Italian Carrier Aircraft

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

R-1830 was in use by the mid-1930s
 
Schweik said:
R-1830 was in use by the mid-1930s
Click to expand...
Yes it was, but at what power levels?
The mid 30s R-1830 engines gave about 950hp for take-off and were limited to 2550rpm.
By 1938-39 they were turning 2700rpm.
An early R-1830 weighed about 1235lbs.
The early R-1830 engines made a fair amount of power at sea level but they used small superchargers and had FTH well under 10,000ft. Great for getting transport planes out of small airfields and cruising at heights that passengers would be comfortable without oxygen. Not so good for a fighter intended to operate at over 10,000ft.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Courageous, Glorious and Furious had no real business operating close to enemy land based air.
Click to expand...
The fact was, there was no need for them to ever do so. The concepts you are thinking of didn't exist back in the day. Carrier aircraft were for either attacking ships with torpedoes or bombs, fleet reconnaissance or shooting down enemy recon aircraft or bombers out at sea threatening the fleet. Attacking ground targets from the air was either the RAF's job or in a naval context what big guns were for. Naval air was not responsible for attacking land targets (other than dockyard facilities, cos it's the navy and ships, 'n stuff).

Joint operations came via WW2, very rarely beforehand and each of the services in peacetime had their own agendas. This is why that quaint British term "Army Co-operation" comprised of Westland Lysanders and Hawker Hart variants carrying teensy bombs flying straight and level over a target area at height. Close support was a very different beast to what it became as a result of WW2 or even what it had been during the Great War.
 
Shortround6 said:
The fact that the RN got stuck trying to escort convoys to Malta with enemy air bases on both sides of the Med was not what the planners were expecting.
Click to expand...

Exactly right, as simplistic as that sounds. Italy was a threat from the sea, not the air. The Luftwaffe's presence was entirely unexpected over the Med (I believe the Germans couldn't believe their luck when they succeeded in invading Western Europe so quickly) and German intervention in North Africa was a response to Italy getting its backside kicked by the British Army and RAF.

The Italians certainly didn't have any fighters in service at the outbreak of war that was better than the Gladiators based in Malta in 1939 (it did have a few Fiat G.50s, but not many in 1939) that could reach its carriers at sea and it had the Fulmar entering service on those. Why would the British expect anything else?
 
Last edited:
To add to this, it's worth remembering that the Admiralty was not supportive of the Air Ministry's move away from single-seat fighters on carrier decks. Prior to the era of all-metal stressed-skin 'modern' warplanes, the FAA had a continual line of single-seaters on its carrier decks, from the Sopwith Pup through to the Hawker Nimrod and Sea Gladiator. The new technology meant that aircraft cost and size went up, which limited space on carrier decks, so compromises were made, but traditionally, the navy didn't expect to have to counter enemy fighters superior to its own at sea.

Yeah, there might be a time that naval vessels could be close enough to an enemy coast that it might need to defend itself, but other than cruising through the Baltic or in the Mediterranean, or off the coast of Japan, what waters were considered enemy ones that British ships would be operating in? Germany was Britain's principal enemy in the years prior to WW2 and geographically is largely landlocked, except her Baltic coast and a bit to the north of the Netherlands, but British ships in the English Channel and North Sea received coverage from the RAF.
 
nuuumannn said:
Yup, but again, bombers could fly a lot further than land-based fighters, hence the Fulmar. Armouring your carrier deck makes sense; just because you carry a sidearm, doesn't mean there's no need to wear a vest.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not enough to project power, one must also protect it. And if the fighters can't do it, you'd best steel up. The Brits were under no illusions about their carriers being targets. Unlike the Japanese or Americans, thy couldn't disappear into the breadth of the ocean and still strike; they knew their carriers had to go in close and probably take hits.

It's a different math than the Pacific, so they found their own solution. It seems to have worked vis airplanes; no British carrier was sunk in European waters by airpower.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Which makes me wonder why designers bothered with aircraft intended for purely land based aircraft, like the Havilland DH 94 Moth Minor, though not all metal.
Click to expand...

Just in case

Ease of storage and transportation. After the Great War there were competitions for light aircraft (Lympne Trials) that incorporated such features and a generation of British aircraft had the capacity to fold their wings, pretty much all the DH inter-war light aircraft, Miles aircraft, the Percival Gulls, etc.

"Before an aircraft could enter the fuel economy test it was required to pass a demonstration of portability, called the transport test. Each aircraft had to prove it was capable of going through a standard field gate and then be wheeled along a country road for a mile using not more than two men. Because this limited the width of the aircraft to 7 ft 6in then the designs all featured either detachable or folding wings."

From here: Lympne light aircraft trials - Wikipedia

Puss Moth

MoF 49

Proctor (based on a civil Gull).

0707 Duxford Proctor
 
But could they do this?

 
OK, Aquila experts, there's something that's always puzzled me about this picture, which is probably the most common of the ship and is reproduced in books 'n stuff. Is the feature in the foreground that the guys are standing in front of the ship's bow or stern? It looks like it's the bow, but that means the funnel is in front of the superstructure and its cap is on the wrong way. If it's the stern, it's real narrow.

 
Grant, that's the stern.
The superstructure was to starboard and the photo's angle makes it look like it's to port, but it's not, you're just seeing the upper portion.
The foredeck was set back from the bow a ways.
Look to the very far left of the photo, and you'll see part of the AA batteries that were set in a radiused gallery directly across the from the "island".
 

It's the port stern. Starboard bridge and funnel, funnel is aft. Compare it to the drawing above, you'll see that the funnel is broader (front-to-back) than the bridge. The bottom of the island is masked by the angle of the photo. Also, from the drawing above, the forward flight-deck doesn't clear the prow, while an aft overhang is obvious. That too agrees with your linked photo being taken from port abaft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Italian Nicobar Islands
Replies
1
Views
366
EwenS
E
A
Could WW2 carrier aircraft use a ski jump?
Replies
13
Views
1K
don4331
D
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
C
Advice on wooden aircraft
Replies
3
Views
731
Howard Gibson
W
Italian BoB forces used against Malta
Replies
2
Views
543
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register