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

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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?
     
  2. Kurfürst

    Kurfürst Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    legal field
    Location:
    Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
    My bet is on the Fieseler Storch :D
     
  3. rochie

    rochie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,631
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Head chef
    Location:
    billingham nr middlesbrough uk
    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
     
  4. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  5. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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
     
  6. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  7. tail end charlie

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  8. Markus

    Markus Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,339
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    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.
     
  11. bobbysocks

    bobbysocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    j3 cub should be able to pull it off
     
  12. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,069
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    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.
     
  13. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    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.
     
  14. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    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.
     
  15. norab

    norab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    poor quality picture but here are P-40s taking off from a carrier
    [​IMG]

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

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
  17. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,069
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Wow, any idea why the Tomcat did not win?
     
  18. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  19. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    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.
     
  20. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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 :)
     
Loading...

Share This Page