Not a big tube fan unless...

**simkid22** · June 16th, 2011, 20:05

she's a hooker!

In the 1970s, the Navy had a competition for a much larger airplane. Boeing, Douglas, and Fokker proposed derivatives of their twin jet transports, the 737, DC-9, and F-28 respectively. Although the Navy thought that they were feasible, none were taken up at the time.

In 1983, Naval Air Systems Command revisited the Fokker F-28 to the extent of accomplishing a flight evaluation of the Fellowship at Fokker's factory in Amsterdam and at NAS Sigonella. It would have had the payload of the C-2 and the range of the S-3. While the conclusion of the evaluation was that the "airplane has potential for the carrier-based carrier-on-board delivery, tanker, or AEW mission," no contract resulted.

from

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/05...-delivery.html

Now that would be fun to bring down on Javier's Nimitz

**Matt Wynn** · June 16th, 2011, 20:07

....ohhh boy..... that just ain't right.....Buddy carefuly you don't make a freudian slip.... Fokker......Hooker....... tread carefully....

**Anneke** · June 16th, 2011, 23:39

Great pic, never knew that. Too bad Fokker isn't around anymore. Too bad that F70-100 doesn't get that VC anymore!

**Railrunner130** · June 17th, 2011, 04:20

Sounds like a crock of crap of an idea, except for the part about going to Amsterdam and Sigonella. I swear people come up with these "studies" just to visit really nice places for an extended period of time.

There is no reason to put an airliner on a carrier. Once it's there, the wings would have to fold and there is no way it could go below decks.

***fallenphoenix1986*** · June 17th, 2011, 05:00

Given that its a COD bird it wouldnt necessarily have to go bellow... recover, unload, turn-around, and launch. As the F-28 is 1.52m taller than an unfolded A-3 and lacks a folding tail theres no way its going bellow.
Though the mention of AEW/Tanker... I'm asuming that would be shore based, as you say theres no way an aircraft that size would be a practical fixed item in a an airwing at sea.

Craig

:edit:
Simkid is your avatar the result of a rather amorous night in the hangar involving an Cutlass and a Tomcat? I've seen the pic before but only low res images, never caught the story behind it.

**AndyG43** · June 17th, 2011, 05:07

Originally Posted by Railrunner130

Once it's there, the wings would have to fold and there is no way it could go below decks.

Yep, they thought of that.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203133.html

**simkid22** · June 17th, 2011, 13:15

Originally Posted by fallenphoenix1986

Simkid is your avatar the result of a rather amorous night in the hangar involving an Cutlass and a Tomcat? I've seen the pic before but only low res images, never caught the story behind it.

It was an April Fools Joke done by Fine Scale Modeler in 2000. If anyone happens to have said issue....

Back to the off-topic topic lol. Well how about a DC-9 derived COD. I've got gmax and the SGA DC-9-10 Source file.... now if I just knew how to do the next step...

Attachment 40208

**Desert Rat** · June 17th, 2011, 13:29

Interesting stuff. I remember adding a virtual tailhook to the default FS9 737 and doing some traps with FD4. Never knew about this though. I'll dig out the pics for a laugh.

Jamie

take-off
Attachment 40209 Attachment 40210 Attachment 40211

**Desert Rat** · June 17th, 2011, 13:34

Landing: (the parking brake on and stall warning flashing, took a good few goes and a heavy landing at that)
Attachment 40215 Attachment 40213 Attachment 40214

**simkid22** · June 17th, 2011, 13:43

So far the only two tubes I've done carrier ops with are the A330 MRTT doing touch and gos and the BAE-146STA. The MRTT is too big but the Island isn'd a hard model on the Clem so i can "cheat"

Attachment 40216

Attachment 40217

**Desert Rat** · June 17th, 2011, 14:20

Simkid,

I like the 146 in camo, who's is it and is it a port? No self shadow so hoping it is as I fly 9 still.

Jamie

**Roadburner440** · June 17th, 2011, 14:24

I would think you would not be able to pressurize the cat enough to get such a large jet off the deck of the carrier.. Granted it is a very cool idea, and maybe they could get it done with the newer turbofan technology. It would really suck for the carrier though if that bird broke down on deck. Even with the wings folded it would take up a lot of precious real estate.

**simkid22** · June 17th, 2011, 14:54

Originally Posted by JDTinballs

I like the 146 in camo, who's is it and is it a port? No self shadow so hoping it is as I fly 9 still.

You Jamie are in luck! Yes the -146 STA was back in my FS9 days running Flight Deck 3 or 4. You can find the model at flightsim.com under 146sta.zip and the camo repaint aabae3.zip

**Desert Rat** · June 17th, 2011, 15:42

Thanks Simkid, will grab that ASAP.

**TeaSea** · June 17th, 2011, 15:47

Yo! Gorillaz!!

You Navy guys correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we experiment with putting a C-130 on deck for the same reason??

**Cag40Navy** · June 17th, 2011, 15:59

Originally Posted by TeaSea

Yo! Gorillaz!!

You Navy guys correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we experiment with putting a C-130 on deck for the same reason??

Yessir!

**Desert Rat** · June 17th, 2011, 16:01

It's Dare!!

Yup pretty sure I remember the Herc being on a flat-top. Maybe it was an april-fools joke, but definitely remember something.

I also trialled a Vulcan, now that would've been really awesome.

Jamie

**FSX68** · June 17th, 2011, 16:19

Would you believe a Hurk launched and trapped on the USS Forrestal?

Video has no sound. Sorry.

more info:

http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts..._forrestal.asp

**simkid22** · June 17th, 2011, 22:15

If you want to get technical, it didn't trap and launch as it didn't get outfitted with a tail hook or a launch bar/cable, It just landed and was still able to take off from where it stopped. From what I've come across, the idea was dropped because it would disrupt normal carrier ops too much if it operated in the same fashion as the tests. Images from the trial makes it look like there isn't much safety margin for any of the air wing to be left above decks. Although, depending on landing weight it might have been able to land on the angled deck allowing planes to be left towards the bow of the carrier.

**FSX68** · June 18th, 2011, 04:26

[QUOTE=simkid22;596746]If you want to get technical, it didn't trap and launch as it didn't get outfitted with a tail hook or a launch bar/cable, It just landed and was still able to take off from where it stopped. From what I've come across, the idea was dropped because it would disrupt normal carrier ops too much if it operated in the same fashion as the tests. Images from the trial makes it look like there isn't much safety margin for any of the air wing to be left above decks. Although, depending on landing weight it might have been able to land on the angled deck allowing planes to be left towards the bow of the carrier.

True, I meant deck launch (takeoff without catapult assistance.)
I've seen AD1 Skyraiders "deck launch" off the old Essex (27C) carriers).
the next-generation carriers will have EMALS (Electro-MAgnetic Launch System) catapult.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...arriers-05220/