Aircraft evaluations for Navy

[Brugal]

Hi guys,

I was wondering if the Navy did evaluate any other types of aircraft for use with RAN and/or Carrier Air Group? If so, which types have been looked at?

Cheers,

Rico 'Brugal'

[Luig]

When? For the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne?

Answer for both eras with different aircraft: There were never any options. MELBOURNE was so small that no other naval aircraft required for their respective roles (other than helos) would fit the deck/catapult. Even then in the A4G era the catapult was adequate but the landing area was slightly below what USN NATOPS required.

For example the NATOPS hook to ramp clearance for the A-4 was 6.5 feet minimum. The HtoR for the A4G onboard MELBOURNE was 6 feet.

This post has been edited by Luig on Sep 17 2013, 06:40 AM

[Brugal]

Thanks Luig for reply.... but besides the carrier based aircraft like A-4G, did the navy also considered other trainers then MB.326 (like T-2 Buckeye....???) or basic trainers like Chipmunk, Prentice etc?

Cheers from up North :D

Brugal

[Luig]

Brugal,
Our Fleet Air Arm was miniscule. We did not have basic/advanced fixed wing flying training, so we learnt to fly with the RAAF and after gaining RAAF wings then returned to NAS Nowra to learn to fly the NAVY way. Even today the RAN helicopter pilots are trained fixed wing with the RAAF then they commence helicopter training with the RAN.

So that meant that training aircraft (not operational aircraft) were shared with the RAAF (not literally but we used the same type). Which made training initially in the RAN for new 'RAAF trained pilots' easy because they already knew that 'training' RAN aircraft. Not always possible with propeller aircraft however the Jet Aircraft Trainers/Utility were the same as the RAAF - Vampire dual seat and then Macchi MB326H.

It would make no sense to have a special NAVY training aircraft - the initial buy of Macchis was only ten with two crashing early on and not replaced. However the Skyhawk of course had a tandem seat TA4G whilst the Sea Venom was always two seat even though a passenger / instructor may have sat in the right hand seat sometimes perhaps. There was no requirement to have new pilots land on MELBOURNE in a training aircraft. With only one carrier there was no time to have such an event. Pilots went out for their first deck landing in the jet era in a Sea Venom or a Skyhawk.

My first Venom familiarisation flight before going solo was sitting in the right hand Observer seat so that I could see how things were done; but that seat did not have flying controls. Then I went solo.