ATL USN carriers.

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?

DamPlate1.jpg
 
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.
 
The Doolittle raid was entirely a propaganda victory, it achieved no quantitative strategic goals.
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.

cotton on = ???:confused:
Yeah, search aircraft are going to be all out west, so don't expect much peace.

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.:)
You need to revise that, submarines don't do well when you cut big holes in the pressure hull.
 
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 logic 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.
 
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.

I don't see the necessity for a catapult for launching a seaplane. Just let it taxi using the sea - thats what it is designed for.

Your supplies, etc. could be stored in a pressured hanger, such as mounted on the French submarine Surcouf. The US Navy did experiment with submarine launched aircraft after the Great War. One design had an exterior pressurized hanger aft the conning tower containing the partly dismantled aircraft. The submarine would surface and the aircraft quickly put together and then the stern ballast tanks would be flooded to permit the aircraft to ride down a short track into the water.

What would work would be the US Navy working with Martin, for instance, on a large seaplane that be designed with sufficient clearance between her waterline and the propellers to allow fuselage to come closer to a submarine. Basically the submarine when surfaced and servicing the seaplane would be 'tucked' under its wing.

Realistically, the weapons platform is too specialized to be worth the expense.
 
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?











This seems more to scale, as the infailable wiki lists the yorktown class as 109.5' at flightdeck, and the PBY as 104'. Here is an image of the B-25' lined up on the flight deck.
http://imageshack.us/a/img577/1856/b25onhornet.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
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.:eek:

Lets introduce the concept of a twin-engined aircraft, with the ability to land aboard ship or in the water {this gives us all we need for the basics} behind the ship. Now lets depart from the concept that these aircraft must be slow, ungangly, and huge. If the US is working to create something like a floatplane fighter/divebomber, then maybe the image we should have in mind is more akin to the P-38, than the PBY. I'll post some aircraft pics later tonight, and will include both allied and axis flying boats, and floatplanes, and then I'll also upload my {I warned ya} hand drawn concepts of how I would see improvements being made to get combat worthy aircraft of these types.

Anyway, I meant to get working on my homework about 45 minutes ago, so that's all till later tonight.

Also, thank you everyone for your input and interest.:)
 
Last edited:
This is an idea I worked on for one of ASB threads. It's a Yorktown with the three elevators moved to deck edge positions

ktiEwNg.gif


One issue with the carrier in the OP is that it wouldn't fit through the Panama canal locks. A WWII ship with elevators on both deck edges will need folding elevators like the Essex class had.
 
I get the idea, though there are indeed physics to take into account, simply as a relatively small and lightly build carrier, such as the pre WW2 period USN ships, with their hangar and flightdeck as superstructure, rather than stronger integrated part of the main hull, such as the British al;ready had addopted. A wooden flightdeck might be a bit too vulnerable to allow a large aircraft, even without fuel and payload, to land on, as it can crash through the flightdeck, wrecking everything in the hangars. Weight is an issue, as was shown after WW2 with the change to jet propulsion, with heavier aircraft again. Strengthening the flightdeck of a Yorktown type is adding heavy weight high up in the ship, making it dangereously unstable. You will need to increase the size of the hull then, forcing you again to add weight up, on the now increased length of the flightdeck, making it again topheavy. Perhaps designing a compeltely new ship might be better than, as you can then calculate all from the start.
 
By the way, twin engined carrier aircraft had been proposed, but were all dropped, as better suited single engined ones were thought to be better.


XF5F Skyrocket


RoleNaval fighterManufacturerGrummanFirst flight1 April 1940Retired11 December 1944Number built1VariantsGrumman XP-50

F7F Tigercat


F7F-3P preserved in United States Marine Corps markings in flight.
 
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
 
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

This is CV-2 modified with a painted on angled deck (stolen from HMAS Melborne) and a enlarged aft elevator. I proposed this as a training and evaluation carrier for the 817 thread in ASB.

g3nIdhg.jpg


This is a modified Essex carefully designed to have a maximum width of 108' to pass through the Panama Canal.

HhLVSfi.jpg
 
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.:eek:

So, last chance to avoid my hand drawn images, lol.
I don't know if this counts, but you can draw using your computer by using MS Paint.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.

The light (20-25mm and odd .50 cal machine gun) and medium (40mm) AAA was meant to be part of the "wall of steel" that would dissuade enemy aircraft from making a close approach. While it worked fairly well before the onset of the kamikaze war time testing indicated that you were far better served with a smaller number of radar directed intermediate caliber (75-76mm) than the more numerous manually aimed 40mm guns, something that was even the case before the introduction of the proximity fuse (a development that revolutionized the AAA business).

The big mistake, and one that the IJN made, was to expect the carrier to be heavily armed enough defend itself (Japanese carrier were armed with 16 127mm guns and close to 100 light AAA even early in the war giving them far more AAA throw weight than their U.S./UK opponents). American, and to a slightly lesser degree, British doctrine was to allow the escorting ships to assume a great deal of the AAA coverage for the carrier (American carriers, depending on class mounted between 8x1 to 6x2 5"/38 heavy AAA, but early in the war only carried 4x4 medium and 24 light AAA + up to 24 machine guns. By the end of the war the number of medium and light AAA grew as the kamikaze threat became clear). Japanese pilots were consistently amazed by the sheer volume of AAA that the USN threw at attackers, this was mainly due to the fact the IJN doctrine emphasized the ship to ship role of cruisers compared to the USN.

As an example the Tone class had a main battery of 4x2 203mm guns with a secondary armament of 8 127mm/30 DP guns, but no medium AAA at all and an ever increasing number of light AAA, however the ships also carried 12 torpedo tubes (and these were for the huge 24" Long Lance torpedo), while the Mogami class upped the 203mm battery to 10 guns (5x2). It is fair to say that IJN cruisers could barely protect themselves, much less assist in the defense of their carriers.

The contemporary USN Baltimore class CA carried the standard USN 3x3 8" (203mm) and a similar ever increasing number of light AAA, but carried 12 5"/38 DP and 48 medium AAA (40mm). The American design gave up a significant offensive punch by omitting torpedoes, instead devoting the space and weight to additional AAA. A similar, even more dramatic divergence in design thought can be seen in the battleship weapon layouts of the IJN and USN.

Early in the war, the Japanese decision to have torpedoes seemed to be a good choice (although the overall record of the Long Lance is not what myth would have you believe), but as the war progressed the American decision to devote space and weight to defense proved to be the better long term decision.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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

Add in Steam catapults to replace the hydraulic versions used in the war, and you have the design that has been the centerpiece of the USN since the mid-50s.
 
Top