WOW photo??

[N3Njeff]

Any thoughts???

[Johan]

Bumpy ride? New trainee?

[daveymac82c]

Isn't that airplane being launched from a submarine 20 ft. underwater? Like one of those ICBM's?

-David

[The Inspector]

4.3 seconds after this photo was taken, the ships band started playing 'Low Rider' by WAR
I'll bet that still hurts

[Chris Brame]

Any thoughts???

Probably final ones

Seriously, did they make it?

[Mgawa]

Wind strike and good chance that a second later plane was crash. Hope I am wrong and crew did not experience live hazard situation.

[airnutz]

Any thoughts???

Insert the soundtrack of Murphy's idoctrination in attempting to master the Grumman Duck in "Murphy's War", here...

What a great sound and bit of film flying!!

[airnutz]

Ahhhh..You sly rascal Jeff...Michael Phelps...Too Kool!!!

[Bill Walker]

This "event" could have been very survivable. If the aircraft has a good forward speed, most of the weight is on the wings, and the aircraft is just skimming the waves - although quite spectacularly in this case.

This reminds me of something I read years ago about performance testing on the first Walruses (Walrii?). They found that take off time decreased as wave height increased. The aircraft would skip from wave top to wave top, even when below flying speed. The aircraft would accelerate at a better rate during these airborne hops then it did with the hull in the water. The tests were broken off when the wave height was such that the pilot couldn't keep his hands and feet on the controls during these hops. The aircraft was still undamaged.

[JDK]

This "event" could have been very survivable. If the aircraft has a good forward speed, most of the weight is on the wings, and the aircraft is just skimming the waves - although quite spectacularly in this case.

I'd agree. Not a position you'd want to be in, and you'd certainly have a sore backside, but hopefully keeping level it would all come out in the wash... sort of.

This reminds me of something I read years ago about performance testing on the first Walruses (Walrii?). They found that take off time decreased as wave height increased. The aircraft would skip from wave top to wave top, even when below flying speed. The aircraft would accelerate at a better rate during these airborne hops then it did with the hull in the water. The tests were broken off when the wave height was such that the pilot couldn't keep his hands and feet on the controls during these hops. The aircraft was still undamaged.

That's interesting. I'd be very interested if you can find the reference.

Cheers

[jdvoss]

N3N ? I don't think so. A Curtiss SOC Seagull has my vote.

[JDK]

N3N ? I don't think so. A Curtiss SOC Seagull has my vote.

Me too - but the N3N reference is the forumite's nickname....

Just found this excellent little website. Be sure to check out the links about flying the Seagull.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar ... Index.html

[maxum96]

Any thoughts???

Surf's up dude!

[NC_Rotorhead]

A good friend of mine flew the Seagull from a cruiser in the Atlantic and the Pacific during the WW and we have had a lot of discussions about operations. While maybe not presenting the best of form in the photo, it appears to be just another day at the "office". It also appears that he could be jumping the ships wake there............like where the photographer is standing

The planes and the men were tough. They had to be to slingshot off a cruiser everyday, find the ship again, plop it into a rarely smooth sea and then get it onto a moving sled trailing the ship. My hat is off to them.

Regards
Steve

[mike13]

This same picture appears in the 1939 edition of "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S.Fleet". Caption says it's a Navy Aircraft Factory SON-1 develped from the Curtiss SOC making a rough water take off. A little side note says that by law , the NAF could build 10% of the Navy's aircraft.
Also on the same page is a Vought O3U -6 in about the same attitude but it's a normal rough water landing.
mike13