Stationary CV, no head wind: who can take off?

[tomo pauk]

Hi all,

The discussion about P-47 F4U mentioned take-off distances. My question: were the planes (other from biplanes) capable to take off from a carrier, in no-headwind condition, with worthwhile payload fuel, and, if so, what types?

 

[Kurfürst]

My bet is on the Fieseler Storch

 

[rochie]

Eric Brown landed and took off from an anchored carrier in a seafire, not sure what Mk though !
he mistook the carrier for the one he was supposed to be doing trials on

 

[evangilder]

If there is no wind at all, the carrier is still capable of a forward speed to create a headwind for aircraft. The Hornet, and carriers like it were capable of 32 knots.

 

[davparlr]

Well, WWII US carriers were about 900 ft long. Available take distance was limited by how many aircraft were stowed on deck or awaiting takeoff. According to "America's Hundred Thousand", all Navy planes, with full load, could take off on an empty deck, using full length with no wind and no ship speed, except the F6F-3. The shortest takeoff would be by the F2A-3 of 620 ft. No AAF aircraft could take off under this circumstance. Obviously, this was not an operational environment. I would guess that one-half to one third the deck area would normally be used for operations, thus carrier speed and/or wind speed was required.

Picture of the Essex, 1943.

Google Image Result for http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g60000/g68097.jpg

 

[Colin1]

Interesting read
factors in catapult weighting for zero head wind

https://pumas.gsfc.nasa.gov/files/03_23_02_1.pdf

 

[tail end charlie]

If there is no wind at all, the carrier is still capable of a forward speed to create a headwind for aircraft. The Hornet, and carriers like it were capable of 32 knots.

I saw some early footage of a bi plane taking off from a carrier into a strong wind, the ship sailed on underneath the plane which just rose vertically into the air.

 

[Markus]

A CVE could launch a fully fueled Avanger with a torpedo using the ship´s speed and the catault. Without the latter a fish could not be carried and the fuel had to be reduced by a third.

Let´s compare some weights:

TBF empfty/loaded: ~10k lb/18k lb
SBD: 6.4/9.3
F2A: 4.7/6.3
TBD: 6.1/9.8

Given that CV had longer flight decks, it looks possible to launch 1st generation carrier planes with a payload, in case of the bombers not the full one.

 

[davebender]

I don't doubt a Fiesseler Storch could take off from a stationary CV. However the Fi-282 observation / ASW helicopter could take off from a stationary DD.

 

[fastmongrel]

I imagine landing with no wind would be a problem as well. Without any wind the speed into the arrestor wire is going to be higher. Were there any cases where arrestor hooks were ripped off and the aircraft eneded up in the crash barrier because of a lack of wind.

 

[bobbysocks]

j3 cub should be able to pull it off

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe ones of the trials the US Navy was doing with a modified P-51, the CV was anchored - though not sure if there was any wind or not.

 

[Shortround6]

P-47 were flown off of carrier/s but it was a ferry operation. No details as to wither the planes had guns or ammo or amount of fuel on board. The planes flew to an air field where they were prepped/loaded for combat flights.
The distances in AHT are for guns and ammo and internal fuel. NO external ordnance or drop tanks.

 

[renrich]

SR, I believe the P47s that took off from carriers were catapulted off. In these modern times, the Navy had a requirement that the fighter bomber competiton which was eventually won by Super Hornet had to have a zero wind over the deck capability. The Strike Fighter version of the Tomcat submitted by Grumman had that capability while the Super Hornet did not. The Navy waived that requirement. The Tomcat submission also could launch with a full load without using afterburner, the Super Hornet cannot which forces it to refuel after launch.

 

[norab]

poor quality picture but here are P-40s taking off from a carrier

and don't forget Doolittle getting the first B-25 off in under 500 feet without a catapult

 

[Milosh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnXIsX7LxS8

WW2 naval a/c plus 3 B-25s take off from CVN 70.

 

[vikingBerserker]

SR, I believe the P47s that took off from carriers were catapulted off. In these modern times, the Navy had a requirement that the fighter bomber competiton which was eventually won by Super Hornet had to have a zero wind over the deck capability. The Strike Fighter version of the Tomcat submitted by Grumman had that capability while the Super Hornet did not. The Navy waived that requirement. The Tomcat submission also could launch with a full load without using afterburner, the Super Hornet cannot which forces it to refuel after launch.

Wow, any idea why the Tomcat did not win?

 

[davebender]

The F-14 was a maintenance hog. That's why the USN killed the Tomcat. Otherwise I think the USN would still be operating an updated version of the F-14 ILO the F-18.

 

[renrich]

I have been in this discussion before on this forum and IMO, it was a political decision which may have been designed to save McDonnel Douglas and throw Grumman under the bus. It is true that the aging Tomcats were a maintenance hog but I have to believe that the new manufactured Strike Tomcat would have been able to have eliminate many of the maintenance issues. As I understand it, the miles and miles of electrical wiring in the old Tomcats were a lot of the problem.

The Strike Tomcat would have been much faster, with longer range and carrying a bigger load. The only advantage of the Super Hornet was a smaller radar signature. I have a friend, who flew A4s and A6s in VN and had commanded a carrier and he thought the wrong airplane was chosen also.

 

[tomo pauk]

My thoughts about 'Super Tomcat' vs. Super Hornet' echo yours, ren.

I've met an old gentleman with Grumman cap 2 years ago in Croatia, and we talked a little (he was working for Grumman some 40 years) - naturally, he feels the same way