Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nice.It is quite clear....
The RN had several carrier classes (some single ship designs) which included the following overall (as far as I know)All these factors existed. For the RN FAA, maximum carrier aircraft design dimensions were length = 40ft, folding wing dimensions = 19ft and parked height = 14ft. These dimensions were dictated by elevator dimensions and hangar height. Several carriers had larger elevators and could accommodate unfolded wings of up to ~40ft width, but in general, these were aircraft adapted from RAF types.
That's why I was curious about that variable. I figure WOD partially corrects for the speed limitations (56 knots + 25 knots WOD = up to 81 knots)?TO weight was dictated by carrier flight deck length and carrier speed (hence the use of the Swordfish and Albacore) and by catapult weight limits. Similarly landing speed was dictated by arrestor hook strength limits. I don't have exact numbers for these handy, but catapult limits initially were 11000lb to 66 knots for the armoured carriers, and 7000lb to 56knots for the earlier carriers. Higher weights could be accommodated but with lower terminal speeds.
I was just thinking about this very question as I looked at this image of what must be near the limits of what a British carrier can spot on the deck. HMS Formidable in Far East 1944. THE FLEET AIR ARM AT SEA, JULY 1944
View attachment 582777
The RN had several carrier classes (some single ship designs) which included the following overall (as far as I know)
They all were fitted to at least 40'?
- Fleet Carrier
- Argus Class: 18 A/C
- Hermes Class: 20 A/C
- Eagle Class: 21 A/C
- Courageous Class: 36-48 A/C
- Ark Royal Class: 54 A/C
- Illustrious Class: 36-57 A/C
- Implacable Class: 54 A/C
- Colossus Class: 48
- Light Carrier
- Unicorn Class: 35 A/C
- Escort Carrier
- Audacity Class: 8 A/C
- Avenger Class: 15 A/C
- Attacker Class: 24 A/C
That's why I was curious about that variable. I figure WOD partially corrects for the speed limitations (56 knots + 25 knots WOD = up to 81 knots)?
It must be a training volley, or they loaded the 14" guns in preparation to shoot in anger, and then changed their minds. AIUI, it's diffcult to draw out the charges and projectile once loaded, so better off shooting. The carrier and aircraft seem safely distant though.Re: Admiral Beez's post #7, I don't know about anyone else but I think I'd be a little concerned over a situation where a KG V is cracking off main battery rounds a couple hundred yards astern of my carrier.
It must be a training volley, or they loaded the 14" guns in preparation to shoot in anger, and then changed their minds. AIUI, it's diffcult to draw out the charges and projectile once loaded, so better off shooting. The carrier and aircraft seem safely distant though.
Based on operational aircraft, it's interesting they had more bombers than fighters. That said, I don't know what the remaining 26 planes were.USS Yorktown [Yorktown class] carried 53 operational aircraft (14x F4F-3, 30x SBD, 9x TBD) during the battle of Coral Sea, although she set sale from Pearl Harbor with 79 aircraft total.
At least the number of fighters eclipses the number of each bomber category. They're on the right track.In late-1943, the Enterprise [Yorktown class] CO considered a total airgroup of 91 aircraft (36x F6F, 36x SBD, 19x TBF) to be too large for efficient operation, and recommended a maximum number of 74 folding-wing aircraft embarked (36x F6F, 20x SB2C, 18x TBF).
Now that's what I'm talking about: 72 fighters escorting 30 bombers. Generally I would favor a ratio of around 2:1 for fighters to bombers.At the height of the Kamikaze period, some Essex class carried upto 102 aircraft total (36x F4U, 36x F6F, 15x SB2C, 15x TBF).
I thought that might be the case. Launching I can see. Landing, however, seems risky. If a plane bolts (?) or, after one landing too many, the tail separates and the plane plows into those ahead.SaparotRob
That was common practice: For landings, you'd move all the aircraft forward (or move things under deck) to make room in the rear deck; For takeoffs, you'd move everything aft to make room on the forward deck.
I thought that might be the case. Launching I can see. Landing, however, seems risky. If a plane bolts (?) or, after one landing too many, the tail separates and the plane plows into those ahead.
I guess there was a barrier of some kind?
Great link!! I never saw this stuff before. I read a bunch about carrier actions as well as naval aircraft but this stuff never was brought up. Seeing the RN flight deck layout made the elevator posts much clearer.Yes, the development of a barrier was key to utilizing a permanent deck park, and in speeding up the landing on of aircraft. Barriers are illustrated in this video in the animation portion during the first couple of minutes:
especially at ~2:00.
Excellent post, thanks!Hey guys, the following are taken from various USN Action Reports quoted in post-war studies:
USS Yorktown [Yorktown class] carried 53 operational aircraft (14x F4F-3, 30x SBD, 9x TBD) during the battle of Coral Sea, although she set sale from Pearl Harbor with 79 aircraft total. As re-organized after Coral Sea the Yorktown carried 88 aircraft, but only 66 were operational (27x F4F, 27x SBD, 12x TBF) with 33/33/12 pilots. The remainder were in a "broken-down" state and/or suspended as spares from the hangar ceiling. It was thought that the number of TBF might be increased to 18 operational if space allowed. [As far as I can find, space/operations did not allow it?]
In late-1943, the Enterprise [Yorktown class] CO considered a total airgroup of 91 aircraft (36x F6F, 36x SBD, 19x TBF) to be too large for efficient operation, and recommended a maximum number of 74 folding-wing aircraft embarked (36x F6F, 20x SB2C, 18x TBF).
The much bigger USS Lexington [Essex class] submitted an Action Report for September 1943 in which the crew recommended doing away with spares stowage in the overheads and crated, and warned that its total complement of 99 aircraft (36x F6F, 35x SBD, 18x TBF) presented dangerous overcrowding difficulties.
The late-1944 standard mixed airgroup [Essex class] was set at 90 aircraft (36x F6F/F4U, 36x SB2C, 18x TBF).
At the height of the Kamikaze period, some Essex class carried upto 102 aircraft total (36x F4U, 36x F6F, 15x SB2C, 15x TBF). The extra large number of fighters was to allow sustained CAP and escort fighter/bomber operations during which it was probable that routine maintenance and repair of damaged aircraft would not be possible (in effect the extra fighters, although assembled and maintained ready for combat to the start of the operation, were treated as spares when not being used and were tightly packed in the hangar until needed).
Words in [ ] are my edits.
We should also consider the maximum weight capacity of the flight deck, especially on lightly built carriers like a Courageous class. Spot 24 fully loaded Swordfish (7,500 lbs) and a dozen Fulmars (9,700 lbs) on deck and you've put about 148 tons on the flight deck. Do that with 24 Tarpons (15,600 lbs) and a dozen Hellcats (12,600 lbs) and you're now at about 263 tons, an increase in weight on the flight deck of over 77%. And given that the size of CAGs in the RN dramatically increased from 1939 to 1942-45, I would expect the flight deck to see more than double its usual weight of aircraft from 1939. This may have an impact of stability or stress the supports for the flight deck. You can see above in Furious that there isn't a lot of structure here.
- Maximum allowable aircraft dimensions
- Maximum takeoff & landing weights
We should also consider the maximum weight capacity of the flight deck, especially on lightly built carriers like a Courageous class. Spot 24 fully loaded Swordfish (7,500 lbs) and a dozen Fulmars (9,700 lbs) on deck and you've put about 148 tons on the flight deck. Do that with 24 Tarpons (15,600 lbs) and a dozen Hellcats (12,600 lbs) and you're now at about 263 tons, an increase in weight on the flight deck of over 77%. And given that the size of CAGs in the RN dramatically increased from 1939 to 1942-45, I would expect the flight deck to see more than double its usual weight of aircraft from 1939. This may have an impact of stability or stress the supports for the flight deck. You can see above in Furious that there isn't a lot of structure here.
Good point. Perhaps it's more of an issue on some of the later IJN conversions, such as IJNS Katsuragi below.It might be a factor on some carriers but the Courageous and Furious classes had a 1in thick HT steel flight deck.