Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits

DarrenW said:

The Bunker Hill had an all fighter compliment for a time (100 F6Fs assigned to VF-8 and VF-4) but there were complications as pilots were often tasked to fly multiple missions in a row and there was even talk of mixed squadron formations, which over time would have resulted in poor unit morale and pilot exhaustion. Luckily the experiment was short lived, as in less than a month VF-8 went stateside after completing it's tour of duty at sea.

Click to expand...

Hi,
I read this paragraph, and also the weekly report of location of naval aircrafts lists 100 F6F of VF-4 and VF-8 aboard the carrier in november 1944.
Everything seems fine.
BUT:
the ship's war diary tells another story:
27 oct. 1944:
0725 :anchored in berth #16 Seeadler harbour, Admiralty Islands

1415 officers and enlisted men of Air Group 8, composed of VF-8, VB-8 and VT-8, left the ship for return to United States.

The ship sailed on 1st november to Saipan, in TG 30.4
2 november:
1230 launched 4 VF for patrol, recovering at 1548
Similar on 3rd november.

4 november:
0653 anchored in the center of Berths HOW 21, 22 and 30, Saipan Island.
At 1050 in corrdance with orders of ComAirForPac and Com 3rd Flt, the officers and men of Air Group 4, composed of VF-4, VB-4 and VT-4, and CAG-4 reported aboard for temporary duty.

So, from that primary source I understand that VF-4 and VF-8 were never aboard Bunker Hill at the same time.

Do you have any other info that? It seems that the 100 VF carrier was actually just a plan, but never tried (not only never tried in combat).
Thank you
Max

I cannot speak to the composition of the Sqns, but there were a couple of carriers that had ~100 aircraft onboard at one time. AIUI, however, they did not operate all 100 aircraft at a time, but stowed a significant number crammed into the hanger as ready replacements in case of attrition during the Kamikaze period. The idea was that if a large number of aircraft were moderately damaged or destroyed on deck - or lost in air-to-air combat - if the situation demanded it they would simply push the damaged airframes over the side and bring up the stowed aircraft.

Basically, they might have had 100 aircraft aboard, but only a max of about 70-80 airframes flew on any given day, and the others would be pulled out of the hangar as replacements as needed.

Also see
"Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits"

ThomasP said:

I cannot speak to the composition of the Sqns, but there were a couple of carriers that had ~100 aircraft onboard at one time. AIUI, however, they did not operate all 100 aircraft at a time, but stowed a significant number crammed into the hanger as ready replacements in case of attrition during the Kamikaze period. The idea was that if a large number of aircraft were moderately damaged or destroyed on deck - or lost in air-to-air combat - if the situation demanded it they would simply push the damaged airframes over the side and bring up the stowed aircraft.

Basically, they might have had 100 aircraft aboard, but only a max about 70-80 airframes flew on any given day, and the others would be pulled out of the hangar as replacements as needed.

Also see
"Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits"

Click to expand...

Yes, the normal complement of Essex class in 1945 was a bit more than 100 airplanes (73 VF (Hellcat/Corsair), 15 VB (Helldiver) and 15 Avengers).

The unusual feature of the Bunker Hill air group would have been to have only VF embarked. At that time more than 40 attack planes were embarked on Essex class.

From the CV-17 war diary, it is clear that VB and VT were embarked for the operations during November 1944.

RCAFson said:

All these factors existed. For the RN FAA, maximum carrier aircraft design dimensions were length = 40ft, folding wing dimensions = 19ft and parked height = 14ft.

Click to expand...

True, but since a 40x19x14 ft aircraft is not a 10640 ft³ box, we must also consider how much overlap is possible while still allowing for aircraft movement and maintenance.



And then we have the extra aircraft hung from the deck beams.

Admiral Beez said:

View attachment 764029

Click to expand...

Which carrier is that?

Admiral Beez said:

And then we have the extra aircraft hung from the deck beams.

Click to expand...

A practice the USN stopped in 1942. In wartime that practice proved to be too much of a damage control risk when they on top of everything underneath.

EwenS said:

Which carrier is that?

Click to expand...

The source just says a British carrier, British Hellcats packed tightly in hangar deck off Saskishima Gunto 24 April 1945 | World War Photos. It's my favourite hangar pic, given the variety of aircraft on one ship - I think I see Hellcats, Fireflies, Seafires, and is that an Avenger (Tarpon) up front?

EwenS said:

A practice the USN stopped in 1942. In wartime that practice proved to be too much of a damage control risk when they on top of everything underneath.

Click to expand...

I was surprised to see that the British did suspend spare partially disassembled aircraft from the rafters in their armoured carriers, like below, as I did not expect there was space.



It would have been tight in here.

Last first. Indomitable in 1943 when her air group contained 40 fixed wing Seafire IIc.

Middle. I've seen the plan of Indefatigable before. Carrying replacement mainplanes, props, tailplanes etc was not uncommon in British carriers. The plan has 3 Seafire and 2 (edit 3) (tailless and outer wingless) Barracuda fuselages, which is the only time I've seen it. Not sure it happened in practice though. Indefatigable only carried Barracudas from May to Oct 1944.

First photo is on one of the BPF escort carriers. Given how tightly they are packed in, looks like one of those engaged in ferrying aircraft forward rather than one of the replenishment carriers, taking aircraft forward to the fleet.

On 24th April 1945, the purported date of the photo, there were no RN carriers operating off Sakishima Gunto. From 23-30 April 1945 TF57 was at Leyte for replenishment.

msxyz said:

Nicknames like Gustav or Emil were given to facilitate communication over radio, when messages could be barely intelligible; same purpose as the phonetic alphabet. Of course many pilots painted figurines or gave their planes odd names, out of tradition and superstition (knights were naming their swords, so giving pretty names to instruments of destruction is nothing new...). I don't think the practice was neither approved (I don't believe there is a rule anywhere that allows people to tweak or modify government property to their liking) but neither discouraged or forbidden, as a gesture of piety towards people the governments were sending to their death in combat.

Well numbers can be remembered too. There are movies about famous subs like K-19 or U-571. When you say 'Das Boot', you think about U-96, so it's not like not having a name prevents you from making a connection with a famous ship.

On the subjects of ships with recurring names, it's also interesting that there were a few cases in which ship X had a glorious and remembered career while ship Y, same name, had a short or particularly unfortunate career, and that usually "taints" the name making it a no-go for further ships. Yep, sailors are really a superstitious lot.

Click to expand...

The Royal Navy at first numbered there submarines but Admiral Beatty instituted naming with the O class. "…there can be little loyalty to a number." At the start of WWII submarines were not named. Churchill reinstituted names, again citing loyalty.

EwenS said:

Which carrier is that?

A practice the USN stopped in 1942. In wartime that practice proved to be too much of a damage control risk when they on top of everything underneath.

Click to expand...

From the Wasp Loss in Action Report:

F. stowage of Aircraft in the Overhead
Bays of the Hangar
47. It has been noted in paragraphs 4, 14 and 39 that
the tricing arrangements for four planes triced to the overhead
in the forward portion of the hangar carried away because
of shock and permitted the planes to crash onto other
aircraft parked on the deck. The plane gasoline tanks could
not have escaped damage and gasoline must have spread into
the hangar. This gasoline was unquestionably the origin
of the fire in the hangar.
48. War experience on other carriers subjected to bombing
attack has demonstrated that fires among triced aircraft
are not only apt to occur but that such fires are very difficult
to control and extinguish because of the overhead location.
Fires among triced aircraft occurred on both ENTERPRISE
and HORNET, and in both cases were difficult to extinguish.
49. The dangers of overhead stowage for planes have been
recognized since the early days of the present war, and on
21 March, 1942 the Secretary of the Navy approved the design
characteristics for the CVB41 class which stated, "reserve
airplane stowage to be provided, if practicable, on the same
level as and adjacent to the ends of the hangar to eliminate
plane s towage overhead".
50. Overhead plane stowage has been omitted on some of
the vessels of the CV9 class because of the strengthening
of the flight deck required to permit operation of the latest
types of heavy planes. strengthening involved the addition
of girders under the flight deck which prohibited the installation
of tricing arrangements. The removal of tricing arrangements
from all other carriers in service or under construction
is now under serious consideration.