All at Sea

[McColm]

U-2s were deployed at sea along with the Lockheed Neptune which undertook trials. The SR-71 might be a tad too big. The C-130 was also tried as a COD aircraft.
As for the Dassault Alfa jet I think it got got sponsorship from Lockheed as it was up against the BAe Hawk. Now the French did intend the Mirage IV  to be carrier launched and the Royal Air Force wanted the larger wing B version that was turned down in favour of the IV A that went into production.
The Delta Darts and the Voodo.

[Mossie]

I always fancied this one, HS.125 carrierborne AEW:

[The Wooksta!]

Seen that one done.  I did have some photos but they were lost in a crash years ago.

[famvburg]

     There was a proposal for a carrier based SR-71 variant. Was the C-130 tried as a COD or just landed & taken off a carrier just to show it could be done? IIRC, the Neptune was to be launched from a carrier but not recovered aboard. The U-2, IIRC, was equipped with a hook for recovery.

U-2s were deployed at sea along with the Lockheed Neptune which undertook trials. The SR-71 might be a tad too big. The C-130 was also tried as a COD aircraft.
As for the Dassault Alfa jet I think it got got sponsorship from Lockheed as it was up against the BAe Hawk. Now the French did intend the Mirage IV  to be carrier launched and the Royal Air Force wanted the larger wing B version that was turned down in favour of the IV A that went into production.
The Delta Darts and the Voodo.

[pyro-manic]

Hercules carrier trials: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

[DarrenP]

A few Carrierborne variants I'd like to have seen:

Hawker Hunter
A10
BAE 146
Short Skyvan
Short Sherpa
Hawker hurrcaine (with folding wings)
P51 Mustang
P47 Thunderbolt

[rickshaw]

I've built a Sea Hunter and a Hawker Herne naval variants of the Hunter.

[Weaver]

A navalised Viggen is on my to-do list. Folding JA-37 tail fin and outer wings, twin ventral fins on the wing roots to leave space for an arrestor hook. Gun pod instead of the KCA: hurts, but assuming Sweden's carrier(s) are small, you need the maximum flexibility of as many pylons as possible on your handful of aircraft.

In my mind's eye, I can see it in blue/grey splinter next to a section of island with BEWARE JET BLAST AND ROTORS written on it in Swedish....

All Viggen's already got foldable fins in order to fit into the cold war nuclear safe rock hangars.

Yes I know, although for years (don't know why... ) I had the impression that the fold was at the big actuator fairing, not at the base...

I've never seen the folding fin done on a model: the point of doing it on the navalised one is to hopefully provoke some JMN into pointing at it and saying "now that's just silly!" to which you reply "no: that's the only bit of it that's real!"  

The arrestor hook would ideally be placed alongside the ventral fin or even integrated in it. Such solutions aren't that uncommon. Look f.i on the F-105.

True, but then that's an emergency airfield hook for use with RAAS gear, not a carrier hook. Carrier hooks are much bigger and stronger. IIRC, I did consider a V-shaped hook that fitted around the ventral fin but it fouls the airbrakes, and if you put it behind the ventral fin (which is quite far forward) it then sits across the thrust-reverser slot, which is probably not healthy... I still think the best solution would be to fit the hook in place of the fin, forward of the thrust reverser slot and between the airbrakes, and then replace the inboard flap actuator fairings with deep, fin-shaped ones.

And as the Oerlikon gun of the JA37 is friggin awesome and doesn't interfere with the three existing ventral pylons, I really can't see why you want to leave the gun off.

Sorry, didn't express myself very well there. What I mean is that the gun is a big piece of fixed payload that you can't swap for fuel/stores/recce pods on missions that don't need a gun. This isn't a problem for the air force: they can send JAs on fighter missions, AJs on strike missons and SFs on recce missions. A small carrier with maybe only a dozen aircraft in total needs them all to do every job for maximum flexibility. I'd see the carrier version having an optional gun pod for the centreline, the ability to carry Rb.71 Skyflash on the fuselage pylons and wet inboard wing pylons.

[rickshaw]

Mmm, why would carrier hooks be "bigger and stronger" than airfield arrestor hooks?   I'd have thought they'd have to be as strong - on similar sized aircraft - afterall, both on a carrier deck and an airfield where arrestor gear is being used, they still have to stop the same mass of metal in a similar distance.  The forces involved would be essentially identical.  The only difference in the approach is the sink rates, which is dependent more on landing gear strength rather than arrestor hook strength.

[Joe C-P]

On a carrier one only has a limited stopping distance. On a land runway there's a lot more run-out room, so the energy can be stretched out over a longer time and puts less stress on the airframe.

[rickshaw]

On a carrier one only has a limited stopping distance. On a land runway there's a lot more run-out room, so the energy can be stretched out over a longer time and puts less stress on the airframe.

You would think so, wouldn't you?  However the whole point of the runway arrestor gear is to allow fighters to land on damaged or short runways, often as short as a carrier deck.

[McColm]

I'd like to see the following:
Beechcraft/King Air C-12 Huron
Learjet 35
C-123 Provider or XC-123A jet powered
DHC-4 Caribou
C-212 Aviocar
C-27 Spaatan
Kawaski C-1 and XC-2
Antonov An-12, An-26, An-72/74, An-71

[PR19_Kit]

On a carrier one only has a limited stopping distance. On a land runway there's a lot more run-out room, so the energy can be stretched out over a longer time and puts less stress on the airframe.

You would think so, wouldn't you?  However the whole point of the runway arrestor gear is to allow fighters to land on damaged or short runways, often as short as a carrier deck.

Not the whole reason according to the RAF. They install the wires so the aircraft don't run right into the next county when things go pear shaped. Having said that it seems that retractable runway barrriers are more common  these days.

Hooks on carrier aircraft would be designed for the fatigue stress case, they use the hook EVERY time they land, whereas land based aircraft just MAY have to use it a few times. Look at the difference in size between a Phantom hook and a Hunter T8 hook, it's like night and day.

[McColm]

There was a sea hurricane flown by the Royal Navy during WWII.

[Pellson]

True, but then that's an emergency airfield hook for use with RAAS gear, not a carrier hook. Carrier hooks are much bigger and stronger. IIRC, I did consider a V-shaped hook that fitted around the ventral fin but it fouls the airbrakes, and if you put it behind the ventral fin (which is quite far forward) it then sits across the thrust-reverser slot, which is probably not healthy... I still think the best solution would be to fit the hook in place of the fin, forward of the thrust reverser slot and between the airbrakes, and then replace the inboard flap actuator fairings with deep, fin-shaped ones.

Now, you would'nt really need the thrust reverser on a carrier, would you?   Loose that - save a lot of weight. It will easily make up for the weight of the carrier hook (that still can be onebar style, not V-style)

Sorry, didn't express myself very well there. What I mean is that the gun is a big piece of fixed payload that you can't swap for fuel/stores/recce pods on missions that don't need a gun. This isn't a problem for the air force: they can send JAs on fighter missions, AJs on strike missons and SFs on recce missions. A small carrier with maybe only a dozen aircraft in total needs them all to do every job for maximum flexibility. I'd see the carrier version having an optional gun pod for the centreline, the ability to carry Rb.71 Skyflash on the fuselage pylons and wet inboard wing pylons.

No offense taken..
The gun pod is actually rather quickly detachable as it is. It's an entirely external thing, attached to the belly of the a/c much like the belly tank on the Lightning. Leaving it off would not very likely result in more available pylon space, however, you can still not fit semirecessed AAM:s in the belly as the engine is just on the other side of the plating. Again, you could obviously use the saved weight to something more mission specific.

On the other hand, there are actually two more hardpoints already available on the inner wing, directly in line and in front of the elevon actuator aft of the main landing gear covers. These are IRL generally only used for flares and other countermeasures but in theory, you could fit lighter AAM:s there, carefully monitoring the change in CoG.

So:

• Light AAM under wing tips
• Heavy loads on main hardpoings midwing
• Light load between landing gear and elevon
• Heavier load under engine air intake
• Gun hugging centerline hardpoint
• On very short range missions - heavy loads on centerline hardpoint. Otherwise large external fuel tank

In reality, no missions were flown without that large tank as the Lightning would have seemed intercontinental in comparison..