Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.If you could pack them like playing Tetris, you could put in about 76 aircraft.
The references have capacity at 48, so I assume someone must have counted it.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)
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.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.
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.
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
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 British planned to have a separate carrier for repairs and maintenance, hence the HMS UnicornThe 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 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.)
And routine maintenance such as flight control rigging, or swing checks?The British planned to have a separate carrier for repairs and maintenance, hence the HMS Unicorn
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.
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.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?
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.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?
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.
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.