Max CAG for a Courageous class carrier without deck parking?

[Admiral Beez]

According to Wikipedia, HMS Courageous and Glorious had two hangars of 16 feet high, 550 feet long and 50 feet wide, with two 46-by-48-foot lifts. That 55,000 sqft of space, minus 8,840 sqft for the four hangar level lift openings, for a total of 46,160 sqft for hangar space, not including fire curtains, etc. This compares well against the 28,000 sqft hangar of the Illustrious class.

 

[swampyankee]

Yes, it does. Figure an average plane is about 20 by 30 feet, folded, or about 600 square feet each. If you could pack them like playing Tetris, you could put in about 76 aircraft. Realistically, you'd need room to move aircraft around, so a more realistic limit would likely be between 35 and 45.

This is actually not too bad. There's something to be said in favor of keeping aircraft off a flight deck (weather, for one)

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you could pack them like playing Tetris, you could put in about 76 aircraft.

Here's some pics of later British carriers, showing how they stuffed the aircraft inside. I wonder if this was more for rough weather transit than regular ops.

It must have been absolutely claustrophobic with the aircraft in the hangar AND spares hanging from the rafters, as shown in Indefatigable below.

Though the Japanese managed to really squeeze in their aircraft, including non-folding types.

 

[Freebird]

Yes, it does. Figure an average plane is about 20 by 30 feet, folded, or about 600 square feet each. If you could pack them like playing Tetris, you could put in about 76 aircraft. Realistically, you'd need room to move aircraft around, so a more realistic limit would likely be between 35 and 45.

This is actually not too bad. There's something to be said in favor of keeping aircraft off a flight deck (weather, for one)

The references have capacity at 48, so I assume someone must have counted it.

Victorious could take 55 - 60 with deck park, so 72 - 76 on Courageous I assume

 

[Admiral Beez]

The references have capacity at 48, so I assume someone must have counted it.

Victorious could take 55 - 60 with deck park, so 72 - 76 on Courageous I assume

With deck parking I agree 72-76 should fit, but can Courageous take the weight of that many aircraft, especially as they get heavier? Here's Furious' upper hangar looking forward to the bow doors - the upper supports for the fight deck look very lightly made.

Put 30 Avengers (17,893 lb loaded) and 20 Hellcats (12,598 lb loaded) on deck and you've got 400 tons above this hangar space. I'd be afraid of them straining the deck beams.

 

[Freebird]

With deck parking I agree 72-76 should fit, but can Courageous take the weight of that many aircraft, especially as they get heavier? Here's Furious' upper hangar looking forward to the bow doors - the upper supports for the fight deck look very lightly made.

View attachment 570452

Put 30 Avengers (17,893 lb loaded) and 20 Hellcats (12,598 lb loaded) on deck and you've got 400 tons above this hangar space. I'd be afraid of them straining the deck beams.

Really depends on the year.
1941-42 it's likely to be Fulmar, Swordfish, Martlet or Sea Hurricane.
Avenger isn't introduced on carriers until late in 1942.

By 1943-44 I'd expect some Seafire, Barracuda, Avenger.
Hellcat isn't available until late in 1943, so not sure how much difference it would make.

If the supports aren't strong enough I assume they could be strengthened?

 

[Kevin J]

Furious got Barracudas rather than Avengers plus a ski jump too.

 

[RCAFson]

The references have capacity at 48, so I assume someone must have counted it.

Victorious could take 55 - 60 with deck park, so 72 - 76 on Courageous I assume

Glorious, Courageous and Furious had very short flight decks, and their maximum deck park was, therefore, quite limited, and probably no more than ~8 aircraft.

In Sept 1939 Glorious was operating 36 Swordfish and 12 Gloster SGs.
During Pedestal, Furious embarked 40 RAF Spitfire VCs and 4 Albacores which included a deck park of 8 Spitfires.

Of interest is the fact that HMS Eagle typically carried 32 RAF Spitfire VCs and 6 Sea Hurricanes for Malta ferry runs.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Since the same references that give 48 for the aircraft capacity of Glorious & Courageous give 36 for Furious, that 44 including 8 on deck park is exactly on the button!

And yes, the 3 had short flight decks.

 

[jetcal1]

Yes, it does. Figure an average plane is about 20 by 30 feet, folded, or about 600 square feet each. If you could pack them like playing Tetris, you could put in about 76 aircraft. Realistically, you'd need room to move aircraft around, so a more realistic limit would likely be between 35 and 45.

This is actually not too bad. There's something to be said in favor of keeping aircraft off a flight deck (weather, for one)

The question is, do you want to perform maintenance? Breaking out spares, R/R engines, etc., still means you need some "gaps" in your spotting plan to move airplanes around. (Even if it's just a few feet to facilitate movement or maintenance.)

 

[Freebird]

The question is, do you want to perform maintenance? Breaking out spares, R/R engines, etc., still means you need some "gaps" in your spotting plan to move airplanes around. (Even if it's just a few feet to facilitate movement or maintenance.)

The British planned to have a separate carrier for repairs and maintenance, hence the HMS Unicorn

 

[swampyankee]

The question is, do you want to perform maintenance? Breaking out spares, R/R engines, etc., still means you need some "gaps" in your spotting plan to move airplanes around. (Even if it's just a few feet to facilitate movement or maintenance.)

I made a couple of simplifying assumptions in making my estimate, one of which the aircraft were simple rectangles (they're not) and they could evenly tile the hangar deck (they can't). Then I divided my answer more or less in half. The right way to do it would be to make a model of the ship's hangar deck and a bunch of models of the folded aircraft and see what works.

 

[jetcal1]

The British planned to have a separate carrier for repairs and maintenance, hence the HMS Unicorn

And routine maintenance such as flight control rigging, or swing checks?
Also, are you suggesting that even mundane chores such as an engine swap would require a flight/crane off to the Unicorn?

 

[jetcal1]

I made a couple of simplifying assumptions in making my estimate, one of which the aircraft were simple rectangles (they're not) and they could evenly tile the hangar deck (they can't). Then I divided my answer more or less in half. The right way to do it would be to make a model of the ship's hangar deck and a bunch of models of the folded aircraft and see what works.

It's all good. it's just fun to watch the gymnastics when an airplane has to be struck down to the hangarbay to facilitate some maintenance. At least with an angled deck you can spot an aircraft just aft of the island and pull some maintenance if need be. (With the old CAG composition it could sometimes take a week for V-3 to make a hole to roll engines in/out to whatever hangarbay the bare firewall was in.)

I can only imagine how difficult it would be to get an engine change or accomplish other maintenance with a straight deck and deck elevators instead of deck-edge elevators.

 

[Freebird]

And routine maintenance such as flight control rigging, or swing checks?
Also, are you suggesting that even mundane chores such as an engine swap would require a flight/crane off to the Unicorn?

As I understand yes, an engine swap or major repairs would be done on the Unicorn, damaged aircraft or those scheduled for overhaul would land on the Unicorn instead of their home carrier.

When the Illustrious class was laid down Unicorn was also ordered, with the intent that it would accompany 2 - 3 fleet carriers in the carrier battle group, as an aircraft repair/maintainance/depot ship.

I'm not making any clams as to whether it was a good idea or not, but that was the plan.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The British planned to have a separate carrier for repairs and maintenance, hence the HMS Unicorn

Not when the Courageous class were designed they didn't. Maintenance can be done on the lower hangar deck. Operational aircraft can be stowed in the upper hangar deck and on the flight deck.

 

[RCAFson]

And routine maintenance such as flight control rigging, or swing checks?
Also, are you suggesting that even mundane chores such as an engine swap would require a flight/crane off to the Unicorn?

RN carriers would do all maintenance required, including engine swaps. However,this was an inefficient use of a frontline carrier's resources and it was better to fly out the aircraft to a maintenance carrier whilst swapping it for a new or reconditioned aircraft from the maintenance carrier, and thus maintain the frontline carrier's air complement at maximum strength.

 

[jetcal1]

RN carriers would do all maintenance required, including engine swaps. However,this was an inefficient use of a frontline carrier's resources and it was better to fly out the aircraft to a maintenance carrier whilst swapping it for a new or reconditioned aircraft from the maintenance carrier, and thus maintain the frontline carrier's air complement at maximum strength.

I'm sorry but, holding a crippled aircraft onboard until it could be sent over to another ship when an engine change can be accomplished in a relatively short time and a relatively easy task makes no sense.

On the other hand if you flew an aircraft over with a high time engine for a scheduled/planned swap, that makes sense. As would major scheduled airframe inspections.

To send an airplane over to do a gear swing or a check of a powered wingfold system? (You know, the daily squawks that make a bird PMC)
Nope, don't make no sense. And as a CAG, for upgripes or minor down gripes (Anything that could be fixed in under 18 hours.) I would have fought that scheme tooth and nail.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm sorry but, holding a crippled aircraft onboard until it could be sent over to another ship when an engine change can be accomplished in a relatively short time and a relatively easy task makes no sense.

On the other hand if you flew an aircraft over with a high time engine for a scheduled/planned swap, that makes sense. As would major scheduled airframe inspections.

To send an airplane over to do a gear swing or a check of a powered wingfold system? (You know, the daily squawks that make a bird PMC)
Nope, don't make no sense. And as a CAG, for upgripes or minor down gripes (Anything that could be fixed in under 18 hours.) I would have fought that scheme tooth and nail.

If the plane can't fly or no maintenance carriers were available , then the maintenance would be done on the fleet carrier. However if a maintenance carrier was in company and , if an aircraft needing an engine change could fly, then it would be flown to the maintenance carrier and swapped out for a new or reconditioned aircraft ( Changing out engines on carriers was rare in WW2 because aircraft and airframe life was typically shorter than engine life). This was the rational for WW2 era maintenance carriers and both the RN and USN used similar policy by late war, with maintenance and/or escort carriers being used to feed new and reconditioned aircraft to fleet carriers. The post war emergence of larger and larger aircraft made this policy untenable because they could no longer land on smaller carriers.

 

[jetcal1]

If the plane can't fly or no maintenance carriers were available , then the maintenance would be done on the fleet carrier. However if a maintenance carrier was in company and , if an aircraft needing an engine change could fly, then it would be flown to the maintenance carrier and swapped out for a new or reconditioned aircraft ( Changing out engines on carriers was rare in WW2 because aircraft and airframe life was typically shorter than engine life). This was the rational for WW2 era maintenance carriers and both the RN and USN used similar policy by late war, with maintenance and/or escort carriers being used to feed new and reconditioned aircraft to fleet carriers. The post war emergence of larger and larger aircraft made this policy untenable because they could no longer land on smaller carriers.

I am aware that the CVE/CVL carriers were indeed used as floating replacement aircraft depots.
But, I must be confused, because the main deck of every US CV since at least the Essex had a whole slew of shops aft of or adjacent to Hangarbay 3 including an engine repair/overhaul shop. Again, I cannot believe that routine maintenance such as a gear swing or anything else that might have required the wings to be spread or the aircraft placed on jacks would be flow to a depot carrier.