Is there any information to suggest it made an arrested landing? A number of light planes have made flights from carrier decks and were able to land without arresting simply because of the slow landing speed inherent in their design. The Fieseler Storch has flown from carrier decks for tests, but, because if its extreme low speed flight characteristics, a hook was not really necessary and was, as far as I know, never fitted. So while these light planes did fly off of carriers, they never made arrested landings and are therefore not eligible for scale bonus points. Perhaps some of them did make arrested landings, but that may be challenging to document. It is probably easier for the very early airplanes, where they just tied grappling hooks to the landing gear.
Pete

Hey Pete,
Some food for thought.
What does arrested mean. One meaning is simply to stop, which these planes could do. Why does it mean  it had to have a hook?  The Vought kingfisher which is legal was used on carriers at times, never had a hook though. I remember Perry saying the AE-1 Hospital version of the cub was legal. How about the OV-10, no hook but used a lot in Vietnam from carrier. Also  Tom's picture show an LST launch. Some LST's did have Brodie gear to recover planes. They we too short for reliable landings with out hooks. The Brodie gear was a trapeze setup with the hook on top of the plane I think para B. covers these types, seems to me if the plane was assigned to carrier duty, by definition it is designated as a carrier type.
John

Hi John,
There are a lot of meanings of the word "arrested" and one means simply to stop. Another is to have been stopped, and that is pretty clearly the meaning our rules are using. Our rules actually define "arrested landing" in sufficient detail that the idea of an arrested landing being one in which the aircraft is stopped by the arresting wires is quite clear. We might argue that arresting by standard arresting wires is not the only way that a prototype might be qualified, and that other mechanical devices on the carrier could be used. I'm just not familiar with alternate arresting systems, but there has probably been quite of variety of systems developed in the early days.
The fact that an aircraft was used on a carrier might not automatically make it a "carrier aircraft" within the meaning of part b. of the rule. (b. Aircraft is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing are not documented).) The famous C-130 flight did not make it a carrier aircraft. And the Doolittle raid did not qualify the B-25 as a carrier aircraft. My feeling is that part b. was put in to allow airplanes that were carrier aircraft in our usual understanding including the arrested landing but for which documentation is not readily available. If that is the case (and I am not absolutely sure it is) then some of the others, particularly the example of the OV-10 would not be qualified because it was not designed to and never did make an arrested landing. The imprecision of the rule meaning might be a tiny can of worms.
Doc, the MO-1 was pretty clearly a carrier aircraft. In addition, the old documents that I remember said that the arresting was by grappling hooks attached to the landing gear. Apparently that was the standard method back in those early days. We don't have a rule that the hook be scale or in the scale location. And I have many times landed but the airplane stopped without hooking. Pretty easy to do since with a slider, the airplane is landing crabwise and just doesn't want to roll out.
Pete

Navy B-25 were PBJ-1 Some had hooks and flew and landed from carriers. Land based OS2U Kingfishers had hooks.  Check out this site:

                  http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/05/flightdeck-friday-more-oddities


                                                                                                                               Mike             

                                                                                                                                           

Mike,

I assume the site you ref is also for the Kingfisher, but I couldn't find anything on it about a hook on the kingfisher. I never seen a picture or drawing that showed one. Do you have a more pointed ref?

John

John my source is the book "Naval Aircraft" 1977. L of C # 76-47871 Page 49 says   "In 1918 the navy asked the m LOENING

CO. To develop a two seater to out preform he British Bri8stol Fighter, but the 46 models delivered saw shipboard service as observation aircraft."

The aircraft paintin is in Army colors and the scaloping was on the horisontal elevator only.  I would say this is eligible for Navy Carrier.

Also in the same book is a picture on page 6 showzx Eugene Ely as he launched his Curtis form a ship.  It notes that his plane's  wheels, (floats)? and prop hit the water but Ely managed to stay aloft and make it to shore.  A pure "loss of landing and flight score if you ask me.

At one time a firend, sent me three views of this plane but i lost them in moving here in 97' alon g with whole boxes of NCS materials.
Joe

Joe,
If you like high wing monoplanes here is another evaluated by the Navy. Dornier H 'Falke' . I don't know what evaluted means however.
John

Hi John,after a bunch of research I must come to the conclusion that the Vought OS2U Kingfisher never had a tailhook of any kind. Except for one written story on a another web site of an experiment with a home built hook with no photos there is no mention of wheeled carrier landings. I can't even find a photo of a wheeled Kingfisher on a carrier deck.
This site has about everything you wanted to know about Kingfishers including cutaway drawings of the control system,no hook to be seen. If you can believe the "home built hook" story the Kingfisher is legal for our event.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57k1.htm
                                                                                               Mike

many times landed but the airplane stopped without hooking. Pretty easy to do since with a slider, the airplane is landing crabwise and just doesn't want to roll out.
Pete

Now did you get a score?   I remember several times people landing, getting a cable on landing but losing it when the plane stopped.  The contestant was given a zero because the cable was not in the hook.  That is where the little thin wire was attached to keep the cable in the hook.  I have even received zero points for landing when the wheels got under the cable and the gear stopped the plane.   You may have it or not but have witnessed people not getting scores for landing without getting a cable hook.

Mike,
I have never seen anything that says or shows a hook on a kingfisher. But it has been flown in the event forever as a legal plane. I also believe that it flew on and off carriers, seems logical,  but don't have any documented proof of that.
John

Now did you get a score?   I remember several times people landing, getting a cable on landing but losing it when the plane stopped.  The contestant was given a zero because the cable was not in the hook.  That is where the little thin wire was attached to keep the cable in the hook.  I have even received zero points for landing when the wheels got under the cable and the gear stopped the plane.   You may have it or not but have witnessed people not getting scores for landing without getting a cable hook.

Doc, remember that points are only awarded for an "Arrested" landing. That is defined as the model's forward motion being stopped by the hook catching a line. Snagging a line with the landing gear doesn't count; stopping without hooking a line doesn't count. I believe the rules say it's OK for the hook to become disengaged after stopping the model, but the little catch wire helps avoid any doubt or confusion.