Carrier-capable B737-200 concept

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Ain't no way a 737 would have ever been considered for this. No. Way.

[-]

If you write a requirement for a COD/tanker aircraft with the payload-range performance of a 737, don't be surprised when something the size of a 737 gets proposed. Remember that the original 737 was a much smaller aircraft than the modern versions - not actually that much bigger than an A-3. And it was actually supposed to replace the KA-3, as well as the C-2, so that checks out.

It was sufficiently serious that Fokker actually flew approaches with an F28 to demonstrate that it worked. Equally, the ultimate acceptability of the idea is demonstrated by the fact that it didn't happen. Possibly because of budget, possibly because it's still a big aircraft for a flight deck.

But if you don't like the 737 on a carrier, you'll hate Boeing's unsolicited proposal from 1965 to put a 727 on a carrier: https://theairchive.net/boeing-727-military-brochure-jun-1965-from-la-jetee-press/

[-]

gnomesvh@reddit

Also not like the 737/727/F28 would be based off the carrier too, it would just land for cargo missions

That's why the C130 was tested, meant you could do COD without needing to buy a whole new plane

[-]

Tyraid@reddit

Yeah the 727, size aside, almost makes more sense to me because it had focused on STOL performance more than any other aircraft in its market. Would have been rad. Would have taken up the entire flight deck. I’m here for 30 ft of folding wings and hanging the entire tail off the flight deck.

[-]

psunavy03@reddit

STOL performance when you have a catapult and arresting gear is irrelevant.

[-]

Tyraid@reddit

I think you’re right honestly. I’m just not sure if the catapults available could tow a 727. What’s the heaviest aircraft to use a catapult?

[-]

psunavy03@reddit

As mentioned below, the cats on the Ford-class are described in open source literature as rated to accelerate 100,000lbs to 130 knots. In actuality any jet launched is set up to achieve a minimum catapult endspeed which is calculated to allow single-engine flyaway at its gross weight. The flight deck crew and aircrew visually verify and confirm each aircraft's actual gross weight before the cat shot.

Super Hornets can push 66,000lbs. F-14s were like 74,000lbs.

[-]

FreeUsernameInBox@reddit

I can't remember if it's the A-3 or A-6, but both of those maxed out at about 86,000 pounds – which is about the empty weight of a 727. And the maximum weight of the F28 COD proposal.

The C-13 catapult was designed to handle maximum weight of 100,000 pounds, which is (probably not coincidentally) around the maximum weight of a 737-100.

[-]

no-more-nazis@reddit

Navy C-5, then

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Blah blah blah blah blah "What I said holds true." You confirm it, make up whatever nergasm rationalization you want. I'm expecting "Here is what teenagers with MS Flightsim thought about it"

Landing a 737 was never, ever, a serious thing but you dolts think it was. By all means continue!

[-]

Tythatguy1312@reddit

Hey Boeing had faith in the idea and they designed the thing

[-]

SuDragon2k3@reddit

Doing a cat shot in a 737 would be...interesting.

[-]

RoebuckThirtyFour@reddit

I think the term you are looking for is "rad as hell"

[-]

GnarlyNarwhalNoms@reddit

Wow, I didn't realize, but you weren't kidding. Quite a difference.

737-100 MTOW: 50,800kg

737 MAX 10 MTOW: 89,800 kg

[-]

blueingreen85@reddit

I had no idea a 737-200 weighed just 60,000 pounds with a mtow of 15,000.

[-]

DouchecraftCarrier@reddit

Man that really puts some of the modern 737s in perspective. I think the MTOW of a MAX 8 is somewhere between 180-190k.

[-]

KodoSky@reddit (OP)

Well, the C-130’s done it

[-]

Jong_Biden_@reddit

And a U-2, too

[-]

NoShirt158@reddit

Jesus that thing is a disaster to land normally

[-]

blexta@reddit

But it glides really nice and slow and needs almost no runway.

[-]

xrelaht@reddit

You weren't kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

[-]

blexta@reddit

https://youtu.be/BgC7LqQ7CaY&t=64

This one is my favorite.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

I, too, like apples with my oranges.

[-]

Thechlebek@reddit

Tbh the 737 has great landing/takeoff performance

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Sure, on runways that are a couple miles long.

[-]

MakeSaabGreatAgain@reddit

You really cant compare an aircraft specifically made for relativly improvised short airstrips to an airliner.

[-]

Kim-Jong-Long-Dong@reddit

Aren't there airlines designed and/or adapted for that purpose though? Admittedly probably smaller than a 737 haha

[-]

alphaechothunder77@reddit

The 737-200 had an optional gravel landing kit so that it could use gravel and dirt runways.

http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_kit

[-]

Sacharon123@reddit

Yeah, but I believe the problem of getting a 737 off a carrierdeck is not the amount of gravel...

[-]

dan_dares@reddit

Yeet it over the side.

Done.

(Seriously, I'd say that it might be possible going at MAX speed into a DECENT headwind)

But I'm not a pilot, and if I was, I wouldn't want to land, or try take off from a carrier.

[-]

Sacharon123@reddit

I am a pilot, have a 737 rating, and would LOVE to be part of such trials. It sounds like so much interesting challenging fun.

[-]

alphaechothunder77@reddit

There was this bat shit insane plan to turn a c130 into a VTOL by strapping a bunch of missiles to it. There is a chance that a 737 could land and take off from a carrier if it is modified by attaching rockets to turn it into a VTOL.

[-]

Sacharon123@reddit

Yes, I know! I still believe we should have this rockets as an upgrade package for modern airliners on performance-limited runways! Next time Zurich airport complains that we need a long runway I just switch on the rockets and report able runway 28!

[-]

dan_dares@reddit

Take my upvote, people like you are the crazy guys who make history

[-]

Sacharon123@reddit

You are very kind, but I just have a large lack of selfawareness and a larger affectation for weird infrastructure and new challenges xD

[-]

MakeSaabGreatAgain@reddit

There are. They are definetly way smaller than a 737.

[-]

Raccoon_Ratatouille@reddit

Have you ever seen a c-130 require a 170 knot approach speed before?

[-]

kryb@reddit

140 kts for the 737

[-]

TekuizedGundam007@reddit

The C-130 is lighter

[-]

bigloser42@reddit

Apparently the request from the USN that spawned this also had a carrier-capable DC-9 and Fokker F28 as potential competitors.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

"Citation needed" for the USN request for a carrier-enabled 737

[-]

bigloser42@reddit

It was the MMVX competition. The Navy didn’t ask for a carrier-capable 737. They asked for a C-2 replacement and Boeing responded with a 737.

[-]

acrewdog@reddit

Where would they store that thing?

[-]

bigloser42@reddit

I don’t think they ever intended for this to be put in the hanger. The F28 was shown as being able to fit in the hanger with folding wings though.

[-]

acrewdog@reddit

But you couldn't even store it on the deck, right? What if it landed and had a maintenance issue? What if weather came in while it was on deck? Seems like it would shut down the whole carrier.

[-]

rctid_taco@reddit

What if it landed and had a maintenance issue?

I suppose you fix it if you can and if you can't you dispose of it off the side.

[-]

bigloser42@reddit

Maybe with wings that folded just outboard of the engines you could stash it with the tail hanging off the deck just forward of the island and not completely shut down the flight deck? But that’s a big if.

Probably a big part of why it never came to pass.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Citation needed

[-]

Intelligent_League_1@reddit

Article makes the same claim

Reddit post with an advert for the Fokker

Article showing more info and the full advert for the Fokker.

Don't be a hardass and just look it up.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

No, blow me, don't make claims without citations. Literally rule 6 here, wanker

[-]

DODGE_WRENCH@reddit

Rule 7 says not to be a dick but you’re still here

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

None of those actually propose landing a 737 on a carrier, so grow tf up yourself

[-]

DODGE_WRENCH@reddit

Everyone else is acting like a grown up, you’re acting like a petulant child

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

LMAO

My mistake, there were several studies and experiments performed attempting to land a 737 on a carrier, the most famous of which was over Macho Grande.

[-]

DODGE_WRENCH@reddit

I think your doctor needs to adjust your pill combo

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Maybe you can share some of yours

[-]

DODGE_WRENCH@reddit

Your immature comebacks are just as weak as your playground insults.

I’m sorry, but you’re well beyond my medical expertise.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

You had me at "I'm sorry." I agree.

[-]

MaterialGarbage9juan@reddit

Rough week?

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Just dealin with your mom's angst

[-]

MaterialGarbage9juan@reddit

Yeah, her chemo was today. It's made her really cranky. Round 6 of 8, though. So, 2 more, then radiation! Then in a year she can get new tits. Almost there, dad!

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Well, son, in that case I am proud to have abandoned you

[-]

Intelligent_League_1@reddit

Hey man,

Are you a moderator?

[-]

GroupeManouchian@reddit

Meet the Fokkers

[-]

Hourslikeminutes47@reddit

Well....acktualllyyyyy

[-]

GnarlyNarwhalNoms@reddit

To be fair, I landed a 737 on a carrier in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

About 4 out of 10 times...

[-]

dmr11@reddit

Does Microsoft Flight Simulator have an older 737 or just the larger modern 737?

[-]

GnarlyNarwhalNoms@reddit

Not sure what they have now - when I did this, it was at least 25 years ago 😂

Yeah, that physics model might have been a little primitive, too.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Now I'm wondering if my version of the flightsim has a 737, lol. I have the next-to-latest version.

Back in the day I landed the Learjet on a carrier, and even successfully took off, and often landed a Cessna 172 on it because it was fun. These days I don't think a carrier is an OOTB option

[-]

GnarlyNarwhalNoms@reddit

I'm actually kinda drooling over the latest version - it looks like they have a career mode with some nifty missions (such as helicopter search and rescue, wildfire water bombing, etc). It'd be surprising if they didn't have a carrier for some of those.

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

I would have bought it because of career mode but I've read it's buggier than hell and you don't have the option of any "do overs" if a bug screws you. It's a huge departure from any other game I've ever player and, while realistic, is stupid af in a game IMO.

[-]

TenderfootGungi@reddit

Have you seen the plans for the matching oversized carrier?

[-]

NassauTropicBird@reddit

Look up Japan's Mega-Float. It is (or was?) a 1000m floating runway.

There a pic of it in the middle of this article https://floatingsolutions.org/blog/2018/04/26/seavolution-mega-floats-for-a-sustainable-future/

[-]

sockpuppetinasock@reddit

I'm a bit surprised the Avro wasn't proposed. It came out right around the same time as the MMVX and was roughly the same capacity as a DC9. They were known for their STO, and four engines would have added redundancy. I guess folding wings with engines could have been a big headache.

[-]

FreeUsernameInBox@reddit

Do you mean the BAe 146? That was indeed proposed, but it was from the de Havilland lineage, nothing to do with Avro.

Some test flights were apparently done at Pax River in 1986.

[-]

kryptopeg@reddit

I could see it being used for the odd delivery or crew transfer, but I can't take it all seriously as an E2 replacement. Imagine trying to fold the wings..! Loading/unloading cargo also seems like it'd be extremely challenging without heavy modification.

Would be amazing to watch it snag a line or use the catapult though, shame they never tried it.

[-]

Mulligey@reddit

Cargo would be the easy part. Just slap a cargo door on the side like most other Boeing cargo planes. The hangers are definitely tall enough to open the door

[-]

D74248@reddit

McNamara was opposed to nuclear aircraft carriers. He argued that the expense of nuclear power was not worth it since they needed to regularly put into port to be resupplied anyway.

So, in the first half of the 1960s the Navy put a lot of effort into figuring out how to resupply carriers while they were still at sea.

[-]

toshibathezombie@reddit

I fly the 737-800....fuck trying to land that lumbering pig on a pitching and rolling carrier in a stor. its bad enough as it is....

[-]

earl_of_lemonparty@reddit

Pilot: "Fuck this fat prick of a toad of a plane! Stupid bucket of f-" Bitchin' Betty: "Pull... UP!" Pilot: "FUCK UP, CUNT."

[-]

2ndHandRocketScience@reddit

Tell me somethin' I don't know, Betty!

[-]

toshibathezombie@reddit

thats a standard day, let alone a carrier landing.

[-]

psunavy03@reddit

Wait until you read about E-2 bubbas having to do it AND fight P-factor, because those aren't counter-rotating props. AND having to suitcase lineup to a gnat's ass with that big wing.

[-]

Iowe_iowe@reddit

I think I remember reading that the 737 design is so old (60's) that when engines got bigger diameter-wise, Boeing engineers had trouble keeping sufficient ground clearance between the engine nacelles and the ground. This meant that landing gear had to be extended, the nacelles flattened at the bottom, and the engines moved further forward in front of the wings. So lots of compromises, not ideal for an aircraft operating in quite extreme situations. Not intending to be a criticism only of 737's (I wouldn't imagine the A320 would be any more appropriate), just an amateur's impression of this idea....

[-]