USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials on HackerTube: recommended by 1 Hacker News commenter across 1 month, 2016–2023.
demo · evergreen
Short archival footage of a USMC KC-130F Hercules making unarrested landings and takeoffs on the USS Forrestal in 1963. It is the largest and heaviest aircraft to have landed on a carrier, and the tests were judged successful but too risky for routine use.
HN commenters link it as the go-to example of what a carrier deck can handle and as an impressive flight feat.
“The video of a Hercules landing and taking off on the USS Forrestal without no arrestor or catapult might interest you”
5 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
The video of a Hercules landing and taking off on the USS Forrestal without no arrestor or catapult might interest you: ▶ this video
in “New Video of F-117s Flying Out of Tonopah Despite Their Fates Being Sealed” · View on HN
A little longer than 20 feet, but a much heavier aircraft and still impressive - a C-130 landing on an aircraft carrier: ▶ this video
in “Plane Lands/Takes Off in Only 20 Feet (2013)” · View on HN
They successfully tested landing and taking off a loaded C-130 from a carrier in the 60s so I guess if you designed a new long range STOL airliner from the ground up it wouldn't be impossible and might even have a slim slim chance of being economical. But existing airliners, no way. And with the risks of carrier operations I don't reckon it'd be anywhere near as safe as 6 hour ETOPS. ▶ this video
in “Polar Express – How Airlines are plotting a new-route to Asia” · View on HN
Also how about a C-27J doing both a backflip and an aileron roll: [link] or a C-130 taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier: ▶ this video isn't modern flight awesome?
in “A customer reported an error in the map used by Flight Simulator” · View on HN
My prediction for the Ford carrier program is that it will be cancelled and replaced with... Even bigger carrier. Significantly bigger. China can bomb shit out of Guam airstrips. Or from submarines any airstrip that stays stationary. U.S. can in near future do everything a 100 gigagram Ford carrier can do with 45Gg America class carrier. With the exception that Ford will have triple the planes, triple the cost, triple the price and about double the range of planes aboard. In near future you can do almost everything with three Americas than with single Ford, with almost exactly the same $/kg of ordnance delivered. This happens because V-22 osprey and F35B have short takeoff and landing while having incredible capability. Ford will rely on F35C, V-22 and super hornet. The hornet being mostly stopgap measure. But Ford is still limited to planes less than 30 tons and less than 1700km range. Something that could launch C130 super hercules (70 ton weight, 3800km range) safely , would make super-duper-giga-hyper-carrier look like worthwhile investment. The weight of Ford is not the main problem, but it's not long enough. ▶ this video Now you could replace significant portion of Guam with floating airstrips. You could dominate entire northern pacific with single carrier with it's organic refueling. The alternative for hypersupercarriers would be America class + some flying boats acting as refuelers, gunships and transports. That would be more robust way to do things, as you are putting yo
in “The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake: Building Tons of Supercarriers” · View on HN