Talk:Aircraft catapult

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Color drawing upload?

I have a color drawing showing the internal subsystems of a steam cat, but I do not know how to incorporate it in the article or whether it is good enough for incorporation. Please advise. - Schnaz 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Use the "Upload file" link on the sidebar to the left (in the "toolbox" section) to upload it to Wikipedia; you will need to release it under an appropriate license. Then, include in the article an image link: e.g. [[Image:Steam_catapult.png|thumb|right|Internal subsystems of a steam catapult]] (see Help:Image). Don't worry about whether it is good enough; as long as it's factually correct other editors will be able to improve it. EdC 13:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The image that I uploaded didn't pass muster. The fair-use nazis quashed it. I've had it in my archives for 20 years, and I'm 99.9 percent certain it was provided to the US Navy under a contract, which means it's Uncle Sam's, which means it's in the public domain. But I guess unless I prove that, the image can't be used. -Schnaz 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Don't most catapult launches now come off nuclear-powered carriers? I suppose they have adequate electrical power but I understood they still used steam. The conformation of the catapult tube is similar to that used in Brunel's atmospheric railway (and presumably the Irish one that predated it), but the sealing strip is all steel. Midgley 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear-powered ships still use steam for propulsion, the only difference is that the heat to generate the steam comes from a nuclear reactor rather than a coal or oil-fired furnace. PeteVerdon 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I should perhaps have explicitly said - so the section "An important factor driving the conversion to electromagnetic catapults is the steady conversion of warships from steam power to gas turbine power, and the resultant loss of readily-available high-pressure steam" is perhaps not correct or relevant? Midgley 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Come to that, I don't have a copy of Jane's but I can't recall and there is no actual reference to any instance of an electric catapult. Is there one on a carrier? Midgley 16:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
There was meant to be an electric catapult on CVX/CVN-21/CVN-77. According to a 2005 Navy press release, they are still in the design.
Advance Construction Begins for CVN 21
Navy NewsStand
Story Number: NNS050812-13
Release Date: 8/12/2005 1:57:00 PM
MilesVorkosigan 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
EMALS (Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System) is still in development at NAES Lakehurst. The first test model is being constructed there. Also, it's worth noting that low-pressure steam cats -- as opposed to high-pressure systems -- have been in operation since about 1989. Schnaz 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Also, someone screwed with the History section. It has bits that just go "jhas asdh a is asrha v[[]" and such. Would someone knowledgeable please fix it up?

[edit] Launch frequency

As far as I remember (sorry -- the mind is a bad source) An American aircraft carrier can launch 2 aircrafts per minute per catapult (they have 4 catapults altogether). In order to get to air speed (e.g. 280 km/h and a way of 80m => around 4 G force effect). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.183.93.118 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bridle Catchers

Nice inclusion. Should perhaps later add a section about last types of Aircraft that used the bridles. I believe the last type of aircraft to use the bridles was the T-2 Buckeye, a small two seat 2 jet trainer, now replaced by the T-45. Unsure what was the last type of tactical aircraft utilized that used the bridles. Wild guess between the A-7 Corsair, or early variants of the A-6 Intruder, or perhaps A-4 Skyhawk. Wfoj2 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Someone who knows what they're doing, could you please fix the gibberish? It really detracts from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.114.167.19 (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The last sentence of the first History graph states: "Some upcoming carrier designs . . . include electric catapults in their plans."

Should that be "electromagnetic catapults"? -- Schnaz 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other types of catapult

Shouldn't there be a section on WWII catapults, of the rocket and explosive kind for CAM and MAC ships, and the counterweight, mechanical kind used on cruisers and battleships? KTo288 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation section

I've taken the liberty of adding an "operation" section based on a fairly detailed article published a few years ago in the UK.

Allowing that the original Atmospheric Railway was in Devon I wonder whether Mitchell was based at Plymouth and knew about it? The overall arrangement is very similar.

Does anybody know where those US Navy photos cited in the referenced external article live? Getting one or two of those into the article- particularly the line drawing- could add a lot. MarkMLl 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The new section looks good, but you need to cite your source in the text. we can help with the formatting if you aren't sure how to do it. - BillCJ 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bill, I haven't got the source material to hand but when I have- which could be a few months- I'll come back and add a reference and correct anything that doesn't look right. MarkMLl 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


The operation section should be modified slightly. I don't have a source to give you, as it's based on my own operational experience as the steam catapult supervisor on the Nimitz for 2+ years. The steam accumulators there don't operate quite the way they do in the linked wiki article. First off, they are pressurized to 600psi and operate at about 480F (saturation temperature of water at that pressure). They are heated by the ships 600psi auxiliary steam system. They don't accumulate steam, so much as they accumulate really hot water. The majority of steam that goes into a catapult cylinder at launch is actually the result of flash conversion when the launch valve is opened, because the volume of steam actually in the accumulator would not be enough. The tank levels are closely monitored during launch operations and manually refilled from the ships main engineering water supply (which is already pressurized and heated).-- Zogblog (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-18 photo at start of article

The nose of the plane appears to be much sharper than the tail. I don't think it's a focus problem, if it were a mechanical camera with a focal plane shutter I'd say that it indicates how much speed the plane had picked up while the curtains were crossing the film- that would almost knock it into the "featured photo" bracket. MarkMLl 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cylinder Slot Seal

Precisely how is the slot in the cylinder sealed? I've wondered about this for many years!LorenzoB (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Catapults used by Langley & the Wright Brothers

while known to history of aviation buffs both Langley & ther Wrights used catapults. Langley on his failed man-carrying 'aerodrom' Oct. & Dec. 1903. He'd also used spring operated catapults on his earlier model 'aerodromes'(Langley's term) beginning in the early 1890s. The Wrights usage of a 1,600 pound weight falling from the inside of 20 foot high derrick is a little more well known. The brothers began using this device in September 1904 but their aircraft were capable of taking off without the catapult. Koplimek (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's "known to history of aviation buffs", you should not have any problem finding reliable sources to cite. Please remember that reliable sources must be provided when an addition is challenged, and that it is up to the contributor to provide the sources. - BillCJ (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)