Over-The-Nose Visibility

[KJ_Lesnick]

It's an important quality for Carrier-Based aircraft, but I'm wondering what Air-Force Aircraft meet the criteria the US Navy require?  Also, are there any US Navy Aircraft that do not (The F8U-3 and F-18A don't look like they would do too well)

KJ Lesnick

[deathjester]

I would say the A-7, and the A-10 - probably the Thunderbolt II would be the best carrier plane, for visibility.  Also, the C-130, great over nose visibility, and proven capable of carrier landings!

[Weaver]

It's not just a question of the shape of the nose, it also depends on the angle of attack on approach. I'm guessing that the F-18's FBW system and aerodynamics allow it to make a slow-enough approach at a reasonable AoA. Were it the same shape(ish), but with 1960s technology, it might have more of a problem. Also, remember that a USN F-18 is a relatively small aircraft on a VERY big carrier, so it can probably afford to come in hotter and flatter than it would on, say, the Charles de Gaul.

[famvburg]

     Well, since the A-7 was already a USN a/c.......

I would say the A-7, and the A-10 - probably the Thunderbolt II would be the best carrier plane, for visibility.  Also, the C-130, great over nose visibility, and proven capable of carrier landings!

[deathjester]

I was rather thinking of the USAF A-7D, built especially for them.....
Besides, the A-10 would make a good carrier plane - low approach speed, strong u/c, good range, manouverable, heavy firepower, low maintenance....

[ChernayaAkula]

It's not just a question of the shape of the nose, it also depends on the angle of attack on approach. <...>

One wonders how the Rafales fares in that regard. They seem to land with a very high angle of attack.

<...> the A-10 would make a good carrier plane - low approach speed, <...>

Actually, they'd have to ask the carrier to slow down a bit. At top speed, the carrier would probably outrun the A-10. I think someone (probably an Eagle or Viper driver) on ARC remarked that the A-10 is the only aircraft to have suffered birdstrikes from the rear. 

[GTX]

Actually, they'd have to ask the carrier to slow down a bit. At top speed, the carrier would probably outrun the A-10. I think someone (probably an Eagle or Viper driver) on ARC remarked that the A-10 is the only aircraft to have suffered birdstrikes from the rear. 

No, I'm sure the Caribou suffered that indignity on a regular occurrence!

Regards,

Greg

[ChernayaAkula]

Yeah, but then again, that was a wanted feature (the slow speed, not having birds fly up the exhausts  ) of the Caribou. Hence my idea to use them as COD planes for the helo pads of cruisers and destroyers.

[Mossie]

Harrier.  RAF, rather than USAF I suppose but it would more than meet all requirements for deck landing of course.

The F-15 doesn't have much worse a view than the F-14 & a naval F-15N was proposed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mossie,

Harrier.  RAF, rather than USAF I suppose but it would more than meet all requirements for deck landing of course.

Makes sense as they're used off carriers

The F-15 doesn't have much worse a view than the F-14 & a naval F-15N was proposed.

Instinctively I would agree, but I remember hearing at least once that it wasn't quite sufficient, maybe this was simply an excuse by the USN to prevent the F-15N from entering service with them, but who knows?

[Mossie]

Mossie,

Harrier.  RAF, rather than USAF I suppose but it would more than meet all requirements for deck landing of course.

Makes sense as they're used off carriers

Wasn't it's original role though, the VTOL requirements just lent themselves to carrier ops

[Weaver]

It's not just a question of the shape of the nose, it also depends on the angle of attack on approach. <...>

One wonders how the Rafales fares in that regard. They seem to land with a very high angle of attack.

Truem but then again, they have a rather shorter nose shape than the F-18 that Kendra was talking about, so maybe they're geometrically better?

<...> the A-10 would make a good carrier plane - low approach speed, <...>

Actually, they'd have to ask the carrier to slow down a bit. At top speed, the carrier would probably outrun the A-10. I think someone (probably an Eagle or Viper driver) on ARC remarked that the A-10 is the only aircraft to have suffered birdstrikes from the rear. 

Somewhere in a book I have an A-10 pilot's first solo certificate, which features an excellent caricature of the aircraft with kitchen sinks among the underwing ordnance, tank-style rivets all around the cockpit "bathtub", "Acme Cement" on the engine nacelles and a bird flying into it from behind.....

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F7U Cutlass landed at an extremely high AoA, in fact so high that they couldn't even see the deck (at all).  Yet the nose wasn't that abnormally shaped

[PR19_Kit]

But they changed the shape of the nose of the Cutlass radically between the original  F7U-1 and the -3. The -1 has a relatively conventional cockpit position but the -3 had a much higher one and it was moved further forward I think. Either that or they shortened the nose itself.

[Weaver]

The F7U-3 cockpit was raised up, leading to the big fairing behind it, and the nose shape was changed from a pure cone to something like an A-4 profile to make the angle of it's upper surface more steeply sloped.