How were exposed seaplanes protected and maintained at sea?

[Admiral Beez]

Here's HMS Enterprise sporting a Fairey IIIF.

Here's HMS Resolution with a Supermarine Walrus atop X turret.

The RN is mostly a North Atlantic force, exposed to weather of all sorts. How did they keep these fragile and exposed aircraft maintained and protected?

 

[GrauGeist]

Many heavy cruisers and battleships had a hangar for maintenance but as seaplane tenders and carriers became common, the observation/scout would be transferred to that ship for maintenance.

They could transfer the aircraft via gantry between the vessels if it was inoperable.

 

[pbehn]

I always used to wonder about that with catapult launched Hurricanes.

 

[SaparotRob]

I read somewhere that the catapult launched Hurricanes were ditched close by a ship after action. They were disposable old airframes. This was not very practical nor popular with pilots.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I read somewhere that the catapult launched Hurricanes were ditched close by a ship after action. They were disposable old airframes. This was not very practical nor popular with pilots.

Yes, but I'm referring to FAA seaplane or amphibious aircraft assigned to the ship, not disposable fleet defence fighters.

 

[SaparotRob]

I was answering pbehn's post.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, but I'm referring to FAA seaplane or amphibious aircraft assigned to the ship, not disposable fleet defence fighters.

They were only disposable after they had done their job, prior to that they had to work. Wiki says this about CAM ships "
When a CAM ship arrived at its destination, the pilot usually launched and landed at a nearby airfield to get in as much flight time as possible before his return trip.[1] Pilots were rotated out of CAM assignments after two round-trip voyages to avoid the deterioration of flying skills from the lack of flying time during the assignment.[3]

CAM sailings were initially limited to North American convoys with aircraft maintenance performed by the Royal Canadian Air Force at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. CAM ships sailed on Gibraltar and Freetown convoys beginning in September 1941, after an aircraft maintenance unit was established at the RAF base at North Front, Gibraltar. No CAM aircraft were provided during January and February 1942 after it proved impossible to maintain the catapult-mounted aircraft in flying order during the North Atlantic winter. CAM sailings resumed on 6 March 1942 on North Atlantic convoys and in April on the Arctic Russian convoys with an RAF aircraft maintenance unit in Archangelsk.[3]"

I presume this was already an established way of working from other planes that had been mounted on ships.

 

[SaparotRob]

Still, all in all, ditching in the North Sea must have been extremely life threatening. Those waters had to be lethally cold, Autumn or Spring.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I was answering pbehn's post.

Ok. I see that now.

On the multiple-use seaplanes my thinking was they are awfully exposed to the elements. There's a reason aircraft carriers and 1930s era British battleships kept their aircraft in hangars.

 

[SaparotRob]

Keeping the floatplanes in hangars definitely would have protected them from blast damage as well as the elements.

 

[pbehn]

Still, all in all, ditching in the North Sea must have been extremely life threatening. Those waters had to be lethally cold, Autumn or Spring.

There were only ten launches, nine from CAM ships and one from RN ship according to wiki, one pilot killed in action. I think they preferred to bail out, ditching a Hurricane at sea was extremely dangerous.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Engines covers were used quite often.

 

[MikeMeech]

Here's HMS Enterprise sporting a Fairey IIIF.

View attachment 621546

Here's HMS Resolution with a Supermarine Walrus atop X turret.

View attachment 621547

The RN is mostly a North Atlantic force, exposed to weather of all sorts. How did they keep these fragile and exposed aircraft maintained and protected?

Hi

Some ships had hangars for their aircraft, eg. Kent Class, with hangar to right of Walrus:

Others, usually with only one (maybe two) aircraft did not, eg Dorsetshire Class:

Both pages from the 1940 edition of 'Ships of the World's Battlefleets' Talbot-Booth.

Other navies had similar arrangements, for example France:

The US Navy:

The Japanese, eg. 'Ashigara' in May 1937:

The German Navy, eg 'Nurnberg' in 1937:

Italy, eg. 'Emanuele Filiberto Duca d'Aosta', in 1937:

The Soviet Navy, eg. 'Molotov', in late 1941:

In the British case the aircraft were removed as WW2 progressed, various Radar equipment taking over ranging roles etc. and top weight being saved by removal of catapults and aircraft (which was needed for increased AA armament as well as radar).

By the way I think your first image shows a Hawker Osprey not IIIF.

I hope that is of use.

Mike

 

[fastmongrel]

I read an action report that had the Seaplane (a Walrus) launched over the side unmanned simply to get rid of the fire risk of the plane. I would have expected the Seaplane to be useful during the battle but I believe the function of the Seaplane was recon not shot spotting unless it was a shore bombardment mission.

Maintenance was probably less of a problem with Seaplanes than with land/carrier planes, they had anodised aluminium components and plenty of coats of Aluminium dope would protect any fabric. A simple single row relatively low powered radial needs less work than a fire breathing 18 cylinder or V12.

Every naval base capable of handling the bigger fleet units would have had spare Seaplanes and maintenance facilities. Naval vessels were rarely at sea for very long periods.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Maintenance was probably less of a problem with Seaplanes than with land/carrier planes, they had anodised aluminium components and plenty of coats of Aluminium dope would protect any fabric. A simple single row relatively low powered radial needs less work than a fire breathing 18 cylinder or V12.

I wonder if HMAS Sydney's Walrus (shown here in 2008) was non-operational when she encountered the German raider Kormoran. Otherwise I can only think it prudent to fly it over for a close up view of the mysterious vessel.

Even the best attempts at disguise may not hold up to the close scrutiny of a couple of binocular-equipped FAA observers directly overhead in a slow stall Walrus.

 

[MikeMeech]

I read an action report that had the Seaplane (a Walrus) launched over the side unmanned simply to get rid of the fire risk of the plane. I would have expected the Seaplane to be useful during the battle but I believe the function of the Seaplane was recon not shot spotting unless it was a shore bombardment mission.

Maintenance was probably less of a problem with Seaplanes than with land/carrier planes, they had anodised aluminium components and plenty of coats of Aluminium dope would protect any fabric. A simple single row relatively low powered radial needs less work than a fire breathing 18 cylinder or V12.

Every naval base capable of handling the bigger fleet units would have had spare Seaplanes and maintenance facilities. Naval vessels were rarely at sea for very long periods.

Hi

They were classed as 'Spotter-Reconnaissance Seaplanes', for example the Fairey Seafox from Ajax during the Battle of the River Plate in 1939 spotted for the guns of the British Cruisers (Exeter's two Walruses were put out of action by gunfire, as was the catapult with its Arado Ar 196 on the 'Graff Spee' with the RN's first salvo), it then flew reconnaissance missions to keep an eye on the German ship until it blew itself up. Also in the Second Battle of Narvik, 13 April 1940, a floatplane Swordfish from Warspite spotted for its guns leading to the destruction of German destroyers. By the time the catapults and floatplane aircraft were removed from the ships of the RN, the long range aerial reconnaissance was being undertaken by aircraft from escort carriers while short range 'surface search' and gunnery was undertaken by the various radars fitted to the major ships.

For interest another hanger layout, each side of the forward funnel, on a RN cruiser (from the Air-Britain publication 'Fleet Air Arm Aircraft, Units and Ships 1920 to 1939' page 361):

Mike

 

[Glider]

Keeping the floatplanes in hangars definitely would have protected them from blast damage as well as the elements.

The hangers were so flimsy, protection would be minimal at best against blast damage

 

[GregP]

The hangars were there for protection from weather, and for maintenance under a roof, not for protection from combat.

 

[Graeme]

Engines covers were used quite often.

Spotted this today. A partially dismantled and covered D.H.60 Moth on board the Royal Research Ship Discovery II ready to depart for the Antarctic to search for Lincoln Ellsworth and Herbert Hollick-Kenyon. Tough conditions for any aircraft.