What mix of aircraft what type would you have on a "raiding" CVL?

[delcyros]

How about the "Independance" class, 620' ft, 32 knts, operated both Hellcats Avengers? I know the short, {500'} slow CVE's had problems operating combat aircraft, but what was the record of the CVL's?

The CVL´s operated Hellcat Avengers. But two things should be reconsidered for a comparison:
A) The 620 ft. landing deck of an Independence CVL is about 100-120ft. longer than the proposed landing deck of Ingenohl-class CVL´s.
B) Both, Hellcat Avengers have stellar low speed handling and a very low stall speed with flaps fully down and low degree of. Neither the Ju-87 nor the Bf-109 could compete here. If You have ever wondered why the Hellcat has not such a superior high speed enevelope than it´s because there was a notable tradeoff in favour of low speed handling, which can be traced through design history and aerodynamic choices.

best regards,

 

[delcyros]

Therefore, I would have ensured that my Fw 190T's were compatible with whatever size of carrier was necessary, and used them to clear the skies so the U-boats could function. The carrier would be concentrated around a single type, carying only one type of engine, propeller, landing gear, wings, tail assembly, etc. for repairs. There would not be much confusion around different types, because everyone would know all the routines for the Fw 190T.

I fully recognize the attractiveness of this idea but I am afraid that this would have been the most impractical solution of all.
At first, the Fw-190 was just appearing in the frontline services by mid 1941 in her early A-versions with the bugs not beeing worked out until mid 1942 with the introduction of the A-4 subvariant. This were general fighter variants and by no means specialized naval variants, whiches development time requirements are not taken into account so far.
Second, the BMW-801 radial engines of the Fw-190A required replacement after a nominal 20 hours flighttime until late in 1942, which would require about four spare engines per plane to be shipped by the CVL extra to account for very low level air operations, enduring CAP-missions are not sustainable in these conditions.
Thirdly, a navalized Fw-190, albeit possible, would require major modification of fuselage wing, an entirely new airframe as a result.
A)The cockpit needs to be placed more towards the frontal area in order to improve visibility to the fwd. arcs (esspeccially the sub horizon arcs, which are decisive for landing ops) and eventually higher.
B)The rear fuselage needs reinforcements to take the arrestor hook with structu ral reserves.
C) The low speed handling charckteristics of the Fw-190A are abysmal poor. The plane is generally treated for improved high speed handling but low slow, the Fw-190 shows severe weaknesses: The stall does develope rapidily from the mid of the wing outwards with little associated earlier stick warnings. That are bad news in the landing deck capabilities. It would need some kind of outer wing slats to compensate for this.
D) The Fw-190A as designed has a low wingarea conception (the V-5 prototype was tried with large and small wings and eventually the small wing was choosen for all serial Fw-190´s due to increased agility and better high speed performances). The resulting netto effects showed a comparably high landing speed and in combination with the constraints summerized under C), the advisable approach speed was 150 Km/h, a good tad bit faster than the navalized Bf-109, which wouldn´t be usable on the CVL.
E) development times for a navalized Fw-190A would take three years lowest (if started early in 1940) and you couldn´t expect serial production planes to roll of from the assembly lines any sooner than mid 1943. By this time it´s already (much) to late to send CVL´s out into the Atlantic.


Best regards,

 

[Oreo]

Well, I wouldn't make use of such small carriers. They're worthless. Use bigger ones. If you can't carry fighters, you can't bother carrying anything. You asked our opinion, after all. From all the research I've done, I believe the U-boats were doing absolutely fine at commerce raiding, offensively. The only thing they needed was air defense (and, to a lesser degree, defense from surface escorts). It was the patrol bombers that kept the U-boats down when they needed to be up, and sank huge numbers of them. The war in the Atlantic could have belonged to the Germans if they had just had air cover. It very nearly did anyway, until late in 1943. So for your little itty bitty carriers, if they couldn't carry fighters, I would have used them as freighters and gotten bigger ships to carry fighters.

Now, you may be right in most of the things yous said about the Fw 190, especially that it could not have been ready at least until 1943, but if the 109T could have held the fort until 43, the Fw 190 could have taken over after that. I believe the 190 would have been a much better carrier fighter than the 109 due to its more predictable handling and especially the wide-spaced gear (which would have to be beefed up, I know). My definite changes I would make would be to insert about an aditional two feet of wingspan, a one-foot section outboard of each landing gear leg, and that one-foot section in each wing would include the wing folding mechanism, as well as additional fuel tankage. The gear would be beefed up. I would see whether eliminating the cowl guns would improve forward visibility. If not, then maybe leave them. I would make sure the tail surfaces were large enough for good low-speed control, and make sure the flaps were up to the job. The whole airframe would have to be strengthened. Add your arrestor hook, catapult attachment points, and if possible include an autopilot and adequate d/f loop. I think I would base it off Fw 190G series ideas rather than A, but with A's engine boost options. Max speed: 380 mph at 19,000 ft. Ceiling: 34,000 ft. ROC, clean, 2800 f/m. range on internal: 850 mi. External stores: 2,200 lbs max. Standard armament: 2x MG 131 in wings, outside prop arc, 2x MG 151/20 in wing roots. Alternate armament, any combination MG 131's or MG 151/20's, or including 4x MG 131 in outer wings. External waffentroppen can be used for even more f/p when neccessary-- bringing down those PB4Y-2's can be a chore sometimes. Hard point available for jetisonable external tailwheel for torpedo-carrying take-off clearance. Detachable rocket rails-- rockets may be great to use against surface escorts. Main gears stressed to act as dive brakes, as on F4U.

Think it's a bad carrier machine? maybe, but could it have been any less suited than the Seafire????? It would be the equal of an F6F, better than the F4F, and most Seafires, except late production, and would have been bested only by the F4U in the open ocean until 1945 when Griffon Seafires, F8F's, and maybe Sea Furies might have come on the scene. By that time, Dipl Ing Kurt Tank might have been able to come up with a totally new design, using a Jumo, that would be even more seaworthy, and rival the F8F and Sea Fury. I only said maybe! By the way, landing one of those Seafires on a carrier deck would be a worst nightmare!