The Wikipedia page for the USS Wolverine says that the low flight deck of that carrier is disadvantageous for warplane landing, but it was 70 years ago.

Assuming other things (including displacement, length, width and draft of carriers, flight deck length, width and texture.), is it easier to land the latest planes on an aircraft carrier with a high flight deck?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I couldn't find where the linked Wikipedia article mentions a low flight deck (only problems arising from low speed). Could you edit a quotation into your question? $\endgroup$ Aug 17, 2015 at 14:32

1 Answer 1



It used to matter, because aircraft would sometimes approach the carrier at a lower altitude than even the flight deck before pulling up briefly and practically stalling onto the deck, allowing for a lower speed landing. Similarly, the higher flight deck would give an extra couple of metres of acceleration if over-shooting the flight deck and having to go around. As such a high-decked carrier gave a little more margin for error.


It makes virtually no difference - modern aircraft approach at the same angle and airspeed regardless of the height of the deck (within reason). They also perform approaches significantly more accurately. If anything, the higher deck could be considered a (very) slight disadvantage, as it may display a higher rolling moment than a low deck carrier. This is unlikely to cause any issues, however.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .