Best navalized military aircraft

I have read the above somewhere, yes Shinano did not carried an airgroup but she apparently did had a Shiden and Raiden doing tests on her (presumably a few landings and take-offs to see if they are suiatble to be used on a CV) that week before sinking.

Btw, i don't think she was commissioned in the true sense of the word at the time of the sinking, she was practically unfinished when she set sail, was supposed to get more work done on her, things like watertight doors and presumably other fittings. Her early departure was dictated by necessity.
 

fred1451

Banned
What's the first rule? Never comment on anything that could start another German carrier thread. Damn. I broke my own first rule with my first post. I will go and suitably chastise myself.
I thought rule one was not to mention the unnamable Sea Mammal?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Shinano never took an air group to sea, let alone had any deck landing trials. Her entire career as a commissioned warship lasted a week before being sunk.

Kawanshi was planning a carrier-based version of the N1K2 George fighter: not proceeded with.

She was "commissioned" well before a RN/USN ship would receive her formal commissioning, and well before the standard IJN practice, mainly to allow them to sail her across the Bay under her own power in hopes of avoiding damage by American bombers. She was a good six months from condition to allow builder's trials when she was sunk. It seems unlikely that there could have been any sort of deck trials run, she was limited to two of her four shaft due to bearing issues (again, goes back to the not really even close to ready) and her "top speed" seems to have been in the 18 knot range, which is far too slow to conduct proper flight operations, especially deck trials.

According to the TRM she had "six `Shinyo' suicide-boats, 50 Ohka rocket-bombs and personnel of the "Thunder-Gods" unit" aboard when she was lost. No mention is made of any other aircraft, although the presence of one or two that had been hoisted aboard can not be discounted.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Shinano.htm
 
Hawker Harrier was originally designed as a light strike airplane for the Royal Air Force.
Some RAF Harriers flew off Royal Navy carriers during the Falklands War. Sea Harriers provide top cover.

The USMC flew Harriers during both Gulf Wars and the War in Afghanistan. Leathernecks still fly AV-8B Harriers.

The Spanish, Italian and Indian Navies also bought Harriers.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hawker Harrier was originally designed as a light strike airplane for the Royal Air Force.
Some RAF Harriers flew off Royal Navy carriers during the Falklands War. Sea Harriers provide top cover.

The USMC flew Harriers during both Gulf Wars and the War in Afghanistan. Leathernecks still fly AV-8B Harriers.

The Spanish, Italian and Indian Navies also bought Harriers.

I wonder if they really count as navalized?

They lack the CATOBAR capability, don't even have an arresting hook.

Clever aircraft nonetheless. Loud as hell too. Makes an F-18 sound like a mouse wearing sneakers.
 
I wonder if they really count as navalized?

They lack the CATOBAR capability, don't even have an arresting hook.

Clever aircraft nonetheless. Loud as hell too. Makes an F-18 sound like a mouse wearing sneakers.

SHAR was 'navalised' in that some parts of the aircraft were changed from the Harrier design to use materials resistant to corrosion.

Obviously not navalised in the same way as a CATOBAR aircraft would need to be but it was a slightly different design to the land based models (excluding obvious design changes like the higher cockpit and bigger nose to accommodate a radar for the sea based fighter version which the land based strike version didn't have).
 
Surprised no one has mentioned this beauty. They've managed to make it do everything else. Heck, it probably would have managed to get in and out of that soccer stadium in Teheran if not for that unfortunate incident at Hulbert Field. :D

2015-08-29-00-24-17--500267779.jpeg
 
The Sea Harrier had quite a few things changed from the GR3 as part of its navalisation. The folding nose is one for starters, the GR3s inertial navigation was too hard to align on a ships deck so was changed to NAVHARS, magnesium engine casings were changed to aluminium as were 7 other magnesium parts. Tie down lugs and an independent braking system were installed and the Reaction Control System was given increased sensitivity for better control in the hover under turbulent ship borne conditions. The changes to the RCS strikes me as an important change to cope with the carrier environment, as do the navigation and folding nose.
 
The Sea Harrier had quite a few things changed from the GR3 as part of its navalisation. The folding nose is one for starters, the GR3s inertial navigation was too hard to align on a ships deck so was changed to NAVHARS, magnesium engine casings were changed to aluminium as were 7 other magnesium parts. Tie down lugs and an independent braking system were installed and the Reaction Control System was given increased sensitivity for better control in the hover under turbulent ship borne conditions. The changes to the RCS strikes me as an important change to cope with the carrier environment, as do the navigation and folding nose.

I wasn't aware of the folding nose - I've only ever been up close to a GR.

How did it fold - over to one side (presumably right back to that it sat alongside the fuselage) or up like a miniature cargo plane?
 
What's the first rule? Never comment on anything that could start another German carrier thread. Damn. I broke my own first rule with my first post. I will go and suitably chastise myself.

Too late:D. But have no fear. FW-190 appears too late for my threads.
So seriously, relevant for all navalization concepts. Range and loiter time does become relatively more important. Not just the undercarriage.
 
I wasn't aware of the folding nose - I've only ever been up close to a GR.

How did it fold - over to one side (presumably right back to that it sat alongside the fuselage) or up like a miniature cargo plane?

It folds to the side, the right I think.
 
What about a Hawker 'Sea' Hunter?

500837w1.jpg


As far as I can tell the Royal navy only ever used it as a shore based aircraft for training purposes etc.

It was a solid design (the Hunter that crashed at Shoreham last weekend was expected to still be flying in 60 years time as far as air worthiness was concerned!) - probably the best of its peers and tough enough I would have thought for carrier life.
 
I wonder how an IL2 would stack up as a carrier based attack aircraft. I could see a few Zeros shooting at it and running out of ammo then ramming it to stop it.
 
I wonder how an IL2 would stack up as a carrier based attack aircraft. I could see a few Zeros shooting at it and running out of ammo then ramming it to stop it.

Given that about half of the 10,000 odd Il2s shot down during the war were shot down by similarly armed German Fighters (ie a mix of 20mm cannon and rifle calibre MGs) - I seriously doubt that the A6M would have problems shooting it down.
 
Given that about half of the 10,000 odd Il2s shot down during the war were shot down by similarly armed German Fighters (ie a mix of 20mm cannon and rifle calibre MGs) - I seriously doubt that the A6M would have problems shooting it down.

The Sturmovik was armored to deal with ground fire, it was vulnerable to attack from above. Erich Hartmann shot down droves of them.
 
The Sturmovik was armored to deal with ground fire, it was vulnerable to attack from above. Erich Hartmann shot down droves of them.

Erich Hartmann was taught how to shoot down a Sturmovik by other German aces, who had found the weak spot, the back of the radiator situated under the belly. Where the air comes out, bullets go in. It's tricky in the case of an Il-2, jinking at very low altitude, but not impossible, as evident by the hundreds of photos of crash-landed Sturmoviks. The engine stops when the juice runs out. It wasn't only the nazis that blamed the juice for everything.
 
Too late:D. But have no fear. FW-190 appears too late for my threads.
So seriously, relevant for all navalization concepts. Range and loiter time does become relatively more important. Not just the undercarriage.

Nearly 36 hours and I still haven't risen to it. Is anyone impressed?
 
Top