My guess 1) False 2) False 3) True 4) True Reasons: 1) the C-17(?) looks like it's actually rotating for take-off, would have thought it would come in flat. Although I don't doubt if they wanted they could put one down on a carrier. 2) 737, not a cat in hell's chance. No arrestor gear to get it on, too long a ground run before rotation to get it off 3) I know for a fact that C-130 has been landed on/ taken off from carriers (although that particular photo might be fake) 4) I have vague memories of reports of U-2 (that is a U-2 not TR-1 isn't it? Would have thought so with the UH-2 in the background - old photo) being trialled on a carrier - mainly to see if it could be done rather than any real operational requirement. Oli
The first one is a bit obvious, shouldn't that plane look a lot bigger compared to the deck crewman? Also, the dust/smoke it throws up on touchdown doesn't develop forward but stops at a clear line.
...and the plane's tail is quite a way into the deck! The 737 confused me slightly, I thought it might be a case of the aircraft carrier being used as transport rather than a take-off/landing point.
C-17 is quite small (relatively speaking, of course), and the tail is swept up at the back for a steep pull up and climb-out from rough strips. But they don't land like that. AFAIK it's in flat and full thrust reverser... Oli
a galaxy on an aircraft carrier , just to confirm that this is false i'll give you some reasons , that galaxy is much smaller than it really is because of it's size comparison to that guy on the deck , a galaxy is like two thirds the size of an aircraft carrier , the wings would collide with the superstructure , there is no where for the cables to latch onto because the back of the galaxy opens , and the cables would have a slight chance of snapping if a galaxy were to latch on , and lastly the galaxy would have to come to a complete stop in 1 second because of it's enormous size.
Just a technical correction. The aircraft is a C-17 Globemaster III and not a C-5 Galaxy. The photo is still b.s. of course so it does not matter a great deal. C-17 Globemaster III C-5 Galaxy
the same reasons still apply , it's a different model of transport aircraft , but it's still to big to land on an aircraft carrier.
Yes, I believe I said that with the above reference. It's just the C-17 is considerally smaller the Galaxy. Since you were comparing the size of the C-5 to an aircraft carrier in reference to the photo above I thought it important to make a "technical" correction. I'm sorry if you found my post offensive, but I felt it was important to be accurate in regards to the actual hardware being shown and refered too. And the picture is total BS, or did I say that already.
