First of all, the Russians were doing this,too, at the same time. Who was first? Who cares? Secondly, the Astrodyne unit used here produced well over 100,000lbs. of boost (so I read,at any rate). I don't think payload limitations were much of a concern. Compare it to those on a C-130. See the difference in the size of the unit and the exhaust?
bomb damaged run way can be fixed in 15 minutes with new fast cure concrete. it was never really goona be for damaged runways it was always a first strike into russia with the nuclear package
hmmm... now im thinking why was this idea not continued. The problem with harriers (or probably F35 VTOL mode) is that you need a ski jump and 200m of deck to get them airborne rather than chewing buckets of fuel going vertical. Why not avoid both those problems by quickly attaching your RATO monstrosity and blasting off instead. So take off ZEL style and land vertical and with full payload. Convert any merchantman into a carrier with ZEL launchers.....
The whole point of the ZELL program was to get front-line fighter aircraft into the air faster than the Ruskies could drop a sneak attack nuke on them, if the concept panned out, but as mentioned, continued successfull ICBM tests eventually spelled the end for this idea, but it must have been one hellova ride up!
Neilist1001: Actually the mat landing pre-dates this program and used an F-84 rather than an F-100. Later the Germans applied the same concept to an F-104 - though none of them ever became operational.
zzddytt: Your first point is incorrect - they were able to launch the F-100 with two (full) external fuel tanks and two (simulated) nuclear weapons. With a total thrust/weight of 4, payload wasn't that big of an issue. Your second point didn't matter to the mission of deterrence through assured retaliation. Bailing out at the end of the mission, while unpleasant, was probably preferred to getting fried on the ground in a preemptive strike. In the end ICBMs and SLBMs made all of this unnecessary.
Also, in project Hardsite, they put the aircraft in hangers to simulate caves, and took off from there. The plane could otherwise be towed anywhere and take off the trailer. Landing might have been a problem, but there was always the ejection seat (which the pilot had to use on one of the test flights, as a result of a malfunction.)
The follow-on idea from this, after ICBM's made the idea obsolete, was the Space Shuttle: rocket assisted takeoff, landing normal way.
I know the test pilot in this video. He was not just a pilot, but also had a masters in aeronautical engineering from MIT.
Most of the posters here don't know much about the actual ZEL program. The first tests (with a different aircraft) did use the rubber mat and for obvious reasons that was abandoned! The rocket booster was designed to fall off and the plane land in a conventional way.
typical americans, to get a jet to takeoff with zero runway they turn the jet into a rocket. us brits thought, hmmm, jolly better idea if we redesign the engines of a jet. hence the harrier was born
@jack hemphill 1 were you asleep , with this concept the aircraft may take of with any fuel load any bomb load desirable. something an english harrier can never do at any time. what good is a harrier if a carrier is needed to take it to the war zone? i suppose if your attacking an island that works rather well. next time we need to invade england we will consider the harrier. pip pip and a bloody cheerio to you mate.
@datzfast if you will let me correct you there old boy, the harrier was designed in 2 variants; the harrier gr1, for the RAF and was designed to operate from parking lots in west germany against the russians, and the sea harrier, for our small aircraft harriers. both these proved themselves as excellent and war-winning aircraft during the falklands. so well in fact that america indeed build their own for the usmc. and finally it doesnt need to find a runway to land, which the sabre does
@datzfast which is why the harrier, as a bitchin 5 ton anvil of pointed british justice, became so popular, and was adopted by several air-forces. but nothing against the sabre or for that matter any excellent american jet, its just this particular idea didn't work out. we in the uk are very proud of our jump jet, sadly to be retired next year after 40 years of service
If you think this is good (or idiotic), you should consider the companion plan to land such a zero-launch F-100.
The idea was to have the pilot try to plunk the aircraft down on a giant inflatable rubber pillow that was to substitute for the (presumably disabled) runway.
(I'm not making this up.)
The first guy who tried it broke his back. After that, it was back to the drawing board.
(Man, but the late 1940s-1950s must have been a fun time to be an aeronautical engineer.(
problem here is that, 1 you probably can't fly with full payload, and 2, if you don't have a runway for take off, you are likely not gonna have one for landing as well. BIG problem for the pilots.
I had a picture of a F-100 taking-off this way on my bedroom´s wall when I was a kid. It still amazes me. That kind of boldness and resolve is the reason why US reached the top. Also, probably part of the reason I later became a pilot in the Brazilian Air Force...
50 year later..... they changed the jets to have their own built in vertical take off option...
KillPyrite 8 months ago
jetpoweredgriffin 1 year ago
bomb damaged run way can be fixed in 15 minutes with new fast cure concrete. it was never really goona be for damaged runways it was always a first strike into russia with the nuclear package
datzfast 1 year ago
hmmm... now im thinking why was this idea not continued. The problem with harriers (or probably F35 VTOL mode) is that you need a ski jump and 200m of deck to get them airborne rather than chewing buckets of fuel going vertical. Why not avoid both those problems by quickly attaching your RATO monstrosity and blasting off instead. So take off ZEL style and land vertical and with full payload. Convert any merchantman into a carrier with ZEL launchers.....
DumbYankies 1 year ago
Comment removed
datzfast 1 year ago
The whole point of the ZELL program was to get front-line fighter aircraft into the air faster than the Ruskies could drop a sneak attack nuke on them, if the concept panned out, but as mentioned, continued successfull ICBM tests eventually spelled the end for this idea, but it must have been one hellova ride up!
KlunkerRider 2 years ago
Neilist1001: Actually the mat landing pre-dates this program and used an F-84 rather than an F-100. Later the Germans applied the same concept to an F-104 - though none of them ever became operational.
Carefree27b 2 years ago
zzddytt: Your first point is incorrect - they were able to launch the F-100 with two (full) external fuel tanks and two (simulated) nuclear weapons. With a total thrust/weight of 4, payload wasn't that big of an issue. Your second point didn't matter to the mission of deterrence through assured retaliation. Bailing out at the end of the mission, while unpleasant, was probably preferred to getting fried on the ground in a preemptive strike. In the end ICBMs and SLBMs made all of this unnecessary.
Carefree27b 2 years ago
Also, in project Hardsite, they put the aircraft in hangers to simulate caves, and took off from there. The plane could otherwise be towed anywhere and take off the trailer. Landing might have been a problem, but there was always the ejection seat (which the pilot had to use on one of the test flights, as a result of a malfunction.)
The follow-on idea from this, after ICBM's made the idea obsolete, was the Space Shuttle: rocket assisted takeoff, landing normal way.
CH46PhrogFlyer 2 years ago
I know the test pilot in this video. He was not just a pilot, but also had a masters in aeronautical engineering from MIT.
Most of the posters here don't know much about the actual ZEL program. The first tests (with a different aircraft) did use the rubber mat and for obvious reasons that was abandoned! The rocket booster was designed to fall off and the plane land in a conventional way.
CH46PhrogFlyer 2 years ago
typical americans, to get a jet to takeoff with zero runway they turn the jet into a rocket. us brits thought, hmmm, jolly better idea if we redesign the engines of a jet. hence the harrier was born
jackhemphill1 2 years ago
@jack hemphill 1 were you asleep , with this concept the aircraft may take of with any fuel load any bomb load desirable. something an english harrier can never do at any time. what good is a harrier if a carrier is needed to take it to the war zone? i suppose if your attacking an island that works rather well. next time we need to invade england we will consider the harrier. pip pip and a bloody cheerio to you mate.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast if you will let me correct you there old boy, the harrier was designed in 2 variants; the harrier gr1, for the RAF and was designed to operate from parking lots in west germany against the russians, and the sea harrier, for our small aircraft harriers. both these proved themselves as excellent and war-winning aircraft during the falklands. so well in fact that america indeed build their own for the usmc. and finally it doesnt need to find a runway to land, which the sabre does
jackhemphill1 1 year ago
@datzfast which is why the harrier, as a bitchin 5 ton anvil of pointed british justice, became so popular, and was adopted by several air-forces. but nothing against the sabre or for that matter any excellent american jet, its just this particular idea didn't work out. we in the uk are very proud of our jump jet, sadly to be retired next year after 40 years of service
jackhemphill1 1 year ago
If you think this is good (or idiotic), you should consider the companion plan to land such a zero-launch F-100.
The idea was to have the pilot try to plunk the aircraft down on a giant inflatable rubber pillow that was to substitute for the (presumably disabled) runway.
(I'm not making this up.)
The first guy who tried it broke his back. After that, it was back to the drawing board.
(Man, but the late 1940s-1950s must have been a fun time to be an aeronautical engineer.(
Neilist1001 3 years ago
problem here is that, 1 you probably can't fly with full payload, and 2, if you don't have a runway for take off, you are likely not gonna have one for landing as well. BIG problem for the pilots.
zzddytt 3 years ago 4
Agreed!
You would need another rocket to compliment a full payload!
ryanspeed 3 years ago
@zzddytt who cares if the russians are coming
theCookieMonster9999 1 year ago
Many drinks into the evening.
Engineer: "Jets are weak. Rockets are the future. I have an idea."
... scribble scribble scribble ...
Pilot: "Dude I can fly that."
pdutube 3 years ago 13
lol
gondayi 3 years ago
lol!
nano404 3 years ago
I had a picture of a F-100 taking-off this way on my bedroom´s wall when I was a kid. It still amazes me. That kind of boldness and resolve is the reason why US reached the top. Also, probably part of the reason I later became a pilot in the Brazilian Air Force...
jsfbr 3 years ago
Great! You always put up the "Good stuff".
Thanks a bunch.
Chris
craviola880 3 years ago