works but I thought that a Bell Jet Ranger had a longer range then most small 2 or 4 person aircraft. Just an impression really but that’s my recollection.

[Figgy]

HA! That would be cool! But honestly, I think people dont build one is the complicated systems, and the fact youd have one heck of a time getting cleared into ports!

[Smoothride]

A piper cub could do this pretty easily. A super cub might be better with the bigger engine.

I think you're talking about mostly high wing airplanes such as a C-152 or 172. Most low wing airplanes stall a little higher (airspeed).

Most airplanes fly final approach at 1.3Vs for their current flap configuration. All factory manufactured airplanes have flight manuals where you can extract landing and takeoff performance, and some of the most common ones of these are online.

I can tell you also that no "normal" jet business aircraft or turboprops would be able to land on a "small" aircraft carrier. A pilatus porter might be a good bet though (single engine turbo prop)! Another option might be a pilatus PC-12 commonly called a "platipus" in the biz. The platipus is a low wing, but it may be able to do it. A lightly loaded C-130 landed on a large carrier a long time ago (nutty).

To sum it up, go for a STOL aircraft (Short TakeOff and Landing). :D

Beers,
SR

[yipster]

check out the "pilatus" it takes off and lands on a dime

[Toot]

Ever hear of the Fieseler Storch?

It was a German aircraft in WWII. To this day, it's probably the most advanced piston-powered STOL around. Stall speed, IIRC, was about 28mph. It had nose flaps which were basically attached to a spring. Air pressure "retracted" them above a certain airspeed. Today, there's a 3/4 scale version that the manufacturer claims can take off and land in 75 feet. It sounds a bit optimistic, but it also sounds possible. It's got a 140hp which is a pretty good amount for a light 2-seater. Though, again, 200ft of take off roll is "typical" for a small piston-powered STOL.

The Pilatus and other heavy turboprops all need at least a thousand feet. They land short by corporate standards, but not by aircraft-carrier standards. I think to do it, you'd need to resign yourself to an aircraft that carried no more than 4, preferably 2 for starters, and it would require a fair amount of modification to the landing gear and a VERY aggressive STOL planform- much more aggressive than a typical bush plane, so I think an experimental aircraft would be the way to go. It would also allow you to make necessary changes and adjustments on a whim without the FAA looking over your shoulder quite as much.

I always go back to the Fieseler Storch. sub-30mph stall speed. You could practically hover it over the moving boat and just jump out. The Kitfox is another aircraft that might fit the bill. Thousands built, simple steel-tube construction, very lightweight. It could be made to work as well.

I figure 120 feet of runway would be enough to launch a small aircraft like those above. You could probably get away with a hundred foot boat with a 20 foot overhang off the bow. Maybe 30 feet wide at a bare minimum. Again, there could be overhangs to accomplish this size.


Ball park estimate... what would the pitching moment of such a ship be? How many degrees would the ship pitch in a given sea condition and how quickly would it do so?

[Toot]

HA! That would be cool! But honestly, I think people dont build one is the complicated systems, and the fact youd have one heck of a time getting cleared into ports!

Ports Warts Shmorts! You just strap yourself in, put the throttle full-forward and head for whichever air port you'd like.

I guess you'd have to leave somebody behind though... or maybe just a few guard dogs or something. :)

[stevel]

I think this idea is a blast! I agree with the helicoptor answer in one respect, however. The fact that the helicoptor is a more practical solution, that one is the one that actually does get built. I think your proposal would be much more fun. As an added bonus, think of the fun that could be had on all of that deck space when the bird aint flying.

[Toot]

I think this idea is a blast! I agree with the helicoptor answer in one respect, however. The fact that the helicoptor is a more practical solution, that one is the one that actually does get built. I think your proposal would be much more fun. As an added bonus, think of the fun that could be had on all of that deck space when the bird aint flying.

The thought of the "party deck" had, indeed occured to me. :)


String up some 18 foot nets around with weights at the bottom, and you've got a nice tennis court, basketball court, or whatever.

And tell me it wouldn't be cool just to be partying alongside all of those running landing lights.... (even if you never did intend to do a night landing) :D

[Toot]

I also have thought about using a crane to lift and lower a small 2-4 person amphibious plane.

Water take off and landings, taxi up to the boat, and then use either a crane or elevator to lift your plane up to the ship. How much space would that require? Well....

A plane of that size would have a wingspan of perhaps 20-30 feet and a length of about 20 feet with a weight of under a thousand pounds or so. So, really, if you were dedicated to doing it, it could be held on a somewhat small vessel... you'd just have to have a way to keep it out of the elements so it doesn't blow away if the winds get bad.

But, once again, like the helicopter, it's not nearly as cool. :)


I really do believe that such a boat will be built in my lifetime. I don't think it will be in the next ten years, but I do think it will happen. Undoubtedly, somebody with money and a touch of insanity will do this at some point.

[Smoothride]

Toot,

That Storch is a favorite of mine also, I saw a restored one at the local airport in Washington. Never built a model of one as a kid though, they 'aint the purtiest bird at the field; but they sort of have that FUNCTIONAL beauty, like an F-4...

The pilatus takes off in 646 ft at sea level, without the 50 foot obstacle figured in (which you wouldn't need because you are taking off in the middle of the ocean).

The kitfox seems like a very lightweight possibility. Maybe a Murphy Moose? Maule? Paragliders? Experimentals with triple slotted flaps, and slats to boot? Screw it, if you can afford a small aircraft carrier, then you can just get a civilian version of the V-22. It looks cool, goes fast, and carries lots of people.

Seriously, the Moose has floats, it's robust, it's an inexpensive kitplane made out of METAL, and it has a RADIAL ENGINE, which is by itself, very cool. Good times.

[Toot]

Oh goodness! I didn't even think of this until now.....

GYROCOPTERS!!!! Take off and land in 50 feet or less!!!! That would be almost vertical take off and landing if you were flying into a headwind or the boat were steaming forward!!!

Ok... so now you could do an aircraft carrier on a 50 foot boat!!! I guess it wouldn't be as cool as an actual airplane... but.....

A gyroplane can be built for under $30K. You only need 30 feet or runway to safely take off and land. No arresting cables or anything. That's FAR cheaper than a helicopter. You'd cruise at 80-120mph straight off the boat. It could almost bring the technology of aerial exit from a boat a full order of magnitude lower in price....

you'd just have to sacrifice your deck layout... a lot.


Here's an example. Rotary Air Force RAF2000 (http://www.rotaryairforce.com/raf2000/)

It's not quite as elegant as a helicopter but it's a heck of a lot cheaper.



Ladies and gentlemen, I think I just figured out what I'm gonna do once I have a million or so in the bank.

[Smoothride]

Gyrocopters = for girls. ;)

Beers,
SR

[lewisboats]

RATO...Turn your take off roll into nuthin'

Steve

[Poida]

Like the idea of the seaplane. A crane would not be neccesary as you can have the stern sloped down as a ramp and winch the seaplane up the ramp and store it on an angle. Maybe fold the wings up to reduce wind drag

[yotphix]

There was a 150' or so charter yacht that carried both a helicopter and a small amphibious plane. Not sure of the details but it was called the Nadine and sank in the Med a while back. When the crew was being airlifted off they threw the helo in the water to make room for the basket!

[Frosty]

A few months back we had a guy wanting advise on building a personal submarine. He had a rich client with 50 million dollars to spend apparantly. He wanted a 40 foot door in it for a helecpter ( or missiles).

Now we have a discussion on a personal air craft carrier.

Should we be worried?-- are we worried?

5 years ago some guys walked into a flight school and asked to learn how to fly a jumbo jet, we dont want to learn how to take off or land" they said.

Were we worried then?


Shouldnt someone call someone CIA or some thing.

[FAST FRED]

A carrier landing with a prop plane simply requires a lARGER than normal engine. The "backside of the power curve" flying is taught to all prop carrier pilots.

An ultra light would have even lower landing speeds , but hardly have excess power or a structure to catch an arresting wire.

The early USN carriers launched amphibs that could land ashore or allongside, and be crained aboard.

A mirror landing system could be easily constructed , but on boats they are gymboed, so the visual glide path remains stable , as the carrier dances in the seaway.

Build one , Ill fly aboard in my Ultralight, if you can go fast enough , or anchored if the wind is 30K.

FAST FRED

[Smoothride]

Fred, were you a carrier pilot before?

If so, what did you fly?

regards,

SR

[Toot]

A carrier landing with a prop plane simply requires a lARGER than normal engine. The "backside of the power curve" flying is taught to all prop carrier pilots.

An ultra light would have even lower landing speeds , but hardly have excess power or a structure to catch an arresting wire.

The early USN carriers launched amphibs that could land ashore or allongside, and be crained aboard.

A mirror landing system could be easily constructed , but on boats they are gymboed, so the visual glide path remains stable , as the carrier dances in the seaway.

Build one , Ill fly aboard in my Ultralight, if you can go fast enough , or anchored if the wind is 30K.

FAST FRED


Hehe. Yes, I was thinking about the behind-the-curve problem. That's why I threw out the Fieseler Storch replica as my first choice for a "full-sized" aircraft. Most of them use a LOM engine which is good for 140hp. It's not an ungodly amount of power, granted, but it's a pretty serious engine for a 1200lb gross weight 2-seater.

Ultralights would work too. They could take off slow enough with a good headwind/forward boat speed.

The gymballed glideslope device would also make life a lot easier. And, again, it'd just be cool. :D

[FAST FRED]

Back in "the old days" every US Navy pilot was carrier trained.

I learned on the T-28 , 6 landings on the ancient Lexington, and another half dozen for multi engine qual with a S-2F, 1964.

Never flew carriers operationaly , was in SP2H , or P2V7 as deep ocean patrol pilot.

Today the cost of carrier training is only spent on folks that will be carrier operational in the Fleet.

Too bad , landing on a postage stamp was great fun!

FAST FRED

[westlawn5554X]

Phew, and to think I was the only nut around:) I would vote for a GEM seaplane tender and a good crane anytime.:D

[Poida]

Jack
The CIA probably monitors this site as well as others.
G'day CIA people.

Poida

[CT 249]

Baby aircraft carriers? LSTs flew observation Piper Cubs on and off narrow flight decks.

But you don't even need a deck with a Stinson or Cub.....other LSTs (or LSIs?) had "Brodie Devices" which were a wire stretched from masts leaning up and over the side. The Cub had an arrestor hook erected above the top wing. You just flew into the wire and hooked and slid to a stop along the 300' wire.

Take off was similar but in reverse.

I can't load the pics, sorry.

http://www.warfoto.com/bh216a.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/1016001802.jpg

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=51907&sid=824a2a8cb18be0974f5930eef636201b

[Smoothride]

Fred;

That's neat, the P-2V Neptune, precurser to what I flew for 4 years, the nasty old P-3. P-3s are pretty limited now as to how many hours they can fly per month, due to airframe fatigue issues. The 737 replacement for the P-3 will come none too soon!

I would have much rather flown the T-28 than the little T-34C turbo weenie! The T-44 was a great multi engine trainer, however, and I really loved that airplane. It was fun to land. The T-tail kingairs I fly now are much more touchy in the flare, easy to land, but hard to land well...:D

R/SR

[MikeJohns]

The Japanese WWII Submarines used to carry spotter planes..did that make them an aircraft carrier?

Toot
You would be better off putting your aircraft design skills to designing a lightweight stowable seaplane. Flight decks are expensive. Maybe you could buy one of the old floating bridges and just tow that around behind you :-)

Cheers

[ancient kayaker]

An ultra-light is just an over-sized model with a self-aware payload. A model glider can be launched on a towline at a high angle of incidence and can go up like a rocket in still air with the towing person moving at far less than the flying speed; same principle as a kite. The towline attaches just ahead of the CoG. This would get you up in a light breeze or from a slow moving boat. Getting down is simpler, unless you want to survive the experience.

[Poida]

Recently got a magazine with the 100 biggest privately owned boats. Few had heliports. Looking at what they have on board such as bars, accomodation, pools and the boats usually carry more crew than guests. If rich people had an airport built into their boat it would have to reduce the amount of other goodies that they would rather have.

On to something else I don't think that anybody else has mentioned because I'm probably wrong (what's new) although you don't probably need a great deal of length for a prop plane to land you will still need the width so as well as the wing span with a safety clearance you need the cockpit.

This means for the boat to have the right proportions for a boat for handling etc. it means it would still have to be fairly long. A lot of money to spend with very little benefit over a chopper.

Incidently one of the boats carried a twin hulled boat for taking the 4 wheel drive ashore.

[Jimbo1490]

I really don’t know how it works but I thought that a Bell Jet Ranger had a longer range then most small 2 or 4 person aircraft. Just an impression really but that’s my recollection.

Sorry to burst the bubble but Jet Rangers (the classic 206B variety) have about 3 hours duration and fly at about 120Kts flat out. Do the math. Even a lowly 152 goes farther. And without 'ranger' tanks :rolleyes:

The most advanced SToL Light aircraft are of recent desing, NOT the old Storch. The Helio Courier and the Pilatus Turbo Porter come to mind. The Maule is no slouch either. The turbine Maule is one of those that they demo by gunning the throttle at the back of a 100' deep hangar and the thing is airborne at the doors :eek: Then ther is the PZL Wilga. Cute in a bug-ugly sort of way :D

Arresting hooks are out of the question: the re-engineering needed in the airframe is to withstand the extra stess is daunting, costly, will screw up all other aspects of performance, and untimately prove impossible for most airframes.


Jimbo

[jack wicks]

Good Idea, Too bad you couldn't just get an old retired aircraft carrier from some country before they scrap it. I've flown ag aircraft and ultralites, there are a lot of planes that could do this. It would be neat if the boat could have apartments or rooms to rent while at sea etc,. I think a fun project if you had piles of $ would be to build a bridge somewhere accrossed the Atlantic with rest stops etc, every 300 mi. or so. Think of it

Are we off topic now??? Wicks

[alexlebrit]

I still think flying boat is the way to go, better than a float plane as they can be more compact.

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/20030729-oshkosh/loon-seaplane.quarter.jpg

Fitted with folding wings, and then a boat with a big enough stern dry dock to be able to fold the wings and taxi in.

Combine that with enough space for your SeaRoader too,

http://www.amphibiousvehicle.net/amphi/S/searoader-1.jpeg

and you've got the ideal combination of sea, surface and air transport.

[marshmat]

Damn, now you've got me thinking!
As for the plane, http://www.geversaircraft.com/index.html look appealing? A bit bigger than we've been talking about, but capable of pavement, water and snow operations and with the potential for good low-speed characteristics. Experimental of course, at least at present. The old Storch is still pretty impressive for STOL performance but a bit of modern technology applied to the same concept could certainly do as well or better.
As for the plane's powerplant, Pratt&Whitney Canada is reportedly working on a new class of light-aircraft turbofan.... the thing's tiny, only a couple of feet long, but insanely powerful. I don't think it's in production just yet, but their site's http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_0.asp
As for the boat, I'm thinking cat- start with fastferry-like wavepiercing hull forms, perhaps, stretch 'em out to the needed runway length- then you get your big flat deck, while still being insanely cool in the process. Great ride and accommodations, and you could winch a few smaller yachts up between the hulls for travel and deploy them for exploration.... and you gotta have some sort of canopies you can deploy across the flight deck when the plane's not flying, so you can party it up out there....
I'm gonna be giving this one some good thought, for sure... for now though, back to the report on this damn MHD drive I've been battling all month. Keep the ideas coming...:)
-
edit- http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_1/3_0_1_6_1.asp is the engine I mentioned, P&WC's new 600 series, fans from 14" to 18" and 900 to 3000 lbf of thrust. Certification expected late next year.

[Bob S.]

Some interesting stuff here:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/index3.htm

[Kaa]

If you want to fly off your boat, this is actually viable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_paraglider

http://www.poweredparaglidingontario.com/rentals/lpgo1.jpg

Kaa

[ABoatGuy]

The other side of the equation is the pilot. There are very few private pilots that regularly land exactly on the runway centerline, let alone at a fixed distance down a runway. I may be cheaper to crash into the water and swim to the boat then wreck a plane AND a boat every time you wanted to land!

The seaplane retreval idea would probably work . . . a lot more room to screw up.

[Smoothride]

I've actually done that (paragliding) off a boat with a small landing/launching pad on the front of one boat, while getting pulled off the pad by a separate speedboat via a tow line. We'd go up to 500 feet, release from the tow line, and float down in the chute, getting ready for water entry. Once in the water, we slipped out of our harness, and waited to get picked up by a recovery boat. We had all our flight gear on, and this was supposed to prepare us for a bailout over the water. Good times. Very do-able, and not too dangerous.

They have paraglider models with small landing gear and seats, but you are still exposed to the elements. I would say a paraglider is better than an ultralight; very slow takeoff and landing speeds would make it safer, with less chance for a mishap.

Having flown airplanes in the Navy for 10 years:
In regard to landing a conventional fixed wing aircraft on a boat: any non-carrier aviator would need a fair amount of training to land on a small deck, not to mention the risk involved (significant).

Most light aircraft don't have landing gear that can withstand the 350+ feet per minute rate of descent required for a no flare touchdown spot landing on a deck while staying on a 3 degree glideslope at 70knots final approach speed (normal approach speed in a C-172). Paragliding, while not glamorous, is alot safer and more fun! What a great way it would be get a birds eye view of what's ahead/around!

SR

[FAST FRED]

At times a line is dropped from a helo to a smaller boat and the helo driver goes full UP and some chief Boat handles a winch and times the rolls and yanks the helo to the deck.

The paraglider might drop a line ,fall back into towed mode and be hauled aboard to a spot.

FAST FRED

[Jimbo1490]

With a true SToL light aircraft, plus a relatively fast motor yacht, capable of say 20 Kts or so, it should be possible to 'catch' an airplane with a well thought-out catch system. The Helio Courier I mentioned in an earlier post flies with full control at 26kts. A mere 6kts headwind with our proposed 20kt motor yacht gives an approach deck speed of *0*.

http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_courier.htm

A far less costly alternative might be a SToL kitplane like the Zenith:

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-perf.html

Same deal; right conditions and the approach speed is zero. There are risks in catching airplanes but it is do-able and gets around all the problems with having a 'real' aircraft carrier. Nobody is looking for jet speed here so why use a solution built around that capability anyway?

Jimbo

[marshmat]

But I want Mach 0.85 performance at 42,000 feet from my yacht-launched bizjet!
Neat planes both, Jimbo.... love the helios; the zenith ain't the prettiest thing in the world but I like the concept.
As nice as it would be to be able to run a Learjet from my boat, I think something a lot slower and more leisurely is in order here... I'm thinking a big, high-aspect wing with 'the works' in the slat/flap department; good and efficient at high speeds but with a slow stall speed, a challenging order but certainly doable. Slap a pair of those P&WC 600-series engines on it, with reversers.... hell, with engines like those folks sell now you may as well just sit the thing on its tail and let 'er rip.
Aha! Here we go- Convair's XFY1 'Pogo'. http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/convair_pogo.htm Anyone here nutty enough to willingly get into that thing?
Or how about a bit of a '30s flashback.... http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/pages/E/luftsch_u_zepp.htm anyone?

[Hotel Lima]

bell 609...

wouldn't that work?

[Greenseas2]

Don't think it hasn't been done. An ultralight landed on a 198 foot by 45 foot regulation deck barge that was being towed a few years ago. Let's see....with a stall speed of 26 mph for ultralights, and with the barge traveling in to a 10 knot wind at a water speed of 10 knots, the aircraft would touch down with a forward speed of 6 knots. Put a tennis net at the far end of the barge....just in case. With the cost of a well used regulation barge being around $50,000 and an ultralight around $12,000, your carrier with aircraft will come to about $62,000. Of course, tug boats to tow the barge charter for about $2,000 per day......but what the heck.

[FAST FRED]

All that is really needed is enough room to stop a 500lb ultralight , without the high G loading of a cable arrested landing.A soft arrest.

AS cont. operations will not be needed the old runway end "Last Chance "method could be used. A cable is laid across the landing area that simply connects to 2 lengths of old old chain.

If the hook engages the chain begins a 180 turn and is progressively dragged along behind the aircraft. A 500lb 30K ultralight would probably be smoothly stopped in 20 or 30 ft with 1/4 inch chain.

Old ships chain can grab a 120K brakeless fighter and stop it in 100ft , smoothly.

FAST FRED

[Greenseas2]

Hi Fred, haven't talked with you in awhile. I believe that FAR's limit the weight of an ultralight to something like 275 pounds. I'd hate to think what a tail hook stop would do to the aircraft structure in that they aren't that well built. The grace saving factor with ultralights is that the stall speed is limited to 26 mph. You could just drag your feet and stop it. Big thing is to practice setting the aircraft down on the numbers as in short field landings. Ship's speed into the wind is key to a mid-deck departure lift off. You probably would need winds of 20 mph coming over the bow.....10 wind speed and 10 ship speed. Don't think I'd trust a 2 stroke engine in this scenario though. A group project of this sort would be fun and I believe it's do-able; however, I'll opt to run the ship rather than fly the plane. The only wings I now have are chicken feathers when it comes to aviation experimentation.

[safewalrus]

And what sort of 'fly swat' would you reccommend for all these noisy little pests flying around the anchorage on a Sunday afternoon?:p

A balloon is slower but quiter, easier to launch and recover - easier to hit too if it gets annoying (a balloon wouldn't disturb to much of course):cool:

[Greenseas2]

I doubt seriously if such a vessel would be around an anchorage on any afternoon. I further doubt that either one of will ever see one.

[RHough]

Here is a link to someone that was serious enough to ask Phil Bolger about it.

Civilian Carrier (http://www.brucesboats.com/page3.html)

It's based on Bolger's Wyoming sharpie.

[safewalrus]

Greenseas youv'e cheered me up but once mooted these things have a nasty habit of becoming real I'm afraid (now were did I put that 'calibre 30'!)

[FAST FRED]

I believe that FAR's limit the weight of an ultralight to something like 275 pounds.

True , but weren't you planning on a driver too??

The "training " exemption gives lots more initial weight than 254.

Landing Signal Officer , or build a mirrored "Meatball" system for approaches?

FAST FRED

[Greenseas2]

Hey Walrus, I don't envision seeing a personal aircraft carrier during my lifetime other than mega-yachts with choppers. If someone, by chance, should invest in the big bucks and money to build one, the USCG and Home Land Security would probably blow it out of the water thinking it was terrorists. One ulralight and barge up in smoke after thye crew had been water boarded of course.

[safewalrus]

Greenseas, yeah! sounds good, then peace would return to the anchorages! Look like these terriers may have a use after all :eek: (not much mind!);)

[yipster]

http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/Common/Images_Jokes/Tiger%20Woods%20Yacht.jpg
tiger woods new yacht?

[marshmat]

A balloon is slower but quiter, easier to launch and recover - easier to hit too if it gets annoying (a balloon wouldn't disturb to much of course):cool:
In that case, why not tow a Zeppelin or blimp? Sure, that's a lot of air drag- but at 20 knots over ground in a 20 knot headwind, the blimp's effectively going 40 knots, and a blimp doesn't need much power at all to do that- the big Zeppelin NT has only 600 hp total, and can do nearly 70 knots with ease. Air drag goes with the square of the speed- towing the 10-tonne NT at 40 knots effective airspeed would probably only take about 200 hp. A Lightship-class blimp would only need somewhere from a quarter to a half of that amount. I can think of a lot of yachts that can spare that much power. The only thing is, the boat'll have to be heavy and long enough that the airship doesn't pull it off course in a crosswind.

[RHough]

In that case, why not tow a Zeppelin or blimp? ... The only thing is, the boat'll have to be heavy and long enough that the airship doesn't pull it off course in a crosswind.

Bridge clearance might be a bitch ... :)

In crosswinds, just tow the boat with the blimp ..?

[Hotel Lima]

I'd sugest building a new plane with swing type wings like the F-14 b1b or F-111. then you could land at slow speeds and fly at higher ones.

[marshmat]

In terms of variable geometry wings, I think for STOL you'd have better luck with the Gevers telescopic wing than with a jet fighter's swing wing... the idea of most swing wings is to allow supersonic flight while preventing low speed performance from becoming absolutely disgusting. Their benefits are pretty much negated on anything with a top speed under six hundred knots. Look up the Gevers concept- the telescoping wing has a lot of promise for STOL, especially with the addition of slats/flaps (even though the designers don't really think that's necessary).

[Jimbo1490]

the idea of most swing wings is to allow supersonic flight while preventing low speed performance from becoming absolutely disgusting. Their benefits are pretty much negated on anything with a top speed under six hundred knots.

The above is/was true, but the concept of the swing-wing now appears obsolete for supersonic aircraft as well. With the retirement of the F-14, the previous retirement of the F-111's (excepting only the EF-111 Ravens) this leaves ony one swing wing airplane in the US military inventory the, B1B heavy bomber. And if they designed it again for the capability it was reduced to as the B1B from the B1, it certainly would not have been a swing-wing in the first place.

The Russians have been on a similar path. Both of their premier fighter families, Fulcrum and Flanker, have stationary wings. 'Their F-111' the Sukhoi SU-24, is several years younger than our F-111 and was a bit better thought-out, so will probably remain in service a few years longer. Their B1, the TU-160, had an amazingliy similar troubled gestation having entered service only in the mid 80's so will also be around for a few more years.

Point is there are no more 'swing-wing' fighters being planned; modern aerodynamics have moved beyond the need so that the penalties of weight and complexity cannot be justified, even when cost is no object.

Jimbo

[marshmat]

Point is there are no more 'swing-wing' fighters being planned; modern aerodynamics have moved beyond the need so that the penalties of weight and complexity cannot be justified, even when cost is no object.
Absolutely true- the mechanisms to actuate a swing wing are heavy, complicated, take up a lot of space, and require constant maintenance in addition to being expensive. It's possible now to design a fixed wing that does well over a wide speed range. Also, the demand for Mach 2+ is gone in modern fighters; efficiency, range and stealthiness have taken priority, and Mach 1.5 is more than enough for most air forces.

Wait a sec. Are we wanting to carry a supersonic jet on our Personal Aircraft Carrier? Egad, I think we're drifting off topic! :O

[Hotel Lima]

What about an aircraft launching system where you hook the plane up to the boat and have it power up to full throttle and then use a quick release to let it go? As for landing you could probably do it the navy way and tow around a hook that catches a wire with some brakes on it. Then when the plane meets the deck you go to fullpower and if it dosn't catch you can go around?

[RHough]

Wait a sec. Are we wanting to carry a supersonic jet on our Personal Aircraft Carrier? Egad, I think we're drifting off topic! :O

Well ... the big turbo diesels and surface drives get the boat up on foils to minimize the take off run ... and the SS aircraft is a seaplane to make recovery easier ...

Sounds as practical as some of the other ideas that have been posted ... :D

Back on topic ... what's the stall speed of a J-3 Cub? 35 MPH? I remember someone landed one on a "flight deck" that was a plywood platform on top of a truck. The 100' private carrier is doable.

[Hotel Lima]

how big of an airplane needs to take off from it?

We could be talking very large.

[FAST FRED]

I remember someone landed one on a "flight deck" that was a plywood platform on top of a truck. The 100' private carrier is doable.

IF the carrier is really fast , 75 or so there is no end of aircraft that can be visualized landing.

A mostly empty 727 is light enough to still fly ,and could spot land, but might need catapult assistance taking off with a load.

FAST FRED

[safewalrus]

Just to go off track a wee bit I always thought one of the ideas of having a boat was to AVOID airplane trips! Unless of course you have a fleet somewhere of people you don't particularly like and want to do something nasty to them -like teach em to swim!

[Hotel Lima]

a 727 is very large it needs of a mile of runway to take off (over 5,000ft) I think we are talking much smaller.

[Jimbo1490]

No aircraft the size and weight of a Boeing 727 has ever left the fight deck of any aircraft carrier. The largest and heaviest ever was the North American A-5 Vigilante, which was retired back in the seventies. There is one mounted as the 'gate guard' at my local airport:

http://www.taxi-sfb.com/Pages/R5A%20Vigilante.htm

That plane is not small, but a 727 is roughly twice the size and weight and suggesting anything like this for a personal AC carrier is perhaps about as feasible as building a solo transatlantic racer from only popsicle sticks.

IMHO

Jimbo

[Greenseas2]

The Navy experimented with landing C-130's on carriers and used RATO for takeoff assist

[Jimbo1490]

Yeah and Ling-Temco-Vought landed that crazy tilt-wing with the four Allison 501's which is also about the same size and weight as a Herc. But these are still about 8-12 TONS short of a 727's weight (depending on the model). Another problem with the 727 is it only has single tire main gears; they are reputed to be the heaviest loaded singe tires in aviation. This means the deck will have to be thicker to accomodate this plane than virtually any other. The main wheels may each support the entire weight of the aircraft momentarily. Max weight of a 727 is about 180,000 lbs for the -200's and about 150,000 for the short ones. The Herc is about 135,000, IIRC.

For comparison the A-5 flew off the deck at just over 100,000 lbs when carrying the free-fall nuke with full fuel. This was a 'special' weight, not the usual allowed take-off weight for this airplane.

Jimbo

[Hotel Lima]

greenseas I think you are talking about J.A.T.O, Jet Assisted Take-Off

RATO means nothing as far as I am concerned.

[safewalrus]

Something else - depends on the ability of your pilots - back in the sixties a bunch of Americans landed on one of the largest Brit' Carriers of the time (Victorious) to a man they refused to take off again, 'ship was too small' was the comment (God how we enjoyed that!!!). Goes to illustrate that if your not used to landing and taking off from postage stamps your going to have more difficulty than a full trained 'carrier pilot!

[Hotel Lima]

I guess they were used to using the larger american carriers eh? :P

[safewalrus]

About that! Large and loud! Ain't changed much, still the same!

[kerosene]

RATO from wikipedia:
A system for assisted take off known as JATO for 'Jet-assisted take off' (and the similar RATO, 'Rocket-assisted take off') was popular during the 1950s, when heavy bombers started to require two or more miles of runways to take off fully laden.

Yeah 727 banging on the deck seems rather challenging from engineering standpoint.

I think that Fast Fred was more suggesting that if you can run the boat fast the plane can land at decent air speed though landing gear to deck speed difference would no be that much.

[Hotel Lima]

I would think that it would be cheaper to make the boat bigger than faster.

getting a 100' boat to do 30knots is very expensive and I think the gains would be min. compared to just making a 200' boat do 12 knots.

Aircraft carriers are fast but they don't have to be. Enterprise launches and lands F-18's from a dead stop. I am pretty sure that that is a requirement as what would happen if the planes were up and the ship got stuck or engines broke down no-where near an airport.


I would think an arresting wire type system might work for what we are talking about. For a pretty slow prop plane the mods should be pretty small.

[marshmat]

The trick, if you want to run fixed wing aircraft off a boat, is to have the plane take off and land at really low speeds- and in really short distances.

Compared to most fighters of its era, the F-18 (like other carrier fighters) has a pretty quick takeoff run and can be airborne at fairly low speeds for a plane of that type. (Ever seen the flaps fully deployed on that thing? They're HUGE.)

Plus the Navy carrier has a nice little steam catapult that gives the plane a heckuva lot more momentum than the engines could in the same distance. That's not a particularly pleasant system to implement or use, but it's the only way to get such a heavy, fast plane off a boat without a rocket.

As for the arresting wire system, yes it does work, the trouble is getting an airframe to handle it. Those things put an insane amount of stress on the airframe and putting one on a Cessna 172 might even rip the tail right off the plane if you come down a bit too quick. Beefing up the airframe to take it adds weight, which means you have to carry more gas to get the same range, and also fly faster to get airborne, but you accelerate slower under engine, so you need a catapult.

No, I think for the P.A.C. what we'd want is a lightweight, powerful S/VTOL plane with a huge wing and good high-lift gadgets.

Sketches coming as soon as I'm done counting cosmic-ray muons.....

[Craig C]

Larry Ellisons Yacht Katana , previously Eco had a sea plane onboard. This was lauched into the sea in the same way as a Skip is picked up by a truck, on hydraulic rams across a central beam. It transpired that this solution did not work as well as anticipated. The elderly owner of Eco died not long after her launch and so Larry bought the boat. His needs required a basketball court and so the seaplane was ditched. It seems that his new boat Rising Run also has a basketball court but I am still unclear as to her helicopter capabilities

Craig C

[Frosty]

A basket ball court?? Now theres a good idea,-- a snooker table room perhaps for the long sea voyages?

[Ari]

A basket ball court?? Now theres a good idea,-- a snooker table room perhaps for the long sea voyages?

Jack, I thought some space for my table tenis table on deck is crazy enough..I don't want my children to get this basket ball idea even for half of the 'D'. I can hardly stand it when they play right infront of the house until late at night..onboard if the ball go a pounding..think about the echo..:mad: Something for sure I would like to have..is the golf driving range platform with net surrounding it to catch the ball. Saw this thing at one of the proshop:) .

[Craig C]

Here a good pic of basketball hoop , but back to the theme, there used to be a seaplane in this spot... Larry's new boat also has basketball court, but no seaplane... Its worth clicking on image to get full size pic

[Greenseas2]

At the Oshkosh fly in there was a 2/3 scale, 2 passenger Fiesler Storch aircraft that landed in half it's length in a 15 mph wind. Take off was 30 feet. The aircraft has leading edge Kreuger flaps on the front of the wing and large fowler flaps on the trailing edge. It was powered by an 80 hp Rotax engine. This particular aircraft design was built by the Germans for WWII and several are flying today. It's strong points are exceptional short field landing and take-off capability. A converted self powered barge would make an ideal floating airfield for this type aircraft and could be used for search and resue or surveillance.
The great part about this airplane is that it can amateur built and comes in either a kit or completely build package. In a 22 knot wind, it can hover.......almost. Weight empty is only 600 pounds

[marshmat]

The Storch was one amazing plane, that's for sure.... I guess there's just not as much demand today for ultra-STOL capability. We certainly have the aerodynamic knowledge, and the lightweight high-power engines, and the materials, to build something that can take off and land in less space than the Storch while performing better in the air.
There aren't many stock airplanes that would be suitable for our personal carrier here. Sure, a few neat ones have been mentioned already, but none seem perfect for this role. OK, so designing a new aircraft as well is a huge additional cost.... but why not explore the possibility?

[Greenseas2]

Maybe we could introduce the storch to the Border Patrol and save Homeland Security a bundle. They could land and take off from almost any open area. Before I retired, I was part of a Washington think tank and what the USMC and USN were looking for was a multi-engine Super-STOL logistics aircraft for Over-the Horizon resupply for marines onshore. We came up with a couple of designs with operational characteristics similar to those of a storch and even one design that was a UAV for hot areas where resupply and/or squad extraction was necessary. We also came up with a refined design for a UAV muli engine, heavy lift, gyrocopter concept with ducted turbofans. Neat stuff. Within the overall logistics scenario was a cheap mini-carrier that also had the capability of producing fresh water for troops ashore in remote locations. The idea paralleled the personal aircraft carrier concept to a degree. The main thrust was to develop a large ship with 2 active duty runways that could resupply a large contingent onshore from over the horizon. Only logistics aircraft would be onboard, no fighters. The USMC's plan was/is to keep several thousand marines at sea, and readily deployable at all times.

[alaskamokaiman]

Moller skycar should be out in Dec 08 needs same room as heli and cruises at 275mph. It is not the boat that needs design change but the air craft.

[Greenseas2]

The floating platform can be just about any size with a clear take off and landing path. The aircraft performance is the key. I'm not so sure about the Moller air car. Molt Taylor had the same idea many decades ago and we still don't see any air cars buzzing about. This is the reason that I advocated existing aviation technology with the Storch aircraft. Actually, even while it's slower, the performance numbers are better than the Pilatus Porter and Helio Courier.
I think that combining marine and aviation technologies could produce an inerxpensive carrier with aircraft that can safely operate from it. The main thrust of this drill is to take a novel idea and find a bonifide use or mission for the combination. Security is the first thing that comes to mind. Here in Florida, shark patrol along the beaches would be another as would border security.
With all aspects of the plan, the first would be economy of construction and economy of operation to sell a concept of use. Let's face facts, a small budget isn't going to produce any high performance vessel or aircraft, so let's go with what can be done in reality and see what happens. The first criteria would be that the boat has to function like a carrier and look like a carrier. The second is that the aircraft have to be STOL and safe.

[Greenseas2]

PS. The Storch stalls at 22 mph, therefore the vessels speed into the wind is less important. A good breezt day would offer sufficient wind over the deck. No catapilt or arresting gear needed. Might consider a tennis net at the bow for landing aircraft.........just in case.

[marshmat]

The Moller M400 has eight Wankel engines at 150 hp each, and lists for $995,000 USD. I think a million-dollar VTOL aircraft with 1200 horsepower is a bit more like a luxury helicopter than a cheap bush plane. Not that it's a bad aircraft- I kind of like it- but perhaps a bit pricey for what seems to be a low-budget concept boat. Could be a promising boat-borne option for someone with the money, though, and a lot easier to fly than a chopper.
As the Canadian navy pilots can testify, landing vertically on a small, pitching deck is a royal pain at the best of times. (Indeed, they don't fly the Sea King all the way down on the boats- just to within a few metres, where the chopper can drop a cable into a receptacle on the deck and be winched down.) Americans have it easy with those massive Nimitz-class boats!
I think a light, powerful STOL aircraft with a big, efficient wing is the way to go. Take the old Storch as a starting point, maybe add boundary-layer blowing and more modern split flaps, and give it a decent modern motor.

[Greenseas2]

You are right, the price of the Moller is prohibitive, even for planning purposes and being able to potentially sell the concept. I have many hours flying US Army helicopters and am very familiar with confined area operations. Also as a fixed wing pilot, I always enjoyed short field landings and max take-off's. (Landing on the numbers and taking the first intersection off the runway) It seems that we can do something better with the basic 2/3 size Storch. The major effort is to now get a group of enthusiasts together and formulate an approach to doing the project. As also a vessel master, (There are a lot more ship captains that are pilots than there are pilots who are ship captains) there are many contacts in the commercial tug and barge world that may enjoy sponsoring the project. I believe that starting with the modification of a 198 foot deck barge of some vintage may work. Wing span on the 2/3 Storch is 33 feet (10 meters) so we're looking at a 45-50 foot wide barge for starters. The control brudge and "island" can be built off to the side. Son is a ship welder. Just ideas for your thoughts.

[marshmat]

It seems that we can do something better with the basic 2/3 size Storch. The major effort is to now get a group of enthusiasts together and formulate an approach to doing the project
Count me in..... I won't be buying one just yet and I'm still a few years away from my P.Eng, but I wouldn't mind tossing some ideas around :) This kind of project has a tendency to be fun!
I like the el-cheapo used barge idea, no shortage of those around.

[Greenseas2]

The whole project has to be economical. It does appear that it would be something fun to do. I'll see if I can coerce some of the commercial maritime world to do a little backing as I think they might enjoy being involved in a project of this sort. Also, I'll check Slepcev Aircraft on the price of the Storch kit. Latest data on changes to the plane by Slepcev is that it has been lengthened about 2 feet and they are now offering a 4 cycle engine rather than the riskier 2 cycle. Flying the aircraft solo, the pilot has to fly from the front seat only. We'll be out of town for the holidays until the 28th and I'll get back if any information has come in by that time.

[marshmat]

On the cost note... for those of us who haven't bought an airplane recently....
A new Cessna Skyhawk 172, probably the most popular four-seat piston-engine general purpose aircraft, starts at $209,000 USD and weighs roughly 1100 kg (a hair over one ton) loaded. (That includes Garmin G1000 avionics.) The Skylane, larger by half, starts at $326,000 USD.

[kc135delta]

I have bought an airplane recently. And a good tip is don't buy new.

I would sugest the Helio Stallion

It carrys 10 people, has a cruise speed of 175knots, designed to operate out of 350ft Stalls at 37knts. I also think it would be better becuase it is offered in a tricycle landing gear which would help visability on landing.

The "eco" version of this would be the compair 7, it takes off in a simular 300-400ft.

Personally I wouldn't go with a barge becuase you would become too reliant on the tugs, but more of a converted ex-container vessel. Theirfor you could make your own power and move around more freely.

just an idea.

[kc135delta]

acctually this might work out best, with 180hp it will hop off the ground with a 500 pound load in 290ft, I imagine the 240hp option will yeild even better results. But I would still plan on a 300ft deck as you need room for error.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/performance.html

The "hornet" has even more impressive numbers, it also seats 4 people.

http://www.aircraftkits.com.au/aircraft/Hornet_STOL.htm

takes off in under 150ft but it cruises under 100knts so it's quite a slow-poke

[Greenseas2]

The stallion is a great aircraft and I have no experience with the hornet. Any time you enter an experimental mode, you want to keep expenses to an absolute minimum. The stallion and hornet don't come cheaply and a 300 foot barge to convert and power carries an astronomical price. Regulation 198 foot barges are relatively inexpensive and a superSTOL experimental aircraft is affordable to a small group of enthusiasts. Key to the effort is also finding a real world practical function for the project. As super STOL aircraft go, it's hard to find one that will take off and land in twice it's own length such as the Storch. And as far as the STOL technology goes, it would be hard to improve on it without going outside the propeller driven arena to something that would equate to the performance of a harrier. Home built helicopters or gyrocopters might be interesting to explore. The concept using gyrocopters might work in that take off and landing would always be in to the wind with a tiny carrier type vessel, thus eliminating the somewhat dangerous cross wind component for autogyro type aircraft. Just thoughts.

[kc135delta]

What about attaching two 198ft barges end to end to make a 396ft barge? I think self propelled is near essential otherwise it looses it's ability to be "useful" and their is little reason to buy it. Search and Rescue/ Border patrol ect... require rapid movement of the base platform otherwise it would be no different from any other airfield besides the fact that it is small and in the ocean.

Can someone send me link to one of these "regulation" barges, I have never heard of such a thing.

[kc135delta]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/Helilog56/PoolyIsland038.jpg

They operate that helicopter off the barge for logging, is this the type of barge you had in mind?

[Greenseas2]

The barge with the CH-54 Sky Crane on it is close except wider and minus the bin walls on the side. Being that this is a drill in practicality, a 198' ft x 45' x 6' barge should be easy enough to power with a couple of used GM 6-71 engines. For the time being, let's not consider accommodations except for a head and small galley in the island. The width of a barge is a limiting factor on length of wing span for a fixed wing aircraft. Once the initial project is completed and tested, future designs for the combination can be expanded where ever one wants to take it and at any greater expense. This would initially be a calm water exercise. It's not envisioned that the vessel would be used in open ocean, but rather as a fun thing close enough to shore for rescue by a standby boat. Where aircraft carriers usually have helos orbiting close by in the event that an aircraft goes off the forward end, something of this nature would probably use an outboard runabout for pilot recovery. As with a larger carrier, the landing strip painted on the deck would have to be at a slight angle so that if an aircraft did go off the end, the aircraft would be clear of the vessel. A lot of safety procedures would have to be written and practiced with a venture of this sort even though it's just a fun project.

[kc135delta]

I think you would be able to find some older dry cargo ships out there to convert to make it a Blue water carrier.

Might be able to convert this barge to power http://www.brownmarine.com/cboat102.htm

it's 600k and looks alitttle.... rough... you would probably want a inspection

after 5 minutes in paint I just drafted up these little beauties.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/carrier1-1.jpg
er1.jpgflight deck
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/flightdeck.jpg
hanger deck-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/hangardeck.jpg

Not exactly what I call art but you get the idea of what I had in mind.

I don't think we will need an angle deck becuase we don't have catpults and if a plane went off the front it wouldn't sink instantly and would just be pushed out of the way by the barge which might be doing 6-8knots?

I'd like to see what others had in mind

also I found this; http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/STOL%20King.htm only 2 seats but lands and takes off in 50ft. stalls at 15mph.

[Greenseas2]

The barge pictured is either a navy quarters barge or a surplus Army Floating maintenance ship (unpowered) FMS that is 220 feet long. I think that the first attempt should be kept as simple as possible and not include quarters or elevators. The initial concept in any plan is usually to focus on the primary functions of both air and vessel assets. With a project of this sort, it would be very easy to price it out of existence very quickly. Your concept drawing is great for a follow-on development effort. A good source for used barges is Boats and Harbors yellow sheets and Workboat Mabazine. Both are free.

[Greenseas2]

The Preceptor is a variant of the Slepcev Storch. The major difference is in the landing gear. The Storch has 10 inches of upward shock absorbed movement in the landing gear to enable very rough field landings. I'm not sure if the Preceptor can handle this type of landing without damaging the landing gear. It appears too rigid. I will definitely investigate the Preceptor further. Thanks!

[stevel]

Taking KC135Delta's idea a step further. Do you really need a full island like the big boys have? If you limit it to one of those bubbles that sticks up 18-24" through the deck, then there is no limit on wingspan.

[Greenseas2]

Preceptor advertises the King Stol as having a 15 mph stall. Not true as they caveat it in brackets saying "power on". This is not true stall speed. True stall is power off when the aircraft stops flying. In truth, they have modified a Slepcev Storch. With wings that are 2 feet shorter, the actual stall speed is probably around 25 or 26 mph. They could get someone killed by their claim if he/she lost and engine and thought stall was at 15. As the Australian manufacturer of the Slepcev Storch just said, "that landing gear would probably snap off during a rough field landing."You can rig the numbers on a Cessna 150, or any airplane for that matter, if you make a landing by using full flaps and hanging it on the prop. Not wise unless you've had a lot of practice.

[Greenseas2]

The bubblles are a good idea, but a structure is still needed to support radar and radio antennas as well as providing good close proximity maneuvering visibility for the vessel. The island could be very narrow though....... similar to a submarine conning tower. Think large used propane tank standing on end and welded to a side deck extension.

[stevel]

Forgot about all that other stuff.

[kc135delta]

So what's the plan for the first test?

Would we just Rhinoline the deck or something? Some sort of non slip grip surface.

[Greenseas2]

Good idea. A non skid deck is a "must" and something we haven't previously aaddressed.

[kc135delta]

The 195' idea has no expandability, Once we do it and find out it works we have to drop it and buy something new.

I wouldn't buy anything smaller than 250', 300' would be optimal. Then if you prove that it works you can sell it as is with everything, island, hangar, elevators. if not then you dismantle it and sell it.

I could see the USCG interested and smaller countries interested in a cheap blue water aviation capability. Their is no way they would be able to take on larger navies but it could provide recon, and light forward air support to ground troops.

put a pair of .50 cal machine guns under the wings and a gunsight in the cockpit and you have an attack aircraft, put a pair of 250pound bombs under the wings and you have a light bomber. Granted it is very crude to us but it would appeal to many 'limited' governments looking for some sort of offensive abilitys at a steal of a price. If you had 2 aircraft configured with .50cals and rockets, one with some small free fall bombs, then a pair of helicopters to drop off SF troops ontop of the marines landing on the beach, which you could also keep onboard with the room below the hangar deck and you have quite an assault force.

The ship could also be reconfigured for SAR operations. Strap extra fuel tanks under the wings and send them out with a pair of helicopters on standby to go pick them up when the planes sight them.

Border patrol could be accomplished with a simularly to the search and rescue idea, just replacing the helicopters with gunboats and maybe stepping down the mood from a rushed high speed response to a slower loitering action. Just one or maybe two airplanes up at once as the ship can remain on site allmost indefinitely due to the fact that the aircraft and support boats could cycle the crew (probably an aircraft job), bring fuel and supplys to the ship (probably a support boat job). Allowing the ship to remain a comfortable 500miles off shore and still be within 4-5hours of land. Creating a comfortable buffer between invading forces or zone SAR/boarder patrol.

I would deffinatly say the market for a ship like this exists in both the developed & developing world making it a viable investment with the possibilites for great return.

[wblakewsx]

there was a turbine powered helio for $65K 10 yrs back, 15' rotors, 500hp?
there was also 12'er counter rotater w/4 motors. Easiest is a pontoon ultralight.

[kc135delta]

there was a turbine powered helio for $65K 10 yrs back, 15' rotors, 500hp?
there was also 12'er counter rotater w/4 motors. Easiest is a pontoon ultralight.


Mind me asking what your talking about?

[Deering]

http://www.polarismotor.it/

And it makes a dandy dinghy too!

[kc135delta]

That won't have the range or endurance of a normal STOL airplane let alone speed.

[Greenseas2]

Being that this is purely experimental and conceptual, range and speed are secondary considerations at this point. I intend to fly the Slepcev Storch here in Florida in a couple of weeks and see what performance it has.

[FAST FRED]

Preceptor advertises the King Stol as having a 15 mph stall. Not true as they caveat it in brackets saying "power on". This is not true stall speed. True stall is power off when the aircraft stops flying.

This is a technique called flying the "Backside" of the power curve, used back in prop days on carriers.

On a pilots first carrier approach the tail hook would not be lowered and a touch & go ("Crash & Dash") would be performed.

The rule was to NOT look at the airspeed indicator as you got back over the water , but of course everyone did.

50K showed on the dial, T -28 , would ordinarily be in full stall at 50K , but a BIG engine (for the weight) kept the aircraft in the air.

Pensacola class, 17-64

FF

[Greenseas2]

The backside landings left a lot to be desired but, as you said, are OK with a BIG engine. For this drill we're using the power off stall speed to insure that we can make a "missed approach" if necessary. In that tail hooks would mean beefing up the Storch, and thus necessitate higher landing speeds, we're counting on the natural performance of the aircraft to do the job. What is planned is to mark off a 150 x 45 foot runway on a grass strip with chalk lines and see how much of it we use in actual take-off and landing maneuvers. Hopefully less than half of the runway will be used assuming a 10 knot headwind. This will provide some meaningful data as to how small of a vessel (barge) that can be used in the experiment. It should prove to be interesting. The Slepcev Storch that we are using has a 100 hp inline 4 cycle, 4 cylinder engine that is reliable. I also have some T-28 time off of a grass field mmany years ago.....nice aircraft.

[safewalrus]

How's about seeing if there are still some 'woolworth's carriers' hanging around from the second world war, save a bundle building what you want (and if that fails go get the plans from whoever designed the bloody things - they worked and did just what your all after, a small (very) aircraft carrier to carry a couple of aircraft, based on a merchant ship hull!

there's nothing new under the sun

(boring old fart taking away all our fun!!)

[kc135delta]

None of those exist, they have all be scrapped. Plus they would be a total rust bucket if they still existed.

Any more thought on this idea? Now that I look at it, an arresting system isn't totally rediculous, you have about 200 ft to slow a 2,500 pound object from 40 or 50mph. That's not bad at all, with a simple hydraulic system you could make it pretty smooth and consistant. Taking off wouldn't be difficult with a larger engine. That coupled with a good slow speed wing it dosn't seem like much of a problem at all.

[Jimbo1490]

We concluded early on in this thread that it was very do-able, IFF you were not demanding modern jet performance from the airplane. Plenty of small propeller aircraft would work, many of them even type certified.

As soon as you demand say 400 Kts and 1500 nm range from the aircraft, all bets are off; you wind up with something that looks frighteningly like the USS Ronald Reagan :D

Jimbo

[kc135delta]

I was thinking somthing like a Beech Mentor,

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/T34-max-01.jpg

It would appeal to more partys than we might think, Coast guards, limited governments, private millitary contractors and even the rich guy that wants the wow factor.

[ancient kayaker]

To hell with rich guys. Toot's original post strongly implied doing the thing on the cheap.

I don't think anyone has mentioned ultralights yet. Whoops, I just did.

An ultralight without an undercarriage should be able to land on the cockpit of a small powerboat running at modest speed. A two engine job would avoid the embarrassment of chewing up the landing crew who would be trying to hold the thing down once the pilot leaps off and changes underwear.

You'd want to be able to either clamp the thing down or kill the lift quickly and a folding wing would be practical. A bit like hang gliding on water skiis, whatever they call that.

[FAST FRED]

Here is one that gets off really rapidly and folds to a small package.
The wing folds to a tube 1 1/2 ft in diameter about 20 ft long.

The frame folds small enough to go down a large hatch.

A 15K boat would not require either catapult or arresting gear.

FF


Ultralight Tukan Trike


Configuration Single or 2 Place Tandem
Empty Weight 254 lbs.
Gross Weight 750 lbs.
Wing Span 35 ft.
Wing Area 170 sq.ft.
Standard Engine 447 Rotax
Power 40 hp
Cruise Speed 45 mph.
Rate of Climb at Gross Weight 800 fpm.
Take Off Distance 100 ft.
Landing Distance 100 ft.
Kit Type - Build Time Fully Assembled
Field Set up from trailer 35 minutes 1 person
First kit delivered 1989
Contact Information
J & J Ultralights
11020 89 th Road
Live Oak FL 32060
386-330-2007

[kc135delta]

I thought we were talking 'aircraft carrier' aircraft carrier not Ultralight landing pad.

[Steve in SoCal]

You guys are all cracker jack engineers; a couple of things come to mine here. First any carrier should steam into the wind for launch and recovery opp's even 10 knots on a calm day drops the speed over the deck by that amount. Next; a light GA aircraft is not strong enough to cob a tail hook onto with out getting way to tail heavy. The easiest way to slow down a spam can is a sand box. A 100' landing zone with a 75-100' sand trap will slow down and stop a plane with out any damage. On the aft deck you would have hard surface full beam and at the start of the sand the deck would be split half hard, half soft surface. If the airplane on approach needed to miss they would just steer to the hard deck.

There are a few airports with bends in the runways and they are not that big a deal. A T34/Bonanza would be a cinch in this deck.

Just an idea from an old drag racer and Bonanza driver.
Steve

[Greenseas2]

Over here in Ormand Beach, Florida a company is now marketing a 2/3 scale of the Fiesler Storch that has a stall of 17 mph. This would be ideal for personal aircraft carrier operations. It has permanenet leading edge slots and flaperons that provide optimum low air speed control. The aircraft was at the latest Sun 'n Fun in Florida. Sand would stop an aircraft, but hinder building takeoff speed which, with a 10 knot wind over the deck, would be 7 mph with 2 people on board the airplane. Actually, the Storch was the predecessor to the Helio Courier and Turbo Porter Aircraft from Sweden.

[Hotel Lima]

You guys are all cracker jack engineers

A 100' landing zone with a 75-100' sand trap will slow down and stop a plane with out any damage.

You have the most ridiculous idea on here.

Do you have any idea what a 2500 pounds alluminum can hitting a sandtrap at 30mph will do? How do you expect it to survive this uncontrolled and inconsistent medium and varied angles of attack and POI's.

For future reference I wouldn't go about calling people "crackerjack engineers". Many people on here are engineers for very respectable outfits including myself.

Former F-14D driver, VF-31. Alittlebit faster than your Dr. Killer.

[Steve in SoCal]

Well Mister Tom Cat driver,

I meant the cracker jack in a good way and I am not disparaging engineers. Regarding a sand trap for a tri-gear small GA air plane. I do know what it will do, if the force vector is not yawed it will stop the lil air plane just dandy. I am not talking about sand feet deep, a few inches will do just fine. I don't suppose you ever landed that thing on a soft field and if all you were ever exposed to is Military flight you may not realize that you can land a little airplane on some very different surfaces than a jet with high wheel loading. You would have to do a full stall landing and hold the nose off, we are not talking about carrier opp's in an F-14 slamming on and hitting the two wire.

I think you may have miss read my suggestion; The landing would occur on the hard deck and the airplane would roll out to the sand. I don't understand the POI thing, the airplane is wheels down and it drops an inch into a tray of sand that is 3 inches deep. Unless you are really crossed up when you hit the sand no harm done. You won't even blow up much sand if the nose strut is pumped up.

Before you cast stones; think about what you say, I hold an ATP DA-20 DA-50 HS-125 MEII and LOA for P-51, FB-11 and have a bit of time in T-6. If you have never flown a Bonanza you have missed a real treat.

Steve

[Omeron]

You really do not need any length of deck as a runway, to launch a jet engined plane. All you need to do is to persuade RAF to sell you one of their HARRIER's. Just make sure that your deck is strong enough so that the downward thrust doesnt punch a hole right through the bottom of the boat!

[RatliffFranklin]

You have the most ridiculous idea on here.

Do you have any idea what a 2500 pounds alluminum can hitting a sandtrap at 30mph will do? How do you expect it to survive this uncontrolled and inconsistent medium and varied angles of attack and POI's.

For future reference I wouldn't go about calling people "crackerjack engineers". Many people on here are engineers for very respectable outfits including myself.

Former F-14D driver, VF-31. Alittlebit faster than your Dr. Killer.

Don't get your panties in a bunch about "crackerjack."

crackerjack definition
adj.
Slang
Of excellent quality or ability; fine.
crackerjack synonyms
also crackajack adjective
Slang. Having or demonstrating a high degree of knowledge or skill: adept, crack, expert, master, masterful, masterly, professional, proficient, skilled, skillful. See ability
noun
Slang. A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, expert, master, past master, professional, proficient, wizard. Informal: whiz. Chiefly British: dab2. See ability
crackerjack etymology

[RatliffFranklin]

If you had a STOL plane like the Storch 10 knots over the deck plus 1g from a catapult for 1 second would get the airplane to flying speed.

[Greenseas2]

If you had a forward speed of 10 knots into a 10 knot wind, the Storch is quite capable of lifting straight off of the deck with no take-off roll. Same for the Helio Courier and Pilatus Porters. Same with landing. With the flaperons fully deployed, the aircraft can almost hover to the ground/deck in a 17 knot wind. The 3 aircraft air also proven mouintain rescue birds for landing in super tight places. I flew the Slepcev Storch and the performance is amazing. As far as I know, there are 3 companies building the Storch. Cruise and range isn't bad either. Four hour range at 112 mph. The price for the kit version is about $47,000, but a fully FAA certificated Storch is available for around $87,000.

[ancient kayaker]

A 20kt wind should be plenty. There are lots of ultralights that can't take off in a 20 kt wind, too strong with a landing speed around 30kt and no way to dump lift. I've seen some with no undercarts, the guy just runs.

Paragliders go up from a beach easily enough with a small powerboat to tow them. I don't see any reason why an ultralight) shouldn't do the same off the back of the boat, though it would need a two engine job and I haven't seen one with no undercart -might need a fairly muscular pilot or some kind of frame with a release. It should be possible to demonstrate this, if it hasn't already been done, with a relatively small boat, rather than a ship. I assume the Storch is single engine which would need a bigger boat with something approach an actual takeoff/landing deck as the prop may cut the towline and would certainly present a danger to helpers.

The towline method would be the simplest and cheapest way to demonstrate the concept and perfectly safe, until it comes time to land. Or is "recover" the correct term to use when returning to a carrier?

The problem is not getting up and dropping the towline, it's getting back to the boat. A real aircraft carrier is a small enough target with a nice stable jet. Things might happen a bit slower but it would probably be a challenge landing with an ultralight jinking around like a mayfly with the DTs on a 3m square target without getting your feet (and underwear) wet. Possibly the air over water is less turbulent than over land.

Anyone out there who knows what this is like? I don't. Might be easier to steer the boat under the plane.

[FAST FRED]

Of course if you can accept cruise speeds of 50 - 75K and wish to depart and arrive to an anchored vessel, no wind needed ,a Gyrocopter , with a rotor pre spin will work just fine.

Even easier to stow than any other style aircraft.

BUT , even tho some are sold as Ultralights , INSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED to fly one of these machines.

The rotor must always have a positive angle of attack, go negative ,YOU DIE!

FF

[Greenseas2]

Hi Fred. You are right about the gyro copter. With plenty of experience you can set it down on the numbers and stop. Before anyone tries this stuff, adequate flight education is a must without question, even with ultralights. Ultralight flight time can be used to get a new generation of license call "Sport Pilot". The aircraft flown with a sport Pilot's license has to be under 1,300 pounds. A Cessna 150 weighs 1,650+ pounds. Of course, a written test and flight test are required for FAA licensing, but it's an inexpensive way to get a license and be able to carry a passenger. The basic Storch weighs in at just 1,300 pounds, but there's also an ultralight Storch with the same flight capabilities but complies with ultralight weight limits.
It would appear that a used 198' deck barge with some power and steering capability would suffice combined with some of the suggested inexpensive super STOL/VSTOL aircraft. The reason VSTOL is mentioned is that a few gyrocopter designs have a pre-spin-up capability for the rotor which permits the gyrocopter to virtually vertically leap off of the deck like a helicopter rather than having a long ground roll to spin the rotor. The Experimental Aircraft Association would have information on building the pre-spin mechanical device.

[erik818]

Hi,
I'll start with admitting that I know very little about flying and just slighty more about boats. I've understood that some small airplanes have stall speeds down 20 k. I know for certain that many boats can obtain speeds much higher than that. A powerboat owned by someone who would consider having an airplane aboard would be at least 20 m long, plane comfortaly at >30 k and have a top speed >40 k. So why is a runway needed? When starting, just run the boat at 30 k and let go of the airplane. When landing, go at 30 k, match speed with the airplane and then grab it from the boat. No runway needed.

Where's the catch?

Erik

[RatliffFranklin]

Hi,
I'll start with admitting that I know very little about flying and just slighty more about boats. I've understood that some small airplanes have stall speeds down 20 k. I know for certain that many boats can obtain speeds much higher than that. A powerboat owned by someone who would consider having an airplane aboard would be at least 20 m long, plane comfortaly at >30 k and have a top speed >40 k. So why is a runway needed? When starting, just run the boat at 30 k and let go of the airplane. When landing, go at 30 k, match speed with the airplane and then grab it from the boat. No runway needed.

Where's the catch?

Erik

The catch is LANDING, unless you're planning on the airplane making a one-way trip.

The only pilots who can execute the landing maneuver you describe get paid to do them as stunts at airshows, and even that's where nobody has to worry about a rolling or pitching landing surface.

[erik818]

So it isn't easy to match speed and land. On the other hand it isn't impossible either.
In my profession I have stabilised quite heavy equipment to high accuracy on small boats. (4 tons on a 20 tons boat.) In my experience rolling and pitching are not so bad at planing speeds, at least in moderate weather. It's much worse at displacement speeds.
I believe it would be possible to make a stabilised "docking equipment" on a boat that, with the use of proper instrumentation and some automatics, would take the stunt out of such a landing. In rough weather this airport would close and the airplane would have to land on firm ground.

Compare it with refuelling in the air; if there is a need, ways will be found to overcome the problems. I have not seen such a landing system and the most likely explanation is that there has been no military need for it. Who else would put up the money to develop it? It's questionable if there is a cilivilian need either. Helicopters have filled this niche.
One possible use could be for operating automated or remote controlled reconnaissance drones from patrol boats.

It's good that the argument "why bother?" isn't applicable to this thread.

Erik

[marshmat]

The trouble with helicopters, of course, is that even for small ones the operating costs are disgusting when compared to a fixed-wing aircraft of comparable payload capacity.
The Canadian navy developed a system many years ago for landing the gigantic Sea King helicopter on ships as small as a frigate, often with a landing pad no larger than the rotor, while the ship is heaving and pitching and generally getting tossed around by waves, and the helicopter being blown around by wind. Essentially, the helicopter drops a heavy-duty tow cable from a special winch on its belly, with a fitting on the end that is guided to a matching fitting on deck. Once the cable docks up (with the chopper hovering a safe distance above the deck) it is winched down with the chopper still hovering until the wheels touch down.
A variant of this idea might be suitable for this ultra-STOL plane we've been talking about here. The plane would deploy a ridiculous amount of flaps and slats, match course and speed above the yacht, drop a tow line, and be winched down while still fully supported by aerodynamic lift.

[FAST FRED]

The catch is LANDING, unless you're planning on the airplane making a one-way trip.


In the late 50's the USN decided that to have the ability to deliver a Nuke from a carrier , a plan was created.

A P2V (SP2H) would load the bomb , and accelerate off the carrier deck with the aid of 8 JATO rockets. They actually launched a few with dummy weigt bombs to prove the concept.

AS the carrier can not accept a P2 for landing , so the "procedure" was to ditch along side the carrier , if a shore station was out of range from the target.

Doesn't sound like a goods deal to me!

FF

[Steve in SoCal]

Arresting gear is hard on any aircraft and tying an airplane down to winch it in is a hard idea to grasp. The helo could use a devise like that used for external loads where the cable could be blown if something went amiss but the airplane would be precariously at low speed and power. Airplanes and helicopters in ground effects have more lift and can do things that they can't do above that height, a disadvantage for the airplane if it had to miss the landing for any reason.

One of the pit falls of landing a fixed wing aircraft on a boat is that the airplane should be able to miss the approach if all the numbers don't add up and with that in mind hauling the airplane aboard is not an ideal. The speed of the boat can have a great influence on what could work because IF you could get a boat up to speed the airplane would be at a low relative speed to the boat. A naval carrier that can make fifty knots or more is out of the question for us with out glow in the dark power plants! Almost any single engine airplane could land on a deck with a fifty knot head wind in a few hundred feet or less.

Taking a boat that is 250 feet for example with a displacement speed of around 20 knots you could land a number of fixed wing aircraft any STOL would be at or near zero speed and many light airplanes that are not STOL but have low stall speeds say below 45 Knots at VSO. The more challenging case is an airplane with a VSO near the single engine certified maximum of 61 knots or multi engine aircraft. The STOL airplanes could work but a few aspects of their design limit their usefulness. The speed is generally around that of a turbine helicopter and while they do offer more range it is not much greater than the helo and the boat doesn't have to be designed around landing airplanes. If you have the resources to build a flat top you most likely have the resources to afford a turbine helicopter anyway. While anything is possible is this practical? If you want your own naval air arm it is; if you just want a way off the boat by air a chopper is much more practical.

Steve

[joz]

Intersting topic, just woundering would a yacht designer or naval architect be able to design aircraft for the carrier that he/she is designing? or would he/she collate info in types of aircraft or rotorcraft that best suit the carrier and put forward to his/her client?

[RatliffFranklin]

The trouble with helicopters, of course, is that even for small ones the operating costs are disgusting when compared to a fixed-wing aircraft of comparable payload capacity.
The Canadian navy developed a system many years ago for landing the gigantic Sea King helicopter on ships as small as a frigate, often with a landing pad no larger than the rotor, while the ship is heaving and pitching and generally getting tossed around by waves, and the helicopter being blown around by wind. Essentially, the helicopter drops a heavy-duty tow cable from a special winch on its belly, with a fitting on the end that is guided to a matching fitting on deck. Once the cable docks up (with the chopper hovering a safe distance above the deck) it is winched down with the chopper still hovering until the wheels touch down.
A variant of this idea might be suitable for this ultra-STOL plane we've been talking about here. The plane would deploy a ridiculous amount of flaps and slats, match course and speed above the yacht, drop a tow line, and be winched down while still fully supported by aerodynamic lift.

That could work.

[kc135delta]

interesting approach, so if we can get a boat that will do 20knts and a stol plane to match it we can essentially land a plane on a helipad.

The question is how to take off again?

[Steve in SoCal]

The landing area wouldn't be quite like a helipad, the airplane still needs to transition from flying to wheels stopped. I would say that before you can nail down a size you would have to do "carrier qualifying" of the airplane. The comfort factor should be about double what is repeatable. If the airplane can stay within 10' of centerline and 25' of the wheels down mark double these figures. So a footprint for a runway could be as little a beam by the distance to stop from the landing point.

The take off would be a bit more involved. While the relative wind would be a great help you need to insure that the airplane is at 1.3 VSO by the time it leaves the deck. If VSO is 20knots then a minimum safe speed is 26 knots to launch. Most small airplanes don't build speed from a dead stop well, a bungee cord catapult could work. With enough prevailing wind you could launch un-assisted from a hundred feet or so. With out any aide to launch you may need 250' or more. All the numbers would have to be developed by actual trials in the airplane at sea level or close to it. The variables are too close to extrapolate from other sources and each plane would have to be tested to ensure its performance meet the goals.

Steve

[RatliffFranklin]

The landing area wouldn't be quite like a helipad, the airplane still needs to transition from flying to wheels stopped. I would say that before you can nail down a size you would have to do "carrier qualifying" of the airplane. The comfort factor should be about double what is repeatable. If the airplane can stay within 10' of centerline and 25' of the wheels down mark double these figures. So a footprint for a runway could be as little a beam by the distance to stop from the landing point.

The take off would be a bit more involved. While the relative wind would be a great help you need to insure that the airplane is at 1.3 VSO by the time it leaves the deck. If VSO is 20knots then a minimum safe speed is 26 knots to launch. Most small airplanes don't build speed from a dead stop well, a bungee cord catapult could work. With enough prevailing wind you could launch un-assisted from a hundred feet or so. With out any aide to launch you may need 250' or more. All the numbers would have to be developed by actual trials in the airplane at sea level or close to it. The variables are too close to extrapolate from other sources and each plane would have to be tested to ensure its performance meet the goals.

Steve

You're confusing landing on a fixed runway with landing on a runway that is itself moving as fast as the airplane. You're also not taking into account that we're not talking about airplanes with the speed differential between naval jet aircraft and their carriers.

All an airplane cares about is airspeed over the wings. When the runway is a boat traveling at 20 plus knots there is no transition from flying to wheels stopped, only a change in altitude, because the airplane is still flying when it is sitting on the deck.

The trick when taking off would be when and how much power to apply so that the airplane doesn't trail the boat and snag its propeller on the winch cable.

[RatliffFranklin]

Although a winched to the deck landing could be done with existing STOL planes, a safer approach might be a custom design using a ducted pusher propeller.

[Steve in SoCal]

Matching boat speed to air speed is going to be difficult, my thoughts are with an airplane slightly above the speed of the boat. Tying a plane to a boat an reeling it in is dangerous and too many variables exist to mitigate the danger. Wind gust, line fouling, weathervaning, and disruption of the equilibrium of lift/ thrust and drag. An airplane with a propeller on its nose can't be tied to a line in the one area where the line could work. A pusher design may work but that is counter-intuitive for a STOL design.

The idea that an airplane can just levitate down on the deck is not only possible but a Cub does it at air shows all the time. However; that Cub and the moving platform it lands on are both at much higher speeds and have far better maneuverability than a big boat and an airplane on the ragged edge of a stall. The platform also has the ability to speed up and slow down with a high degree of precision.

The problem is under ideal conditions these ideas may work, under less than ideal conditions these same ideas can be fatal. The ideal can change for the worse without notice and leave the airplane in an unrecoverable situation.

The basic principal of any idea must take into consideration the worst case not the best case. When an airplane is transitioning from flying to landing a few things happen. An airplane a VSO out of ground effects stalls, an airplane in ground effects at the same speed flys. The speed of the boat has to allow the airplane to stop flying and that will be lower than the speed of the airplane on approach no matter what. If the relative speed(boat speed) is at or near VSO out of ground effects the airplane will never stop flying on its own. Two guys could grab the struts and hold it down but that is not a great idea either.

Steve

[RatliffFranklin]

Well, if someone can afford the yacht they can also afford the turbine helicopter to go with it.

[kc135delta]

Apparently after alittle research it's not nearly as difficult as you guys make it out to be. The army converted LST's in world war 2 to mini aircraft carriers to provide recon for shelling on the shore and light attack with browning 30 cals and infantry bazookas under the wings. So I guess their was once Army Air corps naval aviators???

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/armylstcarrier.jpg

vietnam; no arresting hooks

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/STOLgrasshopperscanlandoncarrierswi.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/121291/L20otterSTOLaircrafttakesofffromuss.jpg

[Brasstom]

Apparently after alittle research it's not nearly as difficult as you guys make it out to be. The army converted LST's in world war 2 to mini aircraft carriers to provide recon for shelling on the shore and light attack with browning 30 cals and infantry bazookas under the wings. So I guess their was once Army Air corps naval aviators???

Nothing like replying to a thread that's been quiet nearly a year...fun!

Actually, Delta, the entire "Air Force" used to be the "Army Air Corps". Before and during WWII there was no separate Air Force and, except for Navy Planes, all war planes belonged to the US Army. An Army brat myself, I call those the good old days! ;-)

I love this idea! While it lacks a lot of "practicality"... who cares! So does nearly every beautiful yacht out there! But what I'm surprised at is that so few of you discussed Bruce Hector's idea. I only saw one mention on this forum!

http://www.brucesboats.com/page3.html

Bruce's idea of using the Zenith Ch-701 not only provides the perfect plane for the job (INCREDIBLY short take-off runs!) but also reduces the cost of that part of it. Using the simple sharpie design of a scaled up [I]Wyoming reduces the overall cost and complexity, and gives you pretty much the ideal shape for the purpose.

There are lots of imperfections, of course. But I think it comes as close to perfectly matching the "Personal Aircraft Carrier" concept as any idea discussed so far... and he didn't even participate, haha!

Of course the real winning point of his concept is that Phil Bolger even lauded the idea... now THAT's credibility!

Here's hoping we revive the topic!

[Greenseas2]

Several companies are making 2/3 scale models of the German Fiesler Storch. Stall speed.....16 knots. Landing distance 95 feet with two onboard.

[Hotel Lima]

Could this actually be made useful? Has Anyone ever seen those massive yacht escort ships? They are getting in the 250'+ range, could a STOL aircraft large enough to fill a COD (carrier on board delivery) role fit? Something that could deliver guests out to a cruising yacht and escort ship group at sea or supplies such as exotic foods? Helicopters are really limited to only a couple hours max overwater - 250miles is pushing it in civilian applications.

These yacht escourt ships or also called "shadows" are like big industrial toy boxes for mega yachts.

EDIT: images

http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/attachments/yacht-escort-ships-shadows/11677-review-shadow-marines-paladin-aerial-bow-side.jpg?d=1137591521
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/attachments/yacht-escort-ships-shadows/11678-review-shadow-marines-paladin-aerial-stern.jpg?d=1137591549
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/attachments/yacht-escort-ships-shadows/11684-review-shadow-marines-paladin-garage-.jpg?d=1137591859

seems like potential, flight deck from bow to stern with a hangar deck below and you have some serious room

[FAST FRED]

The carrier IDEA is fine , you simply have to look at a far more useful system of winged flight.

The Gyrocopter setup easily transitions from forward flight to full stop with the loss of (rotor) airspeed happening only after the aircraft is on the deck.

No worry's about stalling .

No catching a wire with a tail hook, no sudden deceleration to wake grandmother.

These can be full cabin 2 to 10+ person aircraft , and only require a bit of training for a std fixed wing pilot , they have 1/000 the risk,cost and complexity of a Helicopter.

The newest Pre- Rotor systems get them off with minor airspeed , the yacht steaming into the wind might do.

Unfortunatly they are not as efficient at long cruising in terms of miles/gallons but for only 250 miles , no big deal.



FF

[ancient kayaker]

I often wondered what stopped the development of the gyrocopter. It seems a much simpler, cheaper and frankly safer idea than the helicopter. Was it just gas consumption, or limited payload and speed?

[riverliver2b]

check out the American Sternweeler Association, gentlemen....if you peruse the members boats section, I believe you will be quite amused....would you believe a paddlewheel aircraft carrier?

[FAST FRED]

Was it "just" gas consumption, or limited payload and speed?

You bet consider most airlines will KILL for a few percent more efficiency and spring for new aircraft valued at almost $100 million each.

The private folks are of the same mindset , so developing an "inefficient" design because of a usual not often needed ability , the ability to land or take off from a spot , just doesn't get done.

FF

[Greenseas2]

It might be fun to build a scale model of some sort of personal aircraft carrier and try landing remote control aircraft on it simply as an experiment and proof of both vessel and aircraft innovative designs.

[Tiny Turnip]

Riverliver2b - that sounds wonderful - you couldn't post a more specific reference could you - boat name, or a full URL - I've browsed the site but not found it...

[ancient kayaker]

Greenseas 2: as I tried to imagine the task of guiding a remote control model aircraft onto a scaled down aircraft carrier, I realized you may have spotlighted the main problem getting a small aircraft down on a small boat, namely, control. It's hard enough to land a full size plane on an umpteen thousand tonne carrier when both are designed for the task, the pilot is trained to the Nth degree and the carrier is staffed by professionals. Now imagine an ultrallight ditzing around in the breeze like a mayfly with the DTs while the pilot tries to down it on the tiny deck of a boat bouncing over the waves with no radio communication and no landing controller ...

OK guys: how do we solve the problem?

[Greenseas2]

The key is to keep the designs simple as possible for a model boat and aircraft. It might be worthwhile to build a cheap barge with runway stripes just for visual reference. With the model aircraft, modify a training model plane with leading edge slots (Krueger flaps) that give the model more control at low speeds and give it STOL characteristics. A section of Venetian blind will work if properly fitted. For this project we aren't talking about building a model with the sophistication of the aircraft carrier Kennedy, or the need for a zillion high level technicians, just some local guys having fun and experimenting with a concept, and making the subject of this forum come alive while having a good time with a super low investment. We happen to be located near the ICW where there's a lot of commercial vessels and a local tug and barge company agreed to let us land a model on a 120' x 35' deck barge that they own. While a vessel of that size isn't really needed, most model airplanes don't have brakes so it's going to be more of a touch-and-go type experiment under static wind conditions at first, then underway later. Members at a local airport model airplane club are enthusiastic about the idea and willing to modify an old training plane for the job at hand. We're just coordinating the effort. Some club members feel that they can bring a model to a full stop, back taxi and take off again......we'll see.

It is felt that actually conducting an experiment with models beats sitting at a computer and just talking about it, plus it will be a great learning process that should provide some data for further discussion.

[FAST FRED]

For the usual carrier landing the aircraft is WAY faster than the boat.

This will be required to land anything on the boat , the only difference will be weather the aircraft can stop & lower it self down to a full stop, helicopter , gyrocopter , or very risky full stall on the deck, or be caught by an arresting cable .

The Method used by the Navy is the Mirror Landing System.

A gyro controlled curved mirror (even aircraft carriers move about ) is mounted near the front of the boat , so the pilot can watch it.

The mirror is curved so a light shown from aft called "the Meatball" reflects the aircrafts relative altitude from the glide slope.

A green datum line on either side of the mirror is the reference.

IF the meatball is on the green datum line , you are in good shape.

If the ball is seen high , the aircraft is high , if the ball looks low , the aircraft could be in for a Ramp Strike , an event that ruins your whole day.

Something like this will be needed for every sort of landing .

FF

[Greenseas2]

Hi Fred,
The meat ball is a good idea for carrier trained pilots, but this experiment with radio controlled model airplanes is beneficial in that there is no one putting their life at risk and we can learn a lot of the dynamics that would impact a full scale personal aircraft carrier without the risks or need for landing equipment. In conversation with another tug captain, it was decided to put the barge on the hip (Tug along side the barge) to preclude having to land models over the tug. Operators of the model aircraft will be operating from onboard the tug, much the same as the "air boss" does on a real carrier except that they will be controlling the models from that location. We also have a chase boat to pick up any models that ditch. The plan is coming together slowly but purposefully. Model aircraft owners used a blue snap line to outline a 130' x 35' area on a paved runway to start practicing their landing techniques. One guy even has a model Corsair with an 8 foot wing span, but it's doubtful that he will use it on the project.

For anyone ANTICIPATING LANDING A REAL AIRPLANE ON A vessel, it is hopeful that they went through NAVY FLIGHT SCHOOL FIRST. I think this project is about as close as anyone will come to building a personal aircraft carrier and airplane.

[brian eiland]

Carter Aviation Technologies is a research and development company, pioneering new aviation concepts. Our primary focus is the slowed-rotor compound aircraft, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that uses the rotor for takeoff and landing, and a small, efficient wing for high speed flight, up to 500 mph, all with much less complexity than a tilt-rotor or other vectored thrust vehicle. We successfully demonstrated the slowed rotor concept with the CarterCopter Technology Demonstrator (CCTD), the first and only aircraft to reach mu-1......

http://www.cartercopters.com/highlight_video.html

http://www.cartercopters.com/index.html

...and check out this single place small gyro verson
http://www.cartercopters.com/ctd-t.html

CONCEPTS
http://www.cartercopters.com/concepts.html

[kroberts]

Going back to the title here, I think the reason for no personal aircraft carrier is that it's hard to drive the boat and the plane at the same time.

If you're driving the boat, then you're not flying the plane, which is the fun part.

If you're flying the plane, then somebody else is the captain on your boat, and it's big enough to land a plane on. Such a thing is unimaginable.

Either way, if the plane crashes your private carrier will probably not fare as well as the real thing and your boat will be covered in burning fuel and plane wreckage, and either your guts or the guts of somebody you probably liked quite a bit up until a few minutes ago.

[Boston]

way to go with the video Brian
that thing is really slick

cheers
B

[Tcubed]

It might not have been what the first poster originally had in mind but i would definitely go the seaplane route.

That way the boat only need be large enough to house the plane. I would consider a one piece swing wing as the starting point on how to get the plane inside the ship, through a ramp in an openable transom.

The main design challenge would be to maximize the window of conditions in which a take off and landing could be safely effectuated. Retractable foils could no doubt assist the plane transfer support from air to water and back more smoothly to better handle chop. Jon Howes could have something to say about such a foil system.

The thing is large aircraft carriers have small roll and pitch amplitudes and very slow periods. Even then it is not easy. On a much smaller ship the amplitudes and frequency are much greater, so it would only be safely usable in calm conditions, which limits the practicality of the concept. Hence my emphasis on rough water takeoff/landing of a seaplane, which i think is a technical problem that is much more solvable.

Imagine the stern pitching up a couple of feet just in time for your pinpoint touchdown and catching you right below the nose. OUCH! Splooch! Glub, glub. Not so fun. And it doesn't take much weather to pitch a 120 footer up and down at the ends a few feet.

[Boston]

how about a mast on a swiveling base
computer controlled to remain vertical in any sea state
the air car could approach and with a cone like aperture settle on the mast
an internal mechanism could grip the mast
and then the pilot could go full throttle to keep tension on the system
from there he is attached to the craft and could winch himself down the mast to the deck
kinda a cross between a mid air fueling and a Estes rocket launch
but in reverse

[kurtjfred]

There are a lot of planes and pilots that can fly slower than that and land in a much shorter distance than you're talking. Just look at some of the bush pilot takeoff and landing contests in youtube.

[mark775]

"definitely go the seaplane route"
(This will undoubtedly be the ONLY time I concur with T-Dude on ANYTHING.)
Seaplanes fly to boats all of the time up here. Even a few have ended up on conventional small landing craft. A ramp, a winch, soft wet rubber to glide on and the job is done. Check out http://www.landingcrafts.net/landing-crafts-for-sale.html

[floydrob]

sounds like a great plan! i passed my PPL after 47hrs flight time on my 16th birthday, so fly every weekend, normally a cessna 172p which is a flying caravan!. there are smaller, lighter and easier to fly twin person aircraft which would fulfil this 'tender' purpose, and they r cooool!! i think it wud be great idea! but needs to be safe!. even with a headwind, i wouldnt be comfortable landing a cessna in anything under 250 feet!, but then again i have only been flying since august!

what about a drawbridge type thingmy with a lagoon inside, where a seaplane can be parked? that would be cool!! and no need for a 200ft boat with all the deckspace taken up by a runway! if i had a 200ft boat i'd want all the deck for pleasure purposes! and helicopters arent as cool as planes! u just get in a flying caravan with me and i'll show u even that old thing can be cool! and fun!

[Boston]

just go with a pair of huge wheels and call it a boat

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nj1tmnwiVyI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nj1tmnwiVyI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

had to throw this one in

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5X7wXiTvYzc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5X7wXiTvYzc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[weelilboats]

weren't they building a giant luxury liner with a airstrip on top of it think its being built now

[Greenseas2]

Can't wait to have a zillion dollar suite on the approach end of a ship with a bunch on untrained civilian pilots trying to make landings on a flight deck above. Even at extremes, a ship of this sort is too far out to reach. Navy pilots under go a tremendous amount of training in carrier ops and do a lot of practice, first on a land based field with carrier flight deck dimensions marked on it, then on a carrier:( . Also, what sort of catapult is going to launch civil aircraft and where would aircraft that would be so lucky to achieve a landing that they can walk away from be hangered? NO, No, No, No, No. Who ever told you this fable is only using his head for a hat rack.

[Cheapshot]

Two Words: Ultra Light

Also, ponder this for a moment. The US Navy has a C-130 called Fat Albert that sports a set of what I call RAT motors (Rocket Assisted Takeoff) on each side of it to aid in short runway takeoffs. Apply this to an ultralight plane aboard a small personal aircraft carrier and there you have it. I'm also sure that a tail hook could be easily added under the aircraft for short runway landings. The only trick is arrestor cables and the hydraulic system needed for it.

[Boston]

or "fish food"

[riverliver2b]

Since my original posting last year, through an unlekely chain of events I have acquired the sternwheel aircraft carrier I was referring to (alas, minus the aircraft). While not, perhaps, precisely what the originator of this thread was originally picturing, the Lilly Belle nonetheless is technically a private aircraft carrier. She is a 62' foot towboat pushing a 42' barge (actually an overgrown pontoon boat) originally equipped with lifting tackle sufficient to launch and recover a small amphibious biplane. Unfortunately I can't locate a picture with the plane aboard at the moment...sorry

[Squidly-Diddly]

"personal" for the CEO or some status hungry oil sheik, or maybe an oil dependent nation (buying or selling)

even if actual landing a C-130 not possible, at least they could drag chute out lots of cargo onto the deck

a supertanker is wide enough that you could park planes on one side and land and take off on the other, and massive enough that extra stores could be carried under the deck in conex boxes






how about using a super-tanker?
I would not presume to tell a fisherman how to run his deck, but a supertanker is just a big gas can and I don't see any compelling need for the large superstructure at the stern.

The Japanese carrier captains were able to guide their ships well enough with out a superstructure. Yes, they later added them, but for a 'part time' carrier, and with todays closed circuit TV, I would stick to a completely flat deck for the sake of the planes.

Maybe a bridge that could be raised on a mast when making port, with the mast simply lowing into the hull for air ops.

Just install a modular deck over the existing plumbing you see on a tanker's deck.

If figure tankers are pretty cheap and they are just lots of steel plates.

If I was planning any carrier ops the first thing I would want is a couple big cheap super-tanker 'flat-tops' for several reasons.

While the operational robustness is impressive, a carrier is always one bad landing away from a USS Forestall disaster, I'd want a backup landing deck in the vicinity.

Rather not risk a bad landing, and thus the carrier, and ejecting from a questionable plane, you could have a extra, dedicated landing deck that could not only handle the risk, but could be configured in ways not practical on a carrier deck, such as a thick layer of foam, or yet to be invented apparatus such a massive net.

All ships of valuable to anti-ship missiles, I'd rather send a big hollow supertanker with a few planes on deck in harms way than a multi-billion dollar carrier with thousands of crew. An empty supertanker could take numerous massive hits with little effect, even more if the tanks were a little more compartmentalized than normal...just a few more flat steel plates.

When serving as a supertanker the crew might miss their nice views from the superstructure, but they might enjoy the benefits of land based fixed wing aircraft visiting.

Not sure how big or what type of aircraft could land on a supertanker without all sorts of modifications.

Not sure how much "hard to relocate" heavy equipment is currently housed in the superstructure.

Who wants to draft up an "artist's conception" to sell this to some status hungry oil sheik?

[wardd]

i believe that the systems on a carrier are way more expensive than the hull and would a ex tanker be able to develop wind over deck speed to launch and recover

then theres aircraft maintenance facilities ships self defense aircraft fuel storage and handling, elevators, catapults, arrester gear, munitions storage and handling

soon you have a carrier

[Squidly-Diddly]

hard points all across the existing deck, bolt some columns on those and bolt deck panels to the columns sort of like a "computer floor", over the normal plumbing that tankers have on their decks.

Have fork lift on the deck in case you need to bring up some stores from under deck conex boxes. Also good to shield other aircraft from those landing as seen in the movie "The Bridges at Toko-Ri".

Part of requirements for US Navy carrier ops is for planes to be able to both launch and land without catapults or arresting wires, respectively, and also to do so without the carrier doing 40 knots into a headwind. They might need to do it "straight on" and use most of the deck but they can do it. They just can't do it as rapidly.

Yes, I'm aware of "mission creep" and the Pentagon's habit of adding bells and whistles.

I figure a supertanker could carry an extra 100 conex boxes on original deck no problem, for maintenance and supplies.

[Théodose]

Hello, everyone !

I stumbled upon this thread while searching news about concrete-hulled submarines (search engines can give surprising results sometimes) and found it a very interesting read. So I decided to give it a try and settled on different aspects illustrated on the attached image :

Using a standard 195ft river barge costs no more than 200k$ and give us a good way to start once the land-based landing trials are finished.
The ship is conceived for light STOL aircrafts with folding wings which can fit in hi-cube 40' ISO containers, already the case for the Fi-156 Storch, the Kitfox IV and probably the PL-9 Stork.
Adding a ski-jump ramp will reduce the take-off distance, allow heavier aircrafts to use the LCAC and improve the safety of touch-and-go manoeuvres.
I used shipping container architecture as it gives several advantages in comparison to classical shipyard operation :

It considerably reduces the construction cost, because bare containers can be purchased for 1500$ each and a German company offers fully customized inhabitable containers for 6000$ each. If we price each 20' container used in the design between 5000$ (taking into account the proportion of heavily modified units) and 10 000$ (upper limit), the whole superstructure with the equivalent of 44 containers will cost between 220 00$ and 440 000$.
The whole system is reconfigurable and reusable into another larger ship after the initial blue water tests
The containers' walls can be easily armoured with a steel/concrete/steel/concrete/steel composite armour, like illustrated by the drawing below, to defeat firearms up to .50 and RPGs in combination with slat armour.


This small version,limited to large lakes and coastal waters, is intended to help small state organisation (coast guards, customs services, third-world navies, ...) in their missions of survey and defence against pirates, insurgents and smugglers. But a larger version, based on the container barge described in the link below, could be envisioned to serve a much more powerful air wing including larger non-folding wings aircrafts.
http://www.usbarge.com/US_Barge_container_barge.html
This imposing ocean-capable barge is wide enough to allow the use of an angled deck and other facilities more akin to a conventional aircraft for a fraction of the normal price.

[jonr]

While simply using a seaplane and winching or hoisting it aboard is easiest, I like the idea of building the boat to be capable of going faster than the stall speed of the plane - allowing completely vertical takeoffs and landings.

Not so clear to me is what happens when you have cable running from a boat that is rising and falling 10' (waves) connected to a plane that is at a fixed height. Maybe lots of shock cord and a padded landing spot help - the parasailing boats probably know.

[FAST FRED]

"The only trick is arrestor cables and the hydraulic system needed for it."

not needed,

For single plane operation the simplest is to string heavy chain alongside the deck.

As the wire is picked up the chain end gets pulled , more and more chain follow ,till the aircraft stops.

This simple system is at most US Naval Air Stations in use since WWII in case of an over run ,brake failure..

A bulldozer puts the chain back in place in minuets.

A landing mirror system (gyro stabelized) might be needed if the sea state is high during aircraft recovery.

Although a really high buck Auto Pilot might be better for amateur hour.

Learning to do a mirror landing takes the USN over 100 practice landings , in a remote location with an observer vidioing to explain the errors and technique .

FF

[jg451]

If you wanted to go smaller scale, you could try an ultralight aircraft . Hell, fhey only weigh about 450lb all up and stall at no more than 25mph. On take off with a decent headwind the carrier would run off and leave the plane behind. Seriously, even with the larger two seaters, no sweat. In fact if someone built one of those things, even with the lawyers and the insurance, I can imagine scads of the ultralight & two seat crowd slavering at the chance to become a carrier qualified pilot. Painting markings, getting tailhooks, bombing runs. Don't get me started!

Thanks,
Jon

[jg451]

To Marshmat
The Kreigsmarine used a winch system for their Flettner(yes the guy who gave use the rotorship)282 Helicopter being flown off a minesweeper(operationally!) in the Adriatic during '44. Google 'historic helicopters flettner 282, fasinating stuff.

Regards
Jon

[brian eiland]

Haven't read this subject thread thru, but just a couple of quick addtions,

1) How about that concrete aircraft carrier that the Brits built a prototypt of during WWII?
2) Launching traditional fighter aircraft....isn't the next big thing the linear electrical launch system (can't think of proper name at the moment)...electro magnetic in nature?
3) Isn't the world really headed towards UAV's...so the planes of the future won't have to be that heavy, and the ships won't have to provide that huge life-support systems?
4) How about this craft:

Aggressive Maneuvers for Autonomous Quadrotor Flight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM&feature=player_embedded#!

[FAST FRED]

Of course the Gyrocopter has none of the complexity of a helicopter , takes far less time to learn , and can take off and land with zero foward air speed , if configured with a simple pre- rotor.

There are some designs that are large enough for passenger carrying.

None are fuel efficient , but fine for that first 100 miles to port.

FF

[boybland]

Just get yourself an Osprey.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/11/v22osprey01.jpg
Best of both worlds.

[brian eiland]

Of course the Gyrocopter ...
I hope that wasn't directed in response to the Quad-rotor helicoper...two different animals

Just get yourself an Osprey.
Unsafe beast