6 ms·
hmm is that such a feat? landing on a carrier compared to landing on land? The variables involved should be pretty predictable and can be modeled accurately...
by jordache 9y ago
hmm is that such a feat? landing on a carrier compared to landing on land? The variables involved should be pretty predictable and can be modeled accurately...
- vermontdevil 9y agoOcean swells is quite a variable to deal with on a carrier deck
- philip1209 9y agoIt's a moving runway
- flr03 9y agoThe track is narrow and short, with potential movements in 3 dimensions.
- jonathanstrange 9y agoThat doesn't make much of a difference, given how fast the plane moves. Being accurate enough in turbulent weather to catch the hook seems to be the main problem.
- dragontamer 9y agoA plane moves slowest when its landing. Its not like they're landing at Mach-speeds.
- jonathanstrange 9y agoI know this very well, but the point is that this is irrelevant anyway, because the relative movement of the carrier matter much less than the difficulty of catching the hook. Whether you match the speed to the carrier deck or to the ground makes (almost) no difference. It's not as if the carrier was suddenly accelerating while a plane lands. Catching the hook while the plane is in a controlled crash, that's the problem.
- bkohlmann 9y agoAdd in a pitching deck and all predictable variables go out the window.
- jordache 9y agoi would venture to say this is more of a controlled environment than autonomous vehicles. The variables you have to deal with in real-time for vehicles is much greater than landing on a carrier.
- bkohlmann 9y agoHaving done both extensively, in all weather conditions, I respectfully disagree. Now, modeling that in an algorithm...you may be accurate. The thing about a pitching deck is that it's somewhat, but not completely, predictable. Swells are measurable and generally periodic...but the generality breaks down enough to make it unpredictable. It's why boarding rates (i.e. the ratio of landings to attempt) drop by a factor of 2-3 (i.e. from around 90+% to 30-ish%) in pitching deck situations.
- anonymousDan 9y agoI can heartily recommend 'The Right Stuff' by Tom Wolfe, where he gives a great description of how challenging it is for new pilots to learn this skill.
- chomp 9y agoAnother: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs
- snowwrestler 9y agoThat whole series was so good.
- moftz 9y agoThere is more involved with landing on a carrier vs a land runway. The carrier deck is much shorter so the plane needs to grab the arresting cable and there is only a small window for this. If you miss it, you need to quickly speed up and take off again for another pass.
- alistairSH 9y agoyou need to quickly speed up and take off again for another pass. In fact, the aircraft always go to max throttle at touchdown, just in case they need to go around for another try. This, as opposed to going to max throttle after realizing there's a problem.
- ape4 9y agoI wonder if they do model the movement of the deck.
- verandaguy_alt 9y agoIt definitely is a feat. Carrier landings on US-supercarrier-style carriers especially are pretty notorious -- between the ocean swell, the short runway and tiny margin of error, plus a runway that's actually angled with regards to the carrier's direction of travel, it's pretty challenging.
- Steve44 9y ago> plus a runway that's actually angled with regards to the carrier's direction of travel, it's pretty challenging I hadn't really considered that before. Say the carrier is doing 20 knots then even on a one minute final approach the carrier will have moved by getting on for half a mile. ( very much fag-packet estimated maths but enough to show you can't just point at the carrier and land in a straight line)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Merad 9y agoThe US Navy has actually had automatic carrier landing systems since the 1960s. The advancement here appears to be the carrier "taking over" the plane in order to land it with no input from the pilot.