Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Flying aircraft carriers

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:00 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

MAD-4A wrote:It's the 21st century here, just a robot arm (like on the Space Shuttle) with an inflight-refueling probe on the end & a refueling type coupling on the nose of the drone (or deployable from the top) the mother plane deploys the arm and flies strait and steady (just like inflight refueling) and the drone operator flies his drone into the coupler (just like refueling) then once coupled the arm is retracted & "clink" on the deck. how hard is that?


Google some vidos and accounts of the parasite fighters intended for use with B-39 Peacemakers as "flying aircraft carriers." Most graphic are the videos of the "Goblin" parsite fighter.

The problems of flying in the slipstream of larger aircraft even with a skilled pilot aboard were tremendous; adding the inherent delay of remote control via the internet and satellites, and I suspect they would be insurmountable.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by Grashtel   » Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:38 am

Grashtel
Captain of the List

Posts: 449
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:59 am

Weird Harold wrote:The problems of flying in the slipstream of larger aircraft even with a skilled pilot aboard were tremendous; adding the inherent delay of remote control via the internet and satellites, and I suspect they would be insurmountable.

Assuming that the drone would be docking by remote control rather than autonomously, which IMO is unlikely. This is the exact sort of situation where getting the human out of the control loop and letting the drone's on board computer's massively faster responses and precision come into play.
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by MAD-4A   » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:22 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Weird Harold wrote:The problems of flying in the slipstream of larger aircraft even with a skilled pilot aboard were tremendous;
That's why the booms extend down and back not strait back. Once connected, it's physically attached and basically part of the plane and you just pull it in.
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by Weird Harold   » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:02 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

MAD-4A wrote:Once connected, it's physically attached and basically part of the plane and you just pull it in.


Not quite that simple; unless the trapeze is grossly over-engineered, the turbulence will twist it (and your captured drone) into a pretzel.

Wake turbulence around a big aircraft is a non-trivial problem that has bedeviled nearly every airborne retrieval idea in history. As Relax noted earlier in this thread, the only successful programs generally dealt with conical or cylindrical objects.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:35 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

[quote="Weird Harold"]Not quite that simple; unless the trapeze is grossly over-engineered, ...quote]what trapeze - this isn't Ringling Bros. A robot arm, like I said before.
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:54 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

MAD-4A wrote:what trapeze - this isn't Ringling Bros. A robot arm, like I said before.


Call it what you want, the turbulence will put a lot of stress on it.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by Relax   » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:12 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

The parasite fighter program never once reconnected with the bomber in question.

There is a reason that 2 minutes goes by before another aircraft lands behind a 777/747/A380 etc. The vortices from the wings are brutal. MANY MANY MANY small airplane fatalities are due to landing behind bigger aircraft.

Guarantee what DARPA is thinking is more along the lines of a BLIMP mothership.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by MAD-4A   » Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:52 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Relax wrote:There is a reason that 2 minutes goes by before another aircraft lands behind a 777/747/A380 etc.
Actually, 2 minutes is considered "tailgating" in Air-traffic-controller terms. if 2 planes get within miles of each other it's counted as a "near-miss" situation. Its not because of some super vortices that somehow last 2 minutes, it's because of "near-miss" safety concerns/regulations.
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by MAD-4A   » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:08 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

btw, anyone notice the horrible design flaw in the SHIELD Heli-Carrier?

Notice the Angle deck. it ends right over the port bow intake. completely useless, to take off, you would have to fly right over (and get sucked in by) the port bow impeller and anyone landing would have one & only one chance, no touch-and-go, fail to nail it on the first try (for ANY reason) and poof, there you go, and the rest of the ship when its entire port bow looses all lift. Can we say Major-Death-Spiral? (not that you care anymore, as your already scattered over half a cubic megameter.)
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Flying aircraft carriers
Post by jchilds   » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:54 pm

jchilds
Captain of the List

Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

MAD-4A wrote:btw, anyone notice the horrible design flaw in the SHIELD Heli-Carrier?

Notice the Angle deck. it ends right over the port bow intake. completely useless, to take off, you would have to fly right over (and get sucked in by) the port bow impeller and anyone landing would have one & only one chance, no touch-and-go, fail to nail it on the first try (for ANY reason) and poof, there you go, and the rest of the ship when its entire port bow looses all lift. Can we say Major-Death-Spiral? (not that you care anymore, as your already scattered over half a cubic megameter.)


It's a feature, actually. That's the political VIP runway...
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...