Maybe Willi Messershcmitt had a similar dilemma

[colmbo]

Short field approach speed for the B-17 is 95mph IAS.

[1stpar3]

  Need to RE Title a bit......Maybe Frankenstein had a similar delimma?     Hitech created a MONSTER(in the fluffy kind of purple haired, stuffed monster) and has a huge club of rabid fans. Wonder if Dale owns stock in pharmaceuticals? Scotch is just the carrier, NOT a true pharmaceutical      I love it! I could care less if the planes even flew...its you GUYS/ Gals and Snakes in the grass(you know who I mean Coppr) that bring me back! 

[Crash Orange]

You would have to be insane to try that in real life. In that diagram it appears that the left landing gear would pass around 8' from the left edge of the flight deck where it's narrower toward the stern and the right wingtip would pass around 6' from the closest gun mount. That would be extremely difficult to perform (about comparable to flying through a hangar, which I kinda doubt any B-17 in history ever did) and the slightest error in maneuvering or braking would send the plane either overboard or straight into the island at 90+mph. Also keep in mind that you're talking about a landing strip that is rolling and/or pitching, the plane has no arresting gear, the undercarriage was not designed to take the impact of landing at the steep rate of descent for carrier landings (carrier planes had and still have beefed up landing gear for this), the LSO would never have landed a plane like that before, and B-17 pilots were completely untrained in carrier landings, which are a difficult and dangerous operation for novices even when they've spent considerable time training for it and they're flying planes designed for it. And while it might be possible to roll to a stop in 862 feet, if you misjudge your landing and land even a little bit short or long on that pitching deck you and every crewman on the plane are going to die.

Lastly, the flight deck on that class was wood planking over a relatively thin sheet of steel, essentially a lightweight platform erected on top of the hangar deck, which was the strength deck of the ship (the Essex class were the last class of US carriers to be built that way), and in no way designed for landing a 20-ton airplane - that's four times the weight of a TBM. I have no idea whether it would take the weight without bending the steel or splintering the planking, and the pilot and the ship captain probably wouldn't have had any idea either, but it certainly wouldn't be good for the deck - and that deck is a much more valuable asset than a B-17.

All things considered, given that the plane is going to be thrown overboard anyway, your chances would be better ditching near the carrier and having a destroyer pick the crew up.

[oboe]

Very interesting Crash, especially your point about the strength of the flight deck.  While the strength of landing gear struts may be modeled in AH (I'm reasonably sure I've snapped gear in hard landings before) I can easily believe AH doesn't model  flight deck weight restrictions or impact damage from hard landings.   

While the physics of weight, braking, stall speed, etc - may theoretically allow for landing a B-17 on a CV under perfect conditions - there is another factor I hadn't thought of until now.  The AH pilots who accomplish this feat are almost certainly using external view on their approach.  I'm not sure the pilot's view from a Flying Fortress would let you see the CV deck as you fly the approach, especially as you get in close. 

[colmbo]

You would have to be insane to try that in real life. In that diagram it appears that the left landing gear would pass around 8' from the left edge of the flight deck where it's narrower toward the stern and the right wingtip would pass around 6' from the closest gun mount. That would be extremely difficult to perform

Not a problem.  Any pilot with passable skills can keep the airplane on the center line when landing or taking off....I'm talking keep the airplane within inches....certainly within 6 to 8 feet.

and B-17 pilots were completely untrained in carrier landings, which are a difficult and dangerous operation

B-17 pilots are some of the most awesome stick manipulators in the history of aviation....end of discussion.

that's four times the weight of a TBM. I have no idea whether it would take the weight without bending the steel or splintering the planking

The B-17 has huge tires which will result in a lower PSI than the small tired fighters even with their lighter weights.  Just a guess but I don't think there would be any structural issues.


Of course this is all just a mental exercise.  Could it be done?  Sure, no doubt.  Would it be practical, no.

[Vinkman]

Sometimes people miss the point.  The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death. 

the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try.  Mustangs never fought Carsairs. But we get to see which one would win!! 

Get it?

 

[oboe]

Sometimes people miss the point.  The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death. 

the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try.  Mustangs never fought Carsairs. But we get to see which one would win!! 

Get it?

 

Hiya Vinkman, 

Sometimes you can't make this stuff up; real Life can be stranger than fiction.  It turns out that Mustangs did fight versus Corsairs.   Check out the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador:  https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/

 

As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.

[colmbo]

As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.

I've never used external view for flying in AH or real life.  I find external view harder to use.

[Vinkman]

Hiya Vinkman, 

Sometimes you can't make this stuff up; real Life can be stranger than fiction.  It turns out that Mustangs did fight versus Corsairs.   Check out the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador:  https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/

 

As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.

Darn...wrong again!  thanks that was a fun read. 

[Crash Orange]

Not a problem.  Any pilot with passable skills can keep the airplane on the center line when landing or taking off....I'm talking keep the airplane within inches....certainly within 6 to 8 feet.

It's a lot harder when the center line is on a deck that is pitching and rolling. And those carriers pitched and rolled a lot more than modern ones do, or the cruise ships that are most peoples' experience of being on the open ocean these days.

Maybe, maybe, under perfect conditions, in sheltered, very calm waters, with pilots who had been trained to do it and had practice runs doing it on land and an LSO who had practiced landing big bombers. (You can't forget the LSO. His skill was almost as important as the pilot's for a successful carrier landing.) But a carrier landing is a lot trickier than landing on a similar size runway on land. And I'm still not sure the B-17's gear would take the impact.

Anyway, I'm not complaining about it in AH, just commenting on the feasibility of doing it IRL. We do a lot of things in AH that might be theoretically possible but no one in his right mind would do IRL, like landing on and taking off from carriers that are turning, or dive-bombing with 4-engine bombers. Losing a cartoon life is a lot less of a deterrent than losing a real one.

[DaveBB]

Many B-17s used parachutes attached to the tail turret as drag chutes for short field emergency landings.  Landing a B-17 on a carrier could definitely be done.

[colmbo]

Many B-17s used parachutes attached to the tail turret as drag chutes for short field emergency landings.  Landing a B-17 on a carrier could definitely be done.

Not so much for a short field but because the brakes were not functioning.  Both the B-17 and B-24 hydraulic systems were fragile to battle damage with the hydraulic system being much more critical on the B-24 since nearly everything was hydraulic, the only exception being the cowl flaps which were electric.  On the B-17 it was the opposite, the only hydraulic functions were for brakes and cowl flaps.

[Mongoose]

Sometimes people miss the point.  The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death. 

the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try.

Exactly!