# Aircraft Carriers



## Freebird (Dec 2, 2007)

Does anyone know if the capacity of the Lexington was about 90 aircraft? Did the US Navy commonly keep some aircraft "deck parked'? If so would the they be included in the capacity or is that only hanger space? Thanks for the help


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 2, 2007)

Wikipedia has it listed at 91 aircraft. I can't comment on if any of them were permanently parked on deck.


----------



## machine shop tom (Dec 2, 2007)

The first fleet carriers Lexington (CV-2)and Saratoga (CV-3) carried a complement of 63-72 aircraft, depending on what source you read. I suppose the actual number would depend on what type of aircraft were embarked.

The Essex-class Lexington (CV-16) had a larger capacity for aircraft.

From this site:

USS Lexington -- Aviation: From Sand Dunes to Sonic Booms: A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary

"USS Lexington (CV-16) was launched in 1942 as a welded, steel hull, Essex-class aircraft carrier with an overall length of 872 feet and a length along the waterline of 820 feet. Lexington had hangar deck capacity for 103 aircraft. Lexington's first air group (AG-16), consisted of 89 aircraft that included 32 F6f-3 Hellcat fighters, 35 SBD-5 Dauntless dive-bombers and 18 TBF-1 Avenger torpedo bombers. On November 26, 1991 Lexington was decommissioned. After making the successful bid to preserve, display and interpret Lexington, the city of Corpus Christi, Texas prepared a new life for the carrier as a museum ship."

As far as permanent deck storage of planes, that would probably depend on the mission.

tom


----------



## Freebird (Dec 3, 2007)

I was actually thinking of the earlier one Lexington CV-2. I just wondered if the US navy would park aircraft on the deck and perhaps the British didn't. The reason I ask is that I was checking HMS Victorious, normally operated 36 - 40 aircraft, but in 1943 was loaned to the USA in the Pacific as "USS Robin". At this time it lists her as operating 60 wildcats as air cover. I wonder how they could fit the extra 20+ aircraft?

Fleet Air Arm Archive | HMS Victorious


----------



## maxs75 (Dec 3, 2007)

US Navy doctrine was to have some permanent deck parking early in the war, while IJN and RN ones were to store all the planes in the hangar.
Take in account two things: USN carriers were able to hoist someplanes in the hangar roof, so that the number of planes stored there was bigger than the actual space. RN went with deck parking late in the war, and in 1945 Illustrious class usually embarked 54 planes (about 36 corsairs, 18 avengers).
In the RN deck park was used to embark 5-10 Seafire that could not fit in the lifts, so they could not go in the hangar.
RN carriers were refitted, because they were built with rounded flight deck ends, and no planes could be parked there.

Wildcats were considerably smaller than Avengers, so about 24 could be stored instead of 16 Avengers.
Victorious was not renamed Robin in 1943. 
36 planes refers to a mix of Swordfish/Skua, 33 planes to Fulmars/Albacores, all stored in the hangar.

Max


----------



## Freebird (Dec 3, 2007)

Thanks for the info. Would the listing for CV-2 (3) of 90 planes in 1941 -1942 include the deck parked ones or is 90 the capacity of the hanger? Is the space for a Wildcat about the same as a SeaHurri?

I've seen some sources that say Victorious was "renamed" Robin others say "operated by US navy as" USS Robin. Some sources claim that the name was re-painted to fool the Japanese into thinking there was a new US carrier.


----------



## maxs75 (Dec 3, 2007)

USS Robin was a Lapwing class minesweeper, used as as salvage tug. A bit confusing having two ships with the same name, isn't it?

Actually Lexington carried only 69 planes during the battle of Coral sea (only 12 TBD had folding wings). 
She had 60 of her air group + 18 Marines SB2U for Midway (only 32 with folding wings) in dec. 1941.
The later F4F-4 Wildcat with folding wings allowed more fighters.
I believe that 90 comprises deck park, but it depends on the type of planes. Bigger and not folding takes more space.

The space needed for a Sea Hurricane is much larger than the space needed for a F4F with folding wings. Also consider that Sea Hurricane could not fit in the lifts/hangars of the Illustrious class carriers.

Max


----------



## ccheese (Dec 3, 2007)

When I was on the USS Essex (CV/CVS-9) we had aircraft and helos both
on the flight deck and on the hanger deck. You have to remember the 
hanger deck was used for repair/painting as well as storage. Most Navy
aircraft have wings that fold so storage is easier. Also, if you're carrying
a flag officer, his staff vehicle will also be on the hanger deck. The way
the aircraft are carried is up the the hanger deck officer, who has a
deck model and small plastic models so he can move them around on his
plot, before actually moving aircraft. On a carrier with a canted deck it's
much easier than the old straight deck carriers.

Charles


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 3, 2007)

ccheese said:


> ......Also, if you're carrying
> a flag officer, his staff vehicle will also be on the hanger deck. .....Charles




Leave it to the navy to carry a staff car at sea.


----------



## Glider (Dec 3, 2007)

Some good info Max but I am sure the Seafire III could fit into the hangers I admit to not being so sure about the Sea Hurricane.


----------



## ccheese (Dec 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Leave it to the navy to carry a staff car at sea.



The last cruise I made on the USS Essex, we stopped in Hamburg, Germany.
Our CO bought two Porsches and brought them back. Plus a good portion
of the crew bought Vespa scooters in Italy. All these were stowed on the
hanger deck until the morning we entered Quonset Point, RI. Then they
were proudly displayed on the forward part of the flight deck.

Charles


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 4, 2007)

"Robin" was HMS Victorious' radio call sign in the May - July 1943 period operating with USS Saratoga. This led to the insider joke "USS Robin", but as has been pointed out there already was a USS Robin which was regularly operating not so far to the south. 

Most navies, USN included, are loath to have two vessels with the same name, it really screws up the mail. The insider joke was evidently overheard by someone with a little imagination or who simply never asked for details and another WWII urban myth was born.

My father was flying out of Cactus I during this period and making runs up to Munda and sometimes had to coordinate with flights from the Victorious/Saratoga group. Made it very clear in no uncertain terms that the Robin story was just someone's corruption of the actual events.

Kind of like the time the blackshoe Captain James S ("Jimmy") Thach was sent orders to command a carrier and his younger brother, the brownshoe Captain John S ("Jimmy") Thach was sent orders to command a battleship. Similar names really mess things up. 

Rich


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2007)

I was reading a link posted on one of these threads and it mentioned that the Victorious carried 60 Wildcats when she operated with the Saratogo in 1943.
Thought it might be of interest


----------



## DOUGRD (Dec 4, 2007)

ccheese said:


> When I was on the USS Essex (CV/CVS-9) we had aircraft and helos both
> on the flight deck and on the hanger deck. You have to remember the
> hanger deck was used for repair/painting as well as storage. Most Navy
> aircraft have wings that fold so storage is easier. Also, if you're carrying
> ...



Actually it's the AirBoss and the Flight Deck Officer who determine the parking. Flightdeck Control, which sits on the flightdeck level of the "Island" at the forward end, has the scale flight deck AND hangar deck model and each A/C "model" also displays that A/C's status as far as "up" or "down". A/C which are due for lengthy inspections (2 or more days) are sent to the hgr deck. A/C that are "down" for maintenance but expected to be "up" soon are push into out of the way spots on the flightdeck such as the "junk yard" or the "turkey triangle" and left there. I say out of the way because after each launch and recovery cycle the deck goes through a "respot". For the launch sequence most A/C are spotted aft. and for the recovery sequence all A/C are spotted forward and out of the landing area which is marked with paint on the deck. In my opinion the hardest working guys on a carrier are the flightdeck YELLOW Shirts and the BLUE Shirts. They work flight quarters to flight quarters which means from the first respot for launch to the last park job at the end of the day which might be 16 hours later. (hope this fills in some blanks)


----------



## maxs75 (Dec 5, 2007)

Glider said:


> I was reading a link posted on one of these threads and it mentioned that the Victorious carried 60 Wildcats when she operated with the Saratogo in 1943.
> Thought it might be of interest



Yes, Victorious for some time had aboard Martlets of FAA squadrons 882, 896 and 898, and most of the Wildcats of VF-6 USN squadron. 
Saratoga instead carried about 60 or more Dauntless and Avengers of VB-3, VT-3 and No.832 FAA squadrons, along with the remaining Wildcats of VF-6.

Max


----------



## Freebird (Dec 5, 2007)

DOUGRD said:


> I say out of the way because after each launch and recovery cycle the deck goes through a "respot". For the launch sequence most A/C are spotted aft. and for the recovery sequence all A/C are spotted forward and out of the landing area which is marked with paint on the deck.



Do you mean they need to re-spot ALL the deck aircraft when they switch from launch to recovery? How long was the recovery area in 1942 carriers for fighters?


----------



## DOUGRD (Dec 5, 2007)

freebird said:


> Do you mean they need to re-spot ALL the deck aircraft when they switch from launch to recovery? How long was the recovery area in 1942 carriers for fighters?



To be quite honest I'm not sure but it would depend on the size of the flightdeck. Remember the whole aft end (aft of the island) was used as a landing zone so I would imagine everything got shifted back and forth because prior to the U.S.Navy "stealing" the Brits marvelous invention, the catapult, it was all deck launches and those pilots wanted as much deck as they could get.


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2007)

It would depend on how many elevators the carrier had and where they were located. I don't believe the US "stole" the catapult idea from the Brits at the stage of history you are talking about. They did copy the Brits after WW2 with regard to the steam catapult as well as the angled flight deck and the mirror landing system.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 6, 2007)

The USN had the first hydraulic catapults and the first shell fired catapults. The Royal Navy had the first steam catapults, but long, long after the former two had seen many, many shots.


----------



## DOUGRD (Dec 7, 2007)

DOUGRD said:


> U.S.Navy "stealing" the Brits marvelous invention, the catapult.



The "steal" was meant as a joke. You have to admit it though, the steam cat is the best of the three systems. Must be, it's still being used today on the "Nimitz" class carriers. Here's an interesting side note for anyone who's interested. Did you know that a steam cat deck track can catch on fire? ( By the "deck track" I mean the slot in the deck that the shuttle travels back and forth in.)


----------



## Freebird (Dec 7, 2007)

maxs75 said:


> Yes, Victorious for some time had aboard Martlets of FAA squadrons 882, 896 and 898, and most of the Wildcats of VF-6 USN squadron.
> Saratoga instead carried about 60 or more Dauntless and Avengers of VB-3, VT-3 and No.832 FAA squadrons, along with the remaining Wildcats of VF-6.
> 
> Max



Yes I don't know why the British didn't operate more aircraft, the Illustrious class obviously could operate up to 60 fighters. Imagine what a difference it would have made during "Pedestal" to have 150+ fighters defending the fleet instead of only about 75 total. (Argus 20 aircraft, Spit V/SeaHurri; Indomitable 31 SeaHurri, 24 Albacore; Victorious 12 Hurri, 12 Spit V, 12 Albacore) They could have had 60 Martlet/Hurri/Spit V on the Victorious, probably 75 on the Indomitable. They could still have operated 3 squadrons of Albacores + another 25 Martlet/SeaHurri from the Argus Furious.

Considering that Victorious Indomitable were both put out of action for 6 months by the Axis bombings, it might have prevented this. With that much fighter cover they could have protected the fleet all the way instead of turning back. Yes I know that in the end the tanker "Ohio" DID make into Malta harbour, but just barely!


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

The British carriers did not have the capacity to carry as many AC as the US carriers. It may have been because of the armored flight deck and weight considerations. I believe the steam catapult is being superseded in the new US carrier designs by electro magnetic catapults.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

No doubt if we had the aircraft we would have done better for Pedestal, but it was worse than you think.
Eagle - 16 Sea Hurricanes plus 4 spares with their wings removed.
Victorious - 6 Sea Hurricanes, 16 Fulmars, 12 Albacores
Argus - 5 Sea Hurricanes (returned before convoy started)
Indomitable - 22 Sea Hurricanes, 10 Martlets, 16 Albacores

You have to feel for the Fulmar crews going up against 109's.


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

I have often wondered what the British were thinking about when the deployed the Fulmar as a carrier fighter. I believe they were fairly effective against unescorted JU87s.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

I always wondered what we were doing developing the Fulmar in the first place. A cleaned up Battle was never going to get anywhere.


----------



## maxs75 (Dec 7, 2007)

freebird said:


> Yes I don't know why the British didn't operate more aircraft, the Illustrious class obviously could operate up to 60 fighters. Imagine what a difference it would have made during "Pedestal" to have 150+ fighters defending the fleet instead of only about 75 total. (Argus 20 aircraft, Spit V/SeaHurri; Indomitable 31 SeaHurri, 24 Albacore; Victorious 12 Hurri, 12 Spit V, 12 Albacore) They could have had 60 Martlet/Hurri/Spit V on the Victorious, probably 75 on the Indomitable. They could still have operated 3 squadrons of Albacores + another 25 Martlet/SeaHurri from the Argus Furious.
> 
> Considering that Victorious Indomitable were both put out of action for 6 months by the Axis bombings, it might have prevented this. With that much fighter cover they could have protected the fleet all the way instead of turning back. Yes I know that in the end the tanker "Ohio" DID make into Malta harbour, but just barely!



As I said, numbers depends on the size of planes and much of the size depends on the ability of folding wings. I believe that 60 folding wings Martlets is the absolute maximum. I'm afraid that not so many of them were available in 1942.
At the time, also, the Seafire wasn't operational yet, and it did not have folding wings till later (Mk III version). The same for Sea Hurricane. So they could be embarked only in small numbers in Victorious, and in the other carriers much space was required.
For example in 1943 during Salerno Landings the escort carriers had about 18 Seafires aboard (Mk II), while later the same ships had up to 28 Mk III, maybe more.
The same effect was done by USN F4F-3 (not folding wings) vs F4F-4 and FM (folding), so the usual VF squadron doubled the number of planes (18 vs 36)

So, apart for a fleet use of Furious (but anyway Spitfires were nedded in Malta), the fighter complement was about at the maximum. The Albacores were nedded in case of battle with italian fleet and ASP.

Max


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

Reference "Janes Fighting Ships 1944-45" Colossus and Majestic class-14,000 tons-30-44AC, Reference "British and Dominion Warships of WW2" Illustrious class-23,000 tons-72 AC, Audacious class-36,800 tons-100 AC. The Enterprise was only slightly larger than Majestic, 19,800 tons and had space for more than 100 AC. I believe the British carriers had space for less AC because of the armored hangar decks they were equipped with. It appears, with the Audacious class they attempted to begin to carry more AC.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

You are correct. The massive amount of armour on the British fleet carriers meant that they only had one deck (later ones one and a half decks) with the inevitable lack of space for aircraft.
In many ways the original Ark Royal was a better bet for a balance of size and capacity.


----------



## AIRYFAIRY (Dec 30, 2007)

During her Pacific fleet operations, HMS Victorious was renamed in 1943 for a short period to USS Robin. On her passage through the Panama Canel she had part of the width her flight deck cut off (sponsons) to accommodate her 29,000 tons. They were welded back on once in the Pacific Ocean. She was the first British carrier to embark Corsairs.

HMS Victorious built by Vickers Armstrong on the Tyne laid down 4th of May 1937 Launched 14 Sept 1939 and completed 15th May 1941 Served in the Home Fleet 1941 - 43 moved to the South Pacific in 1943 and in 1944 to Home and Eastern Fleets and rejoined the Pacific fleet in 1945. While in the Pacific was twice hit by KAMIKAZES. Finally scraped in June 1969 at Faslane on the Clyde.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> I have often wondered what the British were thinking about when the deployed the Fulmar as a carrier fighter. I believe they were fairly effective against unescorted JU87s.



I think when the Fulmar was designed (in 1938) the Navy wanted a fighter/recon plane, it was not really expected to fight against land based aircraft. It was actually a good aircraft as recon or ASW patrol, (with longer range second crewmember) and was effective when used out at sea against Condors. It never should have been used as a fighter in the Med.



maxs75 said:


> As I said, numbers depends on the size of planes and much of the size depends on the ability of folding wings. I believe that 60 folding wings Martlets is the absolute maximum. I'm afraid that not so many of them were available in 1942.
> At the time, also, the Seafire wasn't operational yet, and it did not have folding wings till later (Mk III version). The same for Sea Hurricane. So they could be embarked only in small numbers in Victorious, and in the other carriers much space was required.
> For example in 1943 during Salerno Landings the escort carriers had about 18 Seafires aboard (Mk II), while later the same ships had up to 28 Mk III, maybe more.
> The same effect was done by USN F4F-3 (not folding wings) vs F4F-4 and FM (folding), so the usual VF squadron doubled the number of planes (18 vs 36)
> ...



Was it possible to retro-fit folding wings, or did they have to be built that way from the start? Also could land-based fighters be adapted for carrier use or was the fuselage not strong enough? (for catapult arrestor hook).


----------



## maxs75 (Jan 6, 2008)

To make two examples, Spitfire and Wildcats initially hadn't folding wings, but later they got. Wildcat was a success, but it was designed as a carrier plane, Seafire instead was a poor carrier plane with or without f.w. 
In my opinion everything is feasible, but to navalize a plane adds weight (foldign mechanism, and in general structure strenghthening, hook, cat gear...) that dereases performances.
I believe that in general the strenghteining is required.

Max


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

Saratoga had a max capacity of 90 AC. Of course she was originally designed as a Battle cruiser. Yorktown class although much smaller could carry 100 AC. WW2 US carriers recovered AC with the bow portion of the ship covered with parked AC. Also Korean War same. Recall "The Bridges of Toko Ri" and Tilly the Crane parked to protect deck loaded AC from landing AC. During Santa Cruz Battle with Hornet out of action Enterprise took on so many AC running out of fuel she only had 2 or 3 cables left for the arresting gear. In those days they had a lot more deck cables than today. I can't think of any successful conversion of a landbased AC to carrier borne during or since WW2. Too much weight to be added to make a successful carrier plane.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 16, 2008)

maxs75 said:


> To make two examples, Spitfire and Wildcats initially hadn't folding wings, but later they got. Wildcat was a success, but it was designed as a carrier plane, Seafire instead was a poor carrier plane with or without f.w.
> In my opinion everything is feasible, but to navalize a plane adds weight (foldign mechanism, and in general structure strenghthening, hook, cat gear...) that dereases performances.
> I believe that in general the strenghteining is required.
> 
> Max



A couple of questions if anyone knows, several carriers were used as "aircraft transports", I believe I read that "Ranger" launched aircraft. (P-40's to Freeport I think) How much deck was needed for a Hurricane or P-40 for a *non-catapult* take off?

Also how difficult was it to remove the wings of a Hurricane or P-40 for transport? Not disassembled or crated, just with wings removed.


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2008)

freebird said:


> A couple of questions if anyone knows, several carriers were used as "aircraft transports", I believe I read that "Ranger" launched aircraft. (P-40's to Freeport I think) How much deck was needed for a Hurricane or P-40 for a *non-catapult* take off?
> 
> Also how difficult was it to remove the wings of a Hurricane or P-40 for transport? Not disassembled or crated, just with wings removed.



I don't know the exact detail but I can advise that the RN sometimes kept some Hurricanes as spares, struck down with their wings removed to save space. From that I would take it that it wasn't that difficult.


----------



## maxs75 (Jan 17, 2008)

The ferrying of assembled single engine fighters was best done with aircraft carriers. No need of unload facilities and aircrafts ready very soon after ground landing. It was one of the duty of CVEs as soon as they became available.
During the invasion of Marianas, two CVEs (loaded with 37 P-47D each) launched the Army fighters for their own defence, and they later landed on their intended destination (Saipan).

AFAIK the fitting of wings was a lenghty and hard process, but was sometimes done during the battle for Malta, because the transporting carrier had to keep some naval fighters for fleet defence along with the air force planes.

freebird, it was Freetown, not Freeport.

Max


----------



## davparlr (Jan 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> I can't think of any successful conversion of a landbased AC to carrier borne during or since WW2. Too much weight to be added to make a successful carrier plane.



Probably the closest is the YF-17 to F-18 but it took a major redesign to do, most of which was detrimental to the aircraft performance.


----------



## Puyallup Lee (Jan 17, 2008)

Here is a picture of the USS Saratoga from the 1930's that I have on my web site.







The bi-wing airplanes could not fold their wings so they were limited as to the number of aircraft they could have on deck. This is the USS Saratoga with aircraft on deck. I posted a really large dpi picture so if someone wants to count the aircraft in the picture, it will be a little easier. Also if anyone wants to download the picture it should make a nice size print.

Puyallup Lee
Exciting discovery of a collection of over 350 original photographs, many unseen before, of Naval aircraft, plane crash sites, ships of the fleet, Admiral Byrd Antarctic Expidition II and many other subjects, all taken in the 1930's


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2008)

CV1, the Langley was sunk while ferrying P40s to Java. The Allies launched Spitfires off of a carrier to reinforce Malta. It might have been Wasp or a RN carrier I can't remember which. These were regular Spits not Seafires. The Glorious a Brit carrier landed a few Hurricanes evacuating from Norway. These were landplanes with no arresting gear. Must have been hair raising. A carrier doing almost 30 knots into a 15 or 20 mph wind would mean a Hurricane might only have a speed over the deck of 45 mph when it touched down. Those aviators must have been relieved to get aboard. Short term relief though. The carrier was sunk by Scharnhorst very shortly. Obviously with a good wind over the deck, WOD, landplanes could get off with 400 or 500 ft of deck. Remember the Doolittle raid. Those were B25s with a full load of fuel and some bombs. A fighter, especially the early model European fighters being light would have no trouble doing a non catapult takeoff. The trouble with converting landplanes to carrier AC was that the whole structure of the carrier plane was stressed for the carrier landing which was much more crash like than a regular landing. Taking a land plane and trying to add the beef necessary to make it robust enough for carrier landing really was seldom practical. It wasn't just the landing gear either as the after fuselage needed to be strong enough for the tail hook to be used. Another issue was that all the parts needed to be "marinised" made proof against the elements present aboard a carrier, mainly salt water.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> CV1, the Langley was sunk while ferrying P40s to Java. The Allies launched Spitfires off of a carrier to reinforce Malta. It might have been Wasp or a RN carrier I can't remember which. These were regular Spits not Seafires. The Glorious a Brit carrier landed a few Hurricanes evacuating from Norway. These were landplanes with no arresting gear. Must have been hair raising. A carrier doing almost 30 knots into a 15 or 20 mph wind would mean a Hurricane might only have a speed over the deck of 45 mph when it touched down.



I know Furious ferried tp Malta, and Ranger did ferrying too. How would the the carrier have launched the Spit's then? I remember reading that one group that landed in Malta was 47 Spits. Could the Spits fit in the hanger? or would the carrier have it's (naval) aircraft in the hangar, and the 47 Spits parked on half the deck, and taking off using the other half? (Ranger 770 feet Furious 786 feet long)



> Those aviators must have been relieved to get aboard. Short term relief though. The carrier was sunk by Scharnhorst very shortly. Obviously with a good wind over the deck, WOD, landplanes could get off with 400 or 500 ft of deck. Remember the Doolittle raid. Those were B25s with a full load of fuel and some bombs. A fighter, especially the early model European fighters being light would have no trouble doing a non catapult takeoff. .


How much deck did the lead B-25 have to take off from?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2008)

maxs75 said:


> The ferrying of assembled single engine fighters was best done with aircraft carriers. No need of unload facilities and aircrafts ready very soon after ground landing. It was one of the duty of CVEs as soon as they became available.
> During the invasion of Marianas, two CVEs (loaded with 37 P-47D each) launched the Army fighters for their own defence, and they later landed on their intended destination (Saipan).
> 
> AFAIK the fitting of wings was a lenghty and hard process, but was sometimes done during the battle for Malta, because the transporting carrier had to keep some naval fighters for fleet defence along with the air force planes.
> ...



 Oops! Typo.

Where did you read about this mission? Would they have had about 20 of the P-40's in the hanger, and 17 or so on deck? If the CVE is 500 feet long (Bouge) that only leaves 350 feet or so for take off?


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

If I remember right the Hornet had about an 800 foot flight deck. From seeing film of the take off I am guessing the first B25 had about 500 feet to work with. If you recall, one of the later takeoffs was done even though the pilot forgot to lower flaps. That was exciting. As far as Spits are concerned, I imagine a takeoff from land(depending on wind) could be managed in perhaps 900 ft if AC is lightly loaded. Off a carrier with WOD that would be much shorter. If I remember right the Malta Spits had to takeoff with exterior tanks because they were 450 miles out. Taking off from a jeep carrier in a P47 must have been problematical as the Jug was a notorious ground love lover. I was involved in building a limited service hotel that was 55 ft high, 200 ft long and 65 ft wide. I think that is the approximate size of the flight deck on CV1 the Langely. I used to stand on the roof and imagine landing an AC on that hotel roof. Whew!


----------



## maxs75 (Jan 18, 2008)

Freebird,
the P-47 take off was a catapult one. At that stage the fighters for Pacific theater had catapult gear.
The Malta relief was done without catapults. Carriers involved were Argus, Ark Royal, Furious and at least once Victorious (Hurricanes till 1941), and Eagle, Furious and Wasp in 1942 with Spitfires.
USS Wasp repeated the mission twice in 1942, delivering 46 Spit the first time and 47 the second (+ 17 from HMS Eagle) in april-may 1942.
Ranger was not used in the Mediterranean, but made some trips from US to Africa.


Max


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> If I remember right the Hornet had about an 800 foot flight deck. From seeing film of the take off I am guessing the first B25 had about 500 feet to work with. If you recall, one of the later takeoffs was done even though the pilot forgot to lower flaps. That was exciting. As far as Spits are concerned, I imagine a takeoff from land(depending on wind) could be managed in perhaps 900 ft if AC is lightly loaded. Off a carrier with WOD that would be much shorter. If I remember right the Malta Spits had to takeoff with exterior tanks because they were 450 miles out. Taking off from a jeep carrier in a P47 must have been problematical as the Jug was a notorious ground love lover. *I was involved in building a limited service hotel that was 55 ft high, 200 ft long and 65 ft wide. I think that is the approximate size of the flight deck on CV1 the Langely*. I used to stand on the roof and imagine landing an AC on that hotel roof. Whew!



Did you mean 200 yards? The Langley was 542 feet long according to Haze Gray. I think the lead Spits P-40's must have had only about 250 - 300 feet or so, if the escort's deck is only 500 feet long. And also the Avenger/Bouge escorts could only do 16 - 18 knots so the WOD 15 mph less than Hornets. But I guess if a B-25 can take off without catapult in 500 feet then 300 feet take-off can't be that bad for a fighter!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 18, 2008)

Don't lose sight of the significance of WOD, guys; its easy to underestimate. Even on an average day at sea wind 15-20 kts, ship 25-28 kts means that a Seafire would only have to achieve 45-37 kts to get airborne (assume stall speed of 85 kts).

The same goes for modern canopy open taxy speeds: Surface wind 20/25 kts, aircraft taxying into it at 30 kts means that the canopy and its actuating mechanism has to withstand a minimum 55 kts and 60-70 kts can easily be achieved. Given the size of a Tornado or F-15E canopy, you can see that there is a deal of 'windage' to be taken into consideration in the design.


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

Shows how bad my memory is. No wonder the 200 ft looked short. I did get the beam somewhat close as her beam was 69 and a fraction ft. In 1937 she was converted to a seaplane tender and she lost almost half of her flight deck. That load of p40s she was carrying was probably going to off loaded with a crane.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2008)

maxs75 said:


> The ferrying of assembled single engine fighters was best done with aircraft carriers. No need of unload facilities and aircrafts ready very soon after ground landing. It was one of the duty of CVEs as soon as they became available.
> During the invasion of Marianas, two CVEs (loaded with 37 P-47D each) launched the Army fighters for their own defence, and they later landed on their intended destination (Saipan).





maxs75 said:


> Freebird,
> the P-47 take off was a catapult one.* At that stage the fighters for Pacific theater had catapult gear*.
> The Malta relief was done without catapults. Carriers involved were Argus, Ark Royal, Furious and at least once Victorious (Hurricanes till 1941), and Eagle, Furious and Wasp in 1942 with Spitfires.
> USS Wasp repeated the mission twice in 1942, delivering 46 Spit the first time and 47 the second (+ 17 from HMS Eagle) in april-may 1942.
> ...



Thats smart thinking, considering that the P-47 wasn't even a Navy fighter. But I guess it was such a robust plane that it could take catapult gear. But the Spit launchings would be almost as tough, the Argus was 560 ft. 20 knots, not much bigger or faster than a Bouge. So the WOD would have been enough to launch. How difficult was it to modify Hurricane or Spit wings to fold?


----------



## JoeB (Jan 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> Did you mean 200 yards? The Langley was 542 feet long according to Haze Gray. I think the lead Spits P-40's must have had only about 250 - 300 feet or so, if the escort's deck is only 500 feet long.


Langley was converted to a seaplane tender in 1937 with the fwd ~40% of the flight deck removed. The 32 P-40's she was carrying when sunk were parked there and on the old hangar deck, to be offloaded by crane had she reached Java.

USS Ranger ferried USAAF P-40's in the Atlantic on 4 occasions, twice to Ghana (then 'Gold Coast') in 1942 for further flight across Africa to India for the first batch in April, then to join the Desert AF in case of the 57th FG in July. Then she ferried P-40's to Morrocco twice in early 1943 to build up the 12th AF. When she carried 325th FG in January 1943, those planes flew off. A photo in "Ranger" by Cressman clearly shows a fly off, and "Checkertail Clan" by McDowell and Hess says they lined up so as to give the first ones off 425', v 390' std minimum for the ship's own F4F's (the first B-25 on Hornet had 467').

USS Chenango (Sangamon class relatively large tanker based CVE) apparently catapulted her load of 33rd FG P-40F's in the Torch operation off Morocco, Nov 1942. As was mentioned 318th FG P-47D's were catapulted off USS Natoma Bay and Manila Bay (Kaiser type CVE's) to deploy to newly captured Marianas bases in June 1944; and USS Nassau and Breton (both Bogue class) catapulted 72nd FS P-39Q's to garrison Makin Island and 45th FS P-40K's to US held Canton Island in the Pacific in 1943 (I've seen latter referred to as a fly off but first account in Lambert "Pineapple Air Force" says catapult).

Whereas I think all the Malta fly off's were non catapult. Per "Aircraft to Malta" by Roger Nailer in "Warship 2000" there were 28 such carrier sorties including 2 by Wasp. They flew off a total of 353 Hurricanes and 384 Spitfires (among non-carrier planes, as well as 17 Albacores and 8 Swordfish to operate from Malta), of which 334, 367, 11 and 7 arrived safely. Ark Royal was sunk by U-81 while returning to Gibraltar after the 'Perpetual' fly off in Nov. 1941. So the Malta ferry/fly off ops were by far the biggest.

Joe


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Whereas I think all the Malta fly off's were non catapult. Per "Aircraft to Malta" by Roger Nailer in "Warship 2000" there were 28 such carrier sorties including 2 by Wasp. They flew off a total of 353 Hurricanes and 384 Spitfires (among non-carrier planes, as well as 17 Albacores and 8 Swordfish to operate from Malta), of which 334, 367, 11 and 7 arrived safely. Ark Royal was sunk by U-81 while returning to Gibraltar after the 'Perpetual' fly off in Nov. 1941. So the Malta ferry/fly off ops were by far the biggest.
> 
> Joe



Thats the way I understood it too. The Wasp was still a fairly long deck (740'), so it leaves some room. I think most of the Malta fly-offs were only about 30 - 40 aircraft. The hardest would have been the "Argus", as I said it was only 560'. Do you think they could have fit 15 - 20 Spits in the hanger and then another 10 - 15 on deck? That might still leave 350 - 400 deck for take off. Was the minimum take off for the Hurri or Spit less than the Wildcat (Martlet) because of the lower take off weight? (6,400lb Spit V - 8,100 lb Wildcat)


----------



## JoeB (Jan 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> The Wasp was still a fairly long deck (740'), so it leaves some room. I think most of the Malta fly-offs were only about 30 - 40 aircraft. ... Do you think they could have fit 15 - 20 Spits in the hanger and then another 10 - 15 on deck? ...That might still leave 350 - 400 deck for take off. Was the minimum take off for the Hurri or Spit less than the Wildcat (Martlet) because of the lower take off weight? (6,400lb Spit V - 8,100 lb Wildcat)


I don't know how much deck run was available on Wasp off Malta but with only ca. 47 Spitfires (all) on deck, v ca. 70 P-40's carried by Ranger (again all on deck) and Wasp the larger ship it was probably at least as much as the 425' quoted in 325th FG's case flying off Ranger. Photo's of Ranger carrying the 57th FG in July '42 shows a lane was kept clear on the stbd side of the flight deck, not all the P-40's scrunched up aft, while photo's of Spitfires taking off from Wasp show the width of the deck basically free; that's probably how more planes were fit on deck in the Ranger's case but I doubt the Spitfires were given much if at all less takeoff run.

The overriding reason the P-40's were given more room than the std F4F run on Ranger was simple: lack of experience of the Army pilots taking off from carriers. On the Ranger's first ferry mission to Africa it's mentioned that 3 of the 68 P-40 pilots had practiced taking off from a carrier before. And that would apply to the RAF pilots too. The wingloading of the F4F wasn't that much higher than Spitfire V and it was designed to be a carrier plane, and again flown by guys trained to take off from (and furthermore land back onboard  ) carriers.







Joe


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 19, 2008)

Note the F4F-4 parked forward of the island . . . tail stripes!


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Great posts Joe B, relly enjoy them. Notice all the Bluejackets clustered at the base of the island to watch the takeoff? I had no idea that the number of fighters delivered to Malta was that great. Tells a little about the scale of the battle there. I would like to visit Malta sometime.


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

R Leonard, I notice in the picture of Wasp, it appears she still has the quad 1.1 inch hose guns mounted.


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2008)

According to my records she still had them when she was sunk. The only changes to her original weapons were the removal of 15 x HMG and the addition of 30 x 20mm.


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Glider, I don't think those guns were replaced by Bofors on other US carriers until well into late 42 as I believe underwater pictures of Yorktown show them still on her.


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2008)

That fits. One of my books mentions that the Wasp may have had one quad added before she was lost, the first in the USN. However, as it was a maybe and only one of three I didn't mention it.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 3, 2008)

Has anybody seen the book "Shattered sword" quoted by Syscom? It stated that the Japanese carrier capacity was much less than normally reported. is this the difference between hanger capacity "deck park"? 

I haven't been able to find any other works that agree with "Shattered Sword" numbers

Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway



freebird said:


> The capacity of Japanese carriers was slightly less but comparable to US capacity.
> 
> Yorktown class A/C capacity: 90
> Lexington 90
> ...





syscom3 said:


> Freebird, the aircraft capacity of the Japanese carriers you quoted, is of the design specs from the mid 1930's. The actual capacity of the carriers in 1942 (with larger sized aircraft as compared to the mid 30's) at Midway were:
> Kaga: 72, Soryu: 57, Hiryu: 59, Akagi: 63. Light Carriers were : Zuiho: 18, Ryujo: 30, Junyo: 33.





Freebird said:


> Syscom where did you get your figures from?
> 
> I used HazeGray, almost all of the figures listed were from 1939-1940, not mid 30's.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Feb 3, 2008)

The F4F had a lower wingloading than the Spitfire...


----------



## renrich (Feb 4, 2008)

I believe any comparison of wing loading of Spitfire versus Wildcat would depend a great deal on which Wildcat and which Spitfire and how they were loaded. At any rate the two AC were pretty close to the same size. All US Navy fighters had a shorter take off distance than all AAF fighters, of necessity. For instance, all Navy fighters had a takeoff distance of less than 1000 feet. All AAF fighters had a takeoff distance of more than 1000 feet. The P47D-25 took the honors(?) for the longest takeoff run at 2540 feet. The F2A3 took the honors for shortest, 620 feet, although the F4U4 could get off in 630 feet. Interesting to compare F4U4 to P47D, both large and heavy and both with almost the same engine. The F4F4 could get off in 710 feet, the P40N in 1760 feet. I doubt a Spitfire could come close to the Wildcat in short takeoff distance.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 4, 2008)

I know of one F8F that got off in 150 feet and another that beat that with an115 foot take off run. Cleveland Air Races 22 November 1946.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2008)

I should have qualified my remarks with, this refers to WW2 fighters. Did they use 2x4s in front of the wheels to assist in that short takeoff run? The F8F was designed as an interceptor to operate off of jeep carriers and it could get off the deck and get to altitude plenty fast.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 5, 2008)

Nah, they cheated. They disabled the safety interlock on the WEP so that it could be used with the gear down then fired them up to full WEP whilst standing on the brakes, then let them go. First one went from a dead stop to 10000 feet in 100 seconds, the second did the same trick in 97.8 seconds.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2008)

I think where the 2x4 or whatever came in to play was that you could not run up full power in a Bearcat while sitting because the brakes were too puny(to save weight) So they had the boards there to help keep the AC still while they ran up full power with WEP.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 5, 2008)

did this f4f have a radio oxygen weapons and ammo full fuel when it did this or was she light because I watch all these birds get off well before a 1000ft with regularity


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2008)

All the figures posted were with full ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm trying to find out about the displacement stats for WWII aircraft carriers vs. today.

What % of an Carriers displacement would be under the waterline?


Hope someone has this info...

Thanks


----------



## red admiral (Dec 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> I
> What % of an Carriers displacement would be under the waterline?



All of it. The displacement of the ship is the amount of water it displaces and is equal to the weight of the ship. 

A quick calculation is length x beam x draught x block coefficient (usually 0.4-0.7) / 35 (all in ft) = displacement in tons.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2008)

red admiral said:


> All of it. The displacement of the ship is the amount of water it displaces and is equal to the weight of the ship.
> 
> A quick calculation is length x beam x draught x block coefficient (usually 0.4-0.7) / 35 (all in ft) = displacement in tons.




Sorry I screwed up that question.  

I meant to ask what % of the total *interior volume* of an A/C is below the waterline.

Is it somewhere around 20 - 25%?


----------



## red admiral (Dec 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> I meant to ask what % of the total *interior volume* of an A/C is below the waterline.
> 
> Is it somewhere around 20 - 25%?



I think 20-40% is fairly reasonable given the huge ship to ship variation.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2008)

red admiral said:


> I think 20-40% is fairly reasonable given the huge ship to ship variation.



I was in a discussion with someone, he calculated the total density of a Carrier {% compared to water} at 11%. I think his calculations might be wrong. Although the heaviest parts of the carrier {engines, ballast} are below W/L, still I would think that a ship with that high bouyancy would not be stable in heavy seas.

Do you have any data that gives the total interior volume of an A/C, or its % of volume below waterline?

Thanks for your help


----------

