Can a plane, or has it ever, been able to land on another plane, midflight?

Question

I believe it was tried at one point, but abandoned. Please could you point me in the way of a web link. Thanks

Answer 1

"Land on" was never done.

"Catch under" was tried but deemed way too dangerous and not worth the effort after WW2 during the Cold War.

US tried to give strategic bombers some fighter protection all the way to their targets by hanging a couple TINY jet fighters. Supposedly a B-36 will carry 3 of these "Goblin" fighters in the bomb bay, and one of these motherships will follow the regular bombers to give them a bit of protection.

No, I'm NOT making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-85_Goblin

Answer 2

the bomber /parasite fighter combo has been tried a number of times . the Russians had a large bomber that carried 3 fighter planes on its upper surfaces in the 1930s . the last American attempt that I'm aware of was with the b 36 goblin combo.in the 1950s the goblin was a small purpose built jet fighter that fit in the Bombay of the b36 & was lowered on a trapeze, the turbulence from the 6 propellers on the b 36 made it almost impossible for the goblin to hook back up to the trapeze for retrieval so the concept was abandoned, they also made some experiments with an f 84 carried externally on the b 36 but dont think it was ever adopted.
the success of in flight refueling gave fighters unlimited range & made the parasite fighter concept unnecessary so it was abandoned.

Answer 3

The space shuttle has never landed on a 747. That guy is stupid. It's transported on a 747 from California to Kennedy Space Center, but its never landed on anything other than a runway.

I've never heard of an airplane landing on another airplane. But there have been instances in which WWI fighters could be launched and "caught" from Zepplins. It wasn't very popular though. This used a hook that caught the aircraft and held it under the blimp.

The most typical in-flight rendezvous would be in-flight refueling which happens on a daily basis.

Actually, now that I think about it. It has happened, several times, by accident (with small aircraft). When a low wing aircraft attempts to land on a runway at the same time a high-wing aircraft tries to land, it sometimes results in one aircraft landing on top of the other one just prior to landing.

Check out the pics:
http://www.micom.net/oops/Mating2.jpg

Great Website for wierd aviation accidents:
http://www.micom.net/oops

Answer 4

I think the Brit's mastered a "mother ship" back in the 1930's. (You'd be amazed at some of the things they engineered. Or frightened.)

It's in a book, some place in my piles of books, about the history of seaplanes.

As it stands, the closest to landing one airplane on another would be mid-air refueling. Even that is a bit like porcupines mating, not that there isn't a desire but it must be approached with a lot of caution.

I managed to find the book for sale on-line.
http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Boats-Seaplanes-History-1905/dp/0760306214

NASA has done all sorts of things with aircraft. They've dropped them, they've launched them, but to my knowledge they've never tried to mate them in the atmosphere. If they have, it's likely still classified. It's not something I would want to try, and the longing not to try wouldn't really matter which aircraft I was in. It would be the aerial equivalent of trying to put a baby back where it came from.

And by the way, my favorite in the book is the Martin P6M Seamaster.

JT

Answer 5

I remember seeing video of an experimental plane system where the mother ship had a hanging trapeze and the small plane had a hook affair mounted above it, and it would fly under and hook up that way. It look extremely dangerous, and I think it was abandoned because it was so dangerous. I can't remember if it was the US or the Japanese who was trying it out.

Answer 6

Airplane on airplane, No!

Aircraft on aircraft, yes!

The USS Akron and the USS Macon were flying aircraft carriers, with onboard XF9-C1 Sparrowhawk fighters. They were capable of launching and recovering the Sparrowhawks, the recovery being a specially designed hook on top of the Sparrowhawk.

As a further proof, the Sparrowhawks were designed such that their landing gears can be replaced with fuel tanks for extended range during aerial launch and recovery operations. Since they dont touch land, they didnt need the landing gear.

Answer 7

Yes.
In the late 40's McDonnell built the smallest jet-propelled fighter ever built, the XF-85 Goblin. It was designed to deploy from a bomber, to defend it against enemy aircraft, then it had a hook arrangement to catch a trapeze that would then raise it back into the bomb bay.
Check out this site:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/McDonnell/Aero31.htm

It's the 3rd picture down on the left.

Answer 8

USAir landed a 737 on a SkyWest Metroliner at LAX one dreadful evening and they both skidded way down and off the runway. Many entities were at fault.

Answer 9

It was tried, with a hook and latch system, not a tradtional landing. It was found to be more troublesome than it was worth and was abandoned fairly quickly.

Answer 10

Sky Captain was able to land with no fuel on Frankie's flying aircraft carrier.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=777