Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cfreund@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-L)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE:  Angled flight decks
Message-ID: <1990Dec19.005831.24168@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Dec 90 00:58:31 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:     "Charles T. Freund" (CCL-L) <cfreund@PICA.ARMY.MIL>

| the author says runways have been angled ever since the British
| did research and found them to be better than straight ones. Does
| anybody have any more information. It seems that a pilot would want his
| flight path parallel with the direction of the ship.
| This would suggest that the runway be in this direction also.

       ____
     _|    |    Pardon the poor representation, but you can see that the
    / \    |    angled runway leaves deck areas the are not in line with
   \   \   |    the runway.  These areas are relatively safe from take-offs
    \   \  |    and landings. The pilots have the entire length of the
     \   \ |    runway to do their thing and/or go swimming. An aborted/
      \   \|    crash takeoffs/landings carry the aircraft along the runway
      |\   |    and over the side.  An inline runway has the
      | \  |    entire deck inline, no "safe" area.  Pilots had to contend
      |  \ |    with all obsticales on the deck (waiting/stored aircraft,
      |____|    crew,etc) during takeoffs and landings. Crashes had a
                tendancy to plow into anything on deck.

At least this is what I picked up on the Discovery Channel (Either 'Wings'
or 'Carriers').  As for not having parallel path for the ship and
aircraft,
I would think that the difference in speed would minimize the effect.
Or the potential damage considerations outweighed its effects and is
something that carrier pilots have learned to deal with.