for a potential atl carrier the SS Normandie is an option. They wanted to convert her to a carrier at one time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Normandie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Normandie
Actually, it delayed the launch of the Ryūhō until November due to having received a 500 pound bomb in the bow region, and also all but forced Yamamoto's hand on going after Midway.The Doolittle raid was entirely a propaganda victory, it achieved no quantitative strategic goals.
Yeah, search aircraft are going to be all out west, so don't expect much peace.cotton on = ???![]()
You need to revise that, submarines don't do well when you cut big holes in the pressure hull.If I was planning to attempt to use a submarine as a seaplane tender, the first thing I would do is design it to suit that purpose, and a conning tower is going to kinda be in the way. If I had a conning tower at all, then I would have to build a sloping back deck so the seaplane could be catapulted off {if I were going to go with a catapult assisted take off}. If I am just going to have them on a "service" deck type of arrangement, where the seaplane motors astride the back of the sub for servicing, then the conning tower typical of a regular {unmodified} submarine design would not be in the way, but I would still need something like a hanger that could be made dry when on the surface, and this is where the consumabales would be transfered. In other words, stuff would be moved out of the pressure hull horizontally into the 'hangar' area, and then wheeled up under the seaplane. No loading unloading woult take place through the conning tower. Only a specalized submarine would be used for this purpose.![]()
If I was planning to attempt to use a submarine as a seaplane tender, the first thing I would do is design it to suit that purpose, and a conning tower is going to kinda be in the way. If I had a conning tower at all, then I would have to build a sloping back deck so the seaplane could be catapulted off {if I were going to go with a catapult assisted take off}. If I am just going to have them on a "service" deck type of arrangement, where the seaplane motors astride the back of the sub for servicing, then the conning tower typical of a regular {unmodified} submarine design would not be in the way, but I would still need something like a hanger that could be made dry when on the surface, and this is where the consumabales would be transfered. In other words, stuff would be moved out of the pressure hull horizontally into the 'hangar' area, and then wheeled up under the seaplane. No loading unloading woult take place through the conning tower. Only a specalized submarine would be used for this purpose.
A PBY doesn't seem to fit well. You're actually considering lowering an elevator into the prop wash at 32 knots? And its support structure? While a seaplane lands in the shadow of the ship and taxis right on, and stops?
I guess this depends. If I have the chance to launch a seaplane/floatplane from the flightdeck, does this not allow for a greater payload to be carried aloft, even without a catapult assist? If this payload in partially extra fuel, then I get more range from such a launch than a water takeoff, right? At least, this is my understanding, so correct me if I am wrong on the physics of this.I wonder why on earth you want to have a flyingboat take of from a flightdeck, as it is equally well suited to use the water as take of platform. A simple solution would be to use the crane and put the ugly duck in the water, where it belongs, having it use the same water as it is naturally designed for.
Landing a flyiing boat on a flightdeck is equally not logical either, as it can use the water near the ship, with much saver consequenses, not scaring the hell out of the flightdeck crew, seeing the big beast slowly comming to them, with no margins for errors, given the lack of space on the deck. In that case the ship does not have to be an aircraft carrier all the way. A converted minesweeper as tender would suffice, as long as it can fuel the plane and arm it, if that is what you want.
Am I missing something, but why wouldn't the "better" WW2 US carrier just be one that introduced the angled flight deck earlier, allowing catapult assisted takeoffs and landings to take place simultaneously? And I still don't get the reason for the stern elevator and flying boats
I don't know if this counts, but you can draw using your computer by using MS Paint.Ok, so does anyone have any experience with any of these programs? I don't have all that much free time, so if anyone has used these CAD programs and can direct me to a good one, please do.
http://blog.dreamcss.com/design-tool/free-computer-aided-design-software/
Otherwise, I'll just have to post hand drawn images to get the discussion going.
So, last chance to avoid my hand drawn images, lol.
It's already been said a number of times but "Too many elevators!" If you're serious about improved aircraft handling then go directly to the angled deck concept. You can then have room for the 3 deck edge elevators (see CVN class carriers for placement) and since the WW2 planes were smaller than today's jets look for more storage and handling room as well. These also solved the problems of a centerline elevator being jammed in the down position or even blown off by enemy fire.
Seaplanes are by this time better served by land bases if available. Basing carrier sized seaplanes on a CV is just a waste of space if it's scouting range isn't clearly superior to the aircraft already being carried.
I'm not an expert on naval AA guns but I think CV's were better off with the 5" dual purpose guns that were used later in the war. All of the smaller sized guns were used to fill in the gaps and blind spots on the carrier. So more guns just isn't the answer.
Am I missing something, but why wouldn't the "better" WW2 US carrier just be one that introduced the angled flight deck earlier, allowing catapult assisted takeoffs and landings to take place simultaneously? And I still don't get the reason for the stern elevator and flying boats