After "Landing on" deck for WWII carriers, good or bad?

I have this pic, of the USS Saratoga during landing ops, but I cannot tell if they have a barrier or not. Yikes!

USS_Saratoga.jpg


This image is obviously very early in the life of the US carrier fleet, but then for this idea to be tested at all, I would think that this would be the time for it, as the aircraft are only going to get bigger, faster, and heavier from this point on.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ramp strikes are, to be mild, nasty accidents, especially when an aircraft breaks up. Anyone who has watched World at War or other documenteries, has seen a couple of different ramp strikes (my "favorite" is when the F6F breaks in half right behind the cockpit). Imagine a plane hitting the elevated landing deck, with weapons still on board, scattering burning fuel, .50 caliber ammo, maybe a bomb or two and an engine among a deck park of armed aircraft lining up to take off.

Yikes!

Straight deck carriers do indeed use a barrier system, it is a "net" designed to capture any aircraft that misses the arrestor wires (known as a "bolter") or that has lost its tail hook. Even today's angled deck carriers have a barrier system in case an aircraft can't deploy its arresting hook. It is called "Fouling the deck". It is not recommended except as a last resort.

The reason straight deck carriers couldn't conduct full flight operations simultaneously was more related to deck park space and take off distance more than the barrier system, although a bolter into a deck park is A BAD THING. There is only so much deck, especially on a WW II carrier. The flight deck of an Essex was only 108 feet wide (147 feet wide including deck edge elevator, including catwalks and gun sponsons) and a TBF has a wingspan of over 54 feet, only way to fit the deck park was to have some of the wingtips hanging out over the water. Having a second deck, with the bracing necessary would eliminate that.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have this pic, of the USS Saratoga during landing ops, but I cannot tell if they have a barrier or not. Yikes!

USS_Saratoga.jpg


This image is obviously very early in the life of the US carrier fleet, but then for this idea to be tested at all, I would think that this would be the time for it, as the aircraft are only going to get bigger, faster, and heavier from this point on.

If you look closely, you can see the barrier abaft the rear of the funnel structure. You can also see just how narrow the deck is compared to the wingspan of the aircraft.
 
Ok, looking at the above image, enlarged and with my reading glasses, I can see some dark lines running accross the deck. Still cannot make it out as a verticle barrier, but then my eyes are not what they used to be, lol. Could not such a barrier be rigged from the bottom of the ELO down to the top of the flight deck, right at the stern?

I am thinking that this idea is going to the same place as my 40mm, ventral turret armed, anti-merchantman armed, ship-hunting, land based naval aviation bombers went.:eek: Nowhere!:D

But not to say I didn't try everything I could come up with before throwing in the towel, here are my last two stick drawings, and questions, reguarding this ELO concept.:cool:

First, here is a shot showing what I think the issues with the deck park impact are being seen as.

2.JPG


So, if we take the left vertical as representing a solid wall, running right at the flight deck edge and proceeding to the stern, with the same on the right, then I could see the loss of from 1/3 to 2/3 of the deck park (which even I agree is going to make this a non-starter).

Below is another (very) crude attempt to display an alternative to the above.


1.JPG



In this image, let us assume that in a refit the carrier's hull is modified to accept supporting beams running up from the bottom of the hanger deck, that lean outwards, and then support the ELO as crudely shown, and further assume that the structure is not solid, but just a series of beams spaced down both sides of the flight deck, and outboard of the flight deck. This would add even more topweight than doing a straight up layout, and would indeed imply an "Elevated Landing On" deck even wider that the flight deck, with many issues for the field of fire for the AA guns as the least of the problems.

So for the last two questions on this (at least until I come up with yet another crazy, crackpot idea) concept:

#1) Couldn't the planes in the deck park be staged with their wings folded given sufficient overhead clearence? I ask this, because I honestly do not know weather or not a strike loaded craft can indeed have its wings folded. There may be reasons that such a thing couldn't be done (and probably are, else they would probably have done that), but who knows. If I don't ask the question, though, then no one can get a chance to answer it, and then someone else might come along years from now and either attempt a bit of necromancy, or, even worse, start their own thread and bring all this up again.

#2) If the second image can be taken to represent a set of outboard 'frames' that support the ELO, could this reduce or eliminate the impact on the deck park, in the case where the spotted strike cannot fold their wings? As noted above, this would have negative impact on topweight and stability, AA guns fields of fire and probably many other things not mentioned, as well.
 
Last edited:
#1) Couldn't the planes in the deck park be staged with their wings folded given sufficient overhead clearence? I ask this, because I honestly do not know weather or not a strike loaded craft can indeed have its wings folded.
No. "Spotting" an aircraft implies that it's been positioned, fueled, armed, and warmed up such that, when the word is given, it can gun the throttle, run forward, and take off. You can't have your wings folded and be "spotted"--you'd just be "parked"--it'd make this aft area even more of "just more hangar," like on Akagi or Furous (both of which had a "flying off deck" at the front of their upper hangars in their original configurations--and which in turn were modified to remove that same deck because a full-length hangar was more useful.

#2) If the second image can be taken to represent a set of outboard 'frames' that support the ELO, could this reduce or eliminate the impact on the deck park, in the case where the spotted strike cannot fold their wings? As noted above, this would have negative impact on topweight and stability, AA guns fields of fire and probably many other things not mentioned, as well.
The wingspan of a TBD Devastator torpedo bomber is 50 ft. The maximum beam of a Lexington class carrier was 106 ft. You'd need to extend the supports for the "landing-on" deck by a lot before I think it'd be anything approaching safe to try and take off--as is, even if it widens to the maximum beam of the ship (that is, it's even wider than those gun tubs and such you see off to the side of the deck in that image) there's be a bare foot or so between the outer wall and the wingtip of the planes spotted side-by-side--not a lot when you're trying to imagine taking off and accelerating on a pitching, rolling deck to seventy to a hundred mph.

And, as you say, topweight is sort of killer here--you end up with essentially a double-level hangar in any way you do it, and that's going to require designing from the hull up to keep enough weight (and the first, full-length hangar level) low enough to be stable. It's not going to be something you can just "add on" unless you want to end up with a death trap that capsizes in the first major storm it weathers.
 
No. "Spotting" an aircraft implies that it's been positioned, fueled, armed, and warmed up such that, when the word is given, it can gun the throttle, run forward, and take off. You can't have your wings folded and be "spotted"--you'd just be "parked"--it'd make this aft area even more of "just more hangar," like on Akagi or Furous (both of which had a "flying off deck" at the front of their upper hangars in their original configurations--and which in turn were modified to remove that same deck because a full-length hangar was more useful.

The wingspan of a TBD Devastator torpedo bomber is 50 ft. The maximum beam of a Lexington class carrier was 106 ft. You'd need to extend the supports for the "landing-on" deck by a lot before I think it'd be anything approaching safe to try and take off--as is, even if it widens to the maximum beam of the ship (that is, it's even wider than those gun tubs and such you see off to the side of the deck in that image) there's be a bare foot or so between the outer wall and the wingtip of the planes spotted side-by-side--not a lot when you're trying to imagine taking off and accelerating on a pitching, rolling deck to seventy to a hundred mph.

And, as you say, topweight is sort of killer here--you end up with essentially a double-level hangar in any way you do it, and that's going to require designing from the hull up to keep enough weight (and the first, full-length hangar level) low enough to be stable. It's not going to be something you can just "add on" unless you want to end up with a death trap that capsizes in the first major storm it weathers.
I recall reading about an old time sailing ship "Mary Rose", and I think that is where my 'add-on' ELO would be heading, unforntunately.

I was under the impression that the carriers only launched one plane at a time, as the bow was narrower than the midship flightdeck, and that they took off one after another, quickly as they could clear the deck?

On a side note; how long would it take to 'spot' a full airstrike, and how many planes would this be compared to the total complement of a given carrier? What I mean is, the carrier would likely have a CAP already airborne, so that would account for some planes, so what proportion of a CAG is likely to be assigned to a strike? Would some fighters be held back from both the CAP and Strike groups, so as to be able to rotate with the fighters in the air, once the Strike group was airborne?

Ok, well that about does it for this idea, I think. I think this concept would have likely been something only possible with the biplanes of the 1920's, but I wanted to run it by the forum anyway, just in case, lol.
 
Top