Carrier operations.....

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks Mike!

 

[Wildcat]

Great post Rich! Love the old Kingfisher.:cool;

 

[SlickDriver]

My question is that several CVs, CVLs, and CVEs were used at various times as aircraft ferries.

Does anybody know how many aircraft they could carry? Norman Friedman's Aircraft Carrier book has a chart with the capacity of planned conversions of liners, but not of the carriers themselves.

Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[renrich]

Mighty fine stuff

 

[R Leonard]

Rich, do you have any photos of elisted pilots - the old "AP" Rating?

Probably nothing that can't be found on the internet or in right sort of book. The trick is knowing their names. Sometime you run across Lieutenant so and so or even Commander so and so, and if you did not know the gent started as an NAP you might pass him over. Great example would be Ken Walsh. . . got his wings as a Corporal, made Tech Sergeant, and then Marine Gunner, before getting a commission. Retired as a Colonel, I believe, with THE Medal. Another you might miss unless you just happened to know he was an old NAP would be "Pappy" Gunn of the "let's see how many guns we can put on one of these" B-25 fame.

Walsh, then Gunn

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey, I have Walsh's autograph!

 

[R Leonard]

One of my Dad's favorite stories was that when VF-11 left Guadalcanal in late July 1943, they flew their trusty F4F-4s down to Espiritu Santos where they turned them in and awaited transport stateside. Staging through, headed north, was VF-33 with some brand new F6F*3s. The VF-33 types were nice enough to let some of the senior VF-11 types try out their mounts (Dad was Exec by then). He made three flights in the Hellcats, one of which was in mock combat with an F4U piloted by none other than Ken Walsh. Dad said he was a pretty good stick, they agreed it was about even. I met Walsh once many years later, in company with himself, and watched bemused as they yucked it up. As was my experience with the vast majority of these WWII aviator types, Walsh was just another super nice guy who, if you didn't know the story, you'd probably never guess.

Rich

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very cool Rich - I met him when I was about 19. I read about him in the books "Airwar." I think he was out at the Chino airshow. Super nice guy, spoke with me for about a half hour, gave me a lot of encouragement in getting into aviation.


Do you know if he's still alive? That meeting was almost 30 years ago.

 

[AV8]

I think the Midway class COULD oeprate F-14s. But, a Midway class could not both launch and recover at the same time ... and obviously could not carry many F-14s.

The takeoff and landing areas would overlap, but it could be done. The question is, why would anyone DO it?

Larger carriers were MUCH more practical, could carry more fuel and aircraft, And for how long could a Midway-class carrier supply fuel to F-14s?

If I am not mistaken, all you need is 266 feet to launch and a similar but slightly longer area to land. The difference in landing area would be to maneuver the landed aircraft out of the way before the next victim traps ... and, of course, a bolter would be catastrophic without and angled flight deck.

But, it COULD be done, even if VERY inconveniently.

 

[R Leonard]

Do you know if he's still alive? That meeting was almost 30 years ago.

I think he moved on about 10 years ago.

R

 

[R Leonard]

As far as I know, neither F-14 squadrons nor S-3 dets were assigned to Midway class carriers. For fighters they went straight from F-4s to F-18s. While there was, no doubt, at least one landing or launch of an F-14 from a Midway class, it is equally certain that it was not done on a regular basis, and not by an assigned aircraft.

No point in deliberately putting airplanes on your carrier when their operation would be so pointedly cumbersome and dangerous. So, they didn't.

Rich

 

[Lucky13]

S-3 Vikings making a rare visit on USS Coral Sea during 1985/86.

And an even rarer visit by a Tomcat on the Ageless Warrior...

They were way too large to be effectively operated on the Midway class carriers....

But, what do you say about this visitor then....also on Coral Sea.

 

[R Leonard]

One of just seven (7!!!) F-11B's built. This one is b/n 151974 during the July 1968 carrier trials. The trials confirmed what the Navy already knew, as a carrier plane the thing was an overweight, underpowered piece of junk. As Tom Connelly said, "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!" There were folks in DODR&E who were also aware of the 111Bs dismal carrier capabilities and kept the DCNO-Air up to speed on the latest shenanigans. Bottom line was that one F-111B was on the Coral Sea for trials. It was proven, just as all suspected, again, overweight and underpowered, had poor approach visibility and unable to maintain level flight with only one engine. The irony of the Coral Sea trial was that it took place just as the stop work order was being issued. The Navy recommended that the project be ended in October 1967. Congress cut off further funding in May of 1968, the stop work order was issued in July, and the contract terminated in December. The last F-111B was delivered in February 1969. A lot of politics involved in this . . . Texas company, a President from Texas, and powerful Armed Forces Committee senator from Texas kept up with a constant "are you sure . . .?" "what if they . . .?" "wouldn't this solve . . .?" and so on. Thank goodness the bean counters (and make no mistake, I am a bean counter) didn't win that one.

Photos aside, if you check squadrons and their complements deployed on the Midway class carriers, you'll quickly see that there were never any F-14 squadrons or S-3 squadron detachments assigned to these ships. There are photos of B-25s landing and taking off from carriers, too, but that doesn't mean they were assigned as part of an air group. Same could be said for the P-51.

Rich

 

[Mike64]

I think the Midway class COULD oeprate F-14s. But, a Midway class could not both launch and recover at the same time ... and obviously could not carry many F-14s.

The takeoff and landing areas would overlap, but it could be done. The question is, why would anyone DO it?

Larger carriers were MUCH more practical, could carry more fuel and aircraft, And for how long could a Midway-class carrier supply fuel to F-14s?

If I am not mistaken, all you need is 266 feet to launch and a similar but slightly longer area to land. The difference in landing area would be to maneuver the landed aircraft out of the way before the next victim traps ... and, of course, a bolter would be catastrophic without and angled flight deck.

But, it COULD be done, even if VERY inconveniently.

Midway Class, or any angle deck CVA / CV / CVAN / CVN could launch and recover at the same time, but not very easily!

On Midway, even after her 2nd "weird" conversion, with only 2 C-13 bow cats, you could do one of two things:

1: Make a "hole" in the landing pattern - have a plane extend downwind before turning in, making an extra long interval between him and the one on final. This gives time to pull an airplane across the foul line, onto a bow (or waist on biger ones), shoot it, then start recovering again. This is not unusual, in order to launch extra CAP or a tanker in the middle of a recovery.

2. Even on the ESSEX conversions, you could stash one or two aircaft up against the side or front of the Island, and get him to Cat 1 (starboard bow) and shoot them.

Neither method is pretty, and it takes REAL close coordination - even today on a NIMITZ Class, shooting a tanker off the waist in the middle of a recovery, at night - is a real thrill for everyone concerned.

MIDWAY could physically shoot and trap F-14's, but they would take up too much room (F-14s were called "Turkeys" -), and intermediate and organizational maintenance support was going to be just too hard, hence the direct F-4 to F/A-18 transition.

C-13 cats have a total deckplate length of 310 feet, a power stroke of 302 feet. Mk-3 arresting gear has a deck runout of 310 feet. You need 110 feet before the #1 wire (3.0 deg glideslope and 14.7 ft "Hook to Ramp" distance), 40 ft between wires, bolter and turnout space for an airplane, not just runout and bolter space.

The original CV-41 Class angle deck conversions had C-11 cats, shorter, but the limit on launch speeds were normally structural on the airplane, not cat capacity. Same thing with arrestments.

I am not sure about the F/A-18 C/D, but at least until recently the critical factor for minimum wind acroos the deck for arrestments with today's Mk7-3 arresting gear was the E-2C; its fuselage, hook point and sink rate limits dictated about 26 knots of wind for recovery.

My point in all this is, Carriers can do a lot of things, but long term operability and support of any aircraft type is a feature most people don't appreciate.

My best example of big airplanes and small decks is the good old KA-3D; that big bitch operated routinely in 4-plane dets on ESSEX Carriers at full weights, with cat strokes of 204 feet, and arresting gear runouts of about 214 feet. Now, there's a REAL eye opener, and a TOUGH tailhook!

 

[Mike64]

My question is that several CVs, CVLs, and CVEs were used at various times as aircraft ferries.

Does anybody know how many aircraft they could carry? Norman Friedman's Aircraft Carrier book has a chart with the capacity of planned conversions of liners, but not of the carriers themselves.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Slick - the answer is:

However many would fit!

It depended on type of aircraft, or the mix - obviously. However, these small ships had to make sure they were ballasted properly, or they would be top heavy, and be goosey in roll recovery. Of course, that's true of any ship.

Aircraft were typically hoisted on and off by crane, off/on from barges or pierside.

Hope this is of some help -

 

[pbfoot]

Recently I was called "crab fat" by some carrier guys in fun (I hope) I know it is derogatory but does anyone know the meaning.

 

[Mike64]

I think the Midway class COULD oeprate F-14s. But, a Midway class could not both launch and recover at the same time ... and obviously could not carry many F-14s.

The takeoff and landing areas would overlap, but it could be done. The question is, why would anyone DO it?

Larger carriers were MUCH more practical, could carry more fuel and aircraft, And for how long could a Midway-class carrier supply fuel to F-14s?

If I am not mistaken, all you need is 266 feet to launch and a similar but slightly longer area to land. The difference in landing area would be to maneuver the landed aircraft out of the way before the next victim traps ... and, of course, a bolter would be catastrophic without and angled flight deck.

But, it COULD be done, even if VERY inconveniently.

AV8 - I misspoke -

You need about 280 feet from the ramp to the #1 CDP (cross deck pendant), not 110. I was thinking of the sheave to sheave distance of the arresting gear width.

Mike

 

[SlickDriver]

Mike64,

I'm afraid that didn't answer the question at all.

During the war there were basically two sizes of aircraft to be moved fighters (P-39, 40, 47, 51) sized and medium bomber/large fighter (P-38, B-25, 26, A-20, 26) sized aircraft. Large bombers were not transported that way.

And there was two methods to move them on aircraft transports. Storage and Ready to use or fly off.

The 1st method was as you described. All they could fit and not capsize, many times the aircraft were even partially disassembled as well to take up even less deck space. The 2nd method was used to fly off the aircraft. That was done during the landings in the Doolittle Raid, North Africa and many Pacific Islands. These aircraft were not disassembled and the bow of the carrier had sufficient space to fly off the aircraft, even though they were not capable of landing. Their own aircraft usually were the ones that they could carry in their hangers, since Army birds wouldn't fold to fit on the elevators.

I was hoping for a ball park figure of the carrier capacities in the 2 methods. I know that there were 16 B-25s carried on the Hornet.

 

[blu3y4]

gee it would be fun to be in the middle with a few kamikazees flying at ya.

good times...........................

 

[Mike64]

Mike64,

I'm afraid that didn't answer the question at all.

During the war there were basically two sizes of aircraft to be moved fighters (P-39, 40, 47, 51) sized and medium bomber/large fighter (P-38, B-25, 26, A-20, 26) sized aircraft. Large bombers were not transported that way.

And there was two methods to move them on aircraft transports. Storage and Ready to use or fly off.

The 1st method was as you described. All they could fit and not capsize, many times the aircraft were even partially disassembled as well to take up even less deck space. The 2nd method was used to fly off the aircraft. That was done during the landings in the Doolittle Raid, North Africa and many Pacific Islands. These aircraft were not disassembled and the bow of the carrier had sufficient space to fly off the aircraft, even though they were not capable of landing. Their own aircraft usually were the ones that they could carry in their hangers, since Army birds wouldn't fold to fit on the elevators.

I was hoping for a ball park figure of the carrier capacities in the 2 methods. I know that there were 16 B-25s carried on the Hornet.

OK, Slick - I see what you mean now. I thought you meant Carriers that had officially been converted and redesignated as aircraft transports, not for flight operations.