Actually, given those numbers, you can design your own CV spec, too. If I want this:
- 24xF-4
- 36xA-4
- 2xRF-4
- 4xE-2
- 3xSH-3 (assuming a det. of 6 total)
Now I just need names...
Last edited:
Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier
- Thread starter SsgtC
- Start date
Now I just need names...
The closest is probably the French PA.58 design. Slightly longer than Essex to fit the larger aircraft, two 246-foot catapults (C-11 is 225-foot) to give you more margin launching F-4s, and above all a modern design better suited to lug the amount of fuel and munitions you'll need.Actually, given those numbers, you can design your own CV spec, too. If I want this:
I need a carrier of a size I can calculate. (I haven't, just spitballing numbers.) Given aircraft weights, I also know what spec catapults & arrestor gear I'm going to need. That gives me a pretty good idea what operational performance will look like, & what OTL CV is close(est) in design or appearance.
- 24xF-4
- 36xA-4
- 4xE-2
- 3xSH-3 (assuming a det. of 6 total)
Now I just need names...
Thx.
Hadn't really thought about it. (I was actually thinking more of all-fictional a/c types anyhow, & using OTL analogs to measure by. )I'd guess it was the serious amount of re-engineering needed to make the Speys fit & breathe correctly.
It was. It also sharply reduced their top speed because the Spey is descended from a subsonic engine and so doesn't handle supersonic speeds well.
Riain
Banned
They Spey was chosen for a number of reasons that are specific to British requirements and not needed by the US. First and foremost the Spey provides a lot more bleed air to the far more powerful BLC blown flaps, as well as considerably more overall power particularly at low level. This gives good performance at heavy weights and slow speeds to facilitate the RN requirement to bring unused bombs back to the ship, whereas the USN jettisons them. The Spey also give better fuel economy than the J79, in the order of 10-15%, which reduces the pressure on the fuel bunkers of RN carriers somewhat, as they fuel and ordnance capacity of British carriers is considerably less than the USN supercarriers. Then there's the industrial, financial and political advantages of using a British engine, the RN Phantom deal specified 40% British content in the aircraft for it to go ahead.
What I do find strange is that the USN didn't adopt the other RN things that would have been easy wins; the extended nosewheel oleo and drooping airlerons which reduce takeoff speed requirements by ~15 knots.
What I do find strange is that the USN didn't adopt the other RN things that would have been easy wins; the extended nosewheel oleo and drooping airlerons which reduce takeoff speed requirements by ~15 knots.
I've mentioned this before, but they didn't need to reduce the takeoff speed requirements. They weren't interested in operating Phantoms off the Essex-class, and so there wasn't nearly the same pressure to reduce takeoff speeds to get them off very small decks (which Eagle and Ark Royal were in comparison to a Midway, let alone one of the supercarriers).
The US also had vastly more powerful catapults than the RN did. The C7 could launch a 40,000 pound aircraft at 149 knots, while even the shorter C11 could manage 135 or so at the same weight. The BS4 and BS5 series struggled to get 40,000 pounds over 100 knots IIRC. And this doesn't even get into the C13 range which can sling 80,000 pounds down the cat at 140 knots.
Edit to add: the F-4J did have drooping ailerons.
Riain
Banned
Yeah, the Essex were a threat to new construction so it was bad policy for the USN to facilitate the drastic improvement of their Air Group. What's more improved Phantoms are a threat to the Tomcat, so similarly it was bad policy to facilitate the drastic improvement of the Phantom.
And ironically was the hottest Phantom on takeoff, compared to the F-4B and F-4S.
Well, IIRC, the drooping airlerons and slats weren't really intended to reduce the takeoff speed. They were meant the Phantom more agile in air to air combat. Any reductions in take off speed were just a bonus.
The aircraft in the bottom left of the picture look like P.1154RNs. What are the aircraft in the bottom right?
I'm by no means expert (to say the least
), but this makes me wonder if the spot factor calculations are off somewhere. That is, is the assumption of SF=1 based on the right type? Even allowing it varies by era.Given SF does vary, is it certain Forrestals and Essexes would use the same basis? (Yeah, I know, the idea is to compare based on a common number; is it certain that's been done correctly?)
I don't mean to beat a dead horse over it, & all the work done to produce the tables of figures
eek: ) is deeply appreciated. Like the rest of us, I think, I'm just hoping we can nail down the inconsistency & understand the reason(s).Anybody who feels this is past its sell-by date, feel free to ignore it.
Edit (& nitpick alert
):That'd be Perrys.
(Spellcheck is a PITA sometimes, no? )I can't imagine it. Two down for maintenance (or as spares), sure, but if they're ashore, they're no good to you.
I had a thought: the Essexes, being more expendable (vastly cheaper), might be more readily used than a CVN, sent into areas you wouldn't want to risk a Nimitz.
Last edited: