This is going to be epic !

Quote from: Captain Canada on December 07, 2022, 04:38:34 PMThis is going to be epic !

Actually, I think the word you meant to say was HUGE.

Although your not putting F-18's on deck, how big is a B-29? I am thinking that quite a few aircraft types might have enough deck to take-off from if there was a strong headwind.

Gondor

The thing was intended to be able to operate Lancasters at least IIRC.

Funny, that.

I do 3D resin printing and I have an .stl file for a decently detailed Lancaster... as well as other WW2 bombers/fighters. Making some 1/350 Lanc's would be a cool addition.

Quote from: Gondor on December 08, 2022, 06:00:50 AMAlthough your not putting F-18's on deck, how big is a B-29? I am thinking that quite a few aircraft types might have enough deck to take-off from if there was a strong headwind.

Gondor

QuoteThe thing was intended to be able to operate Lancasters at least IIRC.

As usual, there is no specific information about what types of aircraft the Habakkuk was to carry, amounts of aircraft, or even the sizes and mission types.
All there is are "generic" guesses which list anywhere from 100-200 aircraft being carried, and types being the Supermarine Seafire and the deHavilland Mosquito.
Other British and/or U.S. aircraft may be carried depending on size, type, and mission. But nothing bigger than the British Mosquito twin-engine bomber due to internal hangar size and/or runway length limitations. Any aircraft embarked inside need to have foldable wing systems. Primary aircraft types/missions are Anti-submarine patrol, Fighter defense, and Search & Rescue. Any aircraft bigger than a British Mosquito bomber without foldable wing systems must remain on the flight deck.
Aircraft runway is about 2,000 feet long x 200 feet wide. The Habakkuk is 300 feet wide, but I left off 50 feet on either side of the hull/flight deck because of the island superstructure and all the gun emplacements being in the way. So the true width of the flight deck is probably 200 feet. Roughly 600,000 square feet (Approx. 13-14 acres.). Aircraft that require longer takeoff or landing distance greater than 2,000 ft will not be able to land or takeoff from the Habakkuk.
I CONSTANTLY see people mentioning or wanting bigger aircraft to take off from the Habakkuk. It ain't going to happen. To really know whether a large aircraft like the B-29 (or anything else)  could land or take off from the Habakkuk, you'd have to find out what it's take off or landing distance is. How much runway length does it need? If it requires close to 2,000 feet or more, it ain't going to work. The B-29 is ill suited for use on the Habakkuk. It's mission is not anti-submarine patrol. And I think it's too large with a length of almost 100 feet and wingspan of 141 feet.
The Habakkuk was designed to help fight the German uboat menace in the North Atlantic. That's why you need aircraft with that specific mission in mind.

But you also need to take into account that the ship will be moving and creating a wind over the deck. That will lessen the take-off distance.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 08, 2022, 11:15:58 AMBut you also need to take into account that the ship will be moving and creating a wind over the deck. That will lessen the take-off distance.

The Habakkuk won't be moving THAT much. It's top designed speed was no more than about 6-7 knots which was about 8 miles or 13 kilometers per hour. That's kinda like a slow crawl almost.
At that kind of speed, it would take the Habakkuk at least a dozen or more miles just to make a turn into the wind. And it would be a very WIDE turn too with a big arc as the Habakkuk did not have a rudder. It's possible that catapults could be used to help launch aircraft. But there were no plans at all to install aircraft catapults on the Habakkuk from the research I've done. Any sketches and diagrams that show them are just artist interpretations. Not official designs.

Quote from: seadude on December 08, 2022, 08:15:48 AMI CONSTANTLY see people mentioning or wanting bigger aircraft to take off from the Habakkuk. It ain't going to happen. To really know whether a large aircraft like the B-29 (or anything else)  could land or take off from the Habakkuk, you'd have to find out what it's take off or landing distance is. How much runway length does it need? If it requires close to 2,000 feet or more, it ain't going to work. The B-29 is ill suited for use on the Habakkuk. It's mission is not anti-submarine patrol. And I think it's too large with a length of almost 100 feet and wingspan of 141 feet.
The Habakkuk was designed to help fight the German uboat menace in the North Atlantic. That's why you need aircraft with that specific mission in mind.

I was not being particularly serious with the suggestion as I had no idea the size of the largest aircraft it would board. Sea Mosquito's would be a good call for one of the posible aircraft to be onboard.

Gondor

A Sea Lancaster with folding wings would be a sight to behold.

The way I see it Seadude, the lack of any real specific information on the Habakkuk is a good thing as it encourages you to use your imagination freely.

QuoteSea Mosquito's would be a good call for one of the posible aircraft to be onboard.

Yes they would. Unfortuneately, that particular variant was developed/built far too late in the war to be of much use. From what I remember, only 50 aircraft were built. But............that's not going to stop me from adding some to my model if I can.

Sea Mosquito: (from Wikipedia)

QuoteTo meet specification N.15/44 for a navalised Mosquito for Royal Navy use as a torpedo bomber, de Havilland produced a carrier-borne variant. A Mosquito FB.VI was modified as a prototype designated Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33 with folding wings, arrester hook, thimble nose radome, Merlin 25 engines with four-bladed propellers and a new oleo-pneumatic landing gear rather than the standard rubber-in-compression gear. Initial carrier tests of the Sea Mosquito were carried out by Eric "Winkle" Brown aboard HMS Indefatigable, the first landing-on taking place on 25 March 1944. An order for 100 TR.33s was placed although only 50 were built at Leavesden. Armament was four 20 mm cannon, two 500 lb bombs in the bomb bay (another two could be fitted under the wings), eight 60 lb rockets (four under each wing) and a standard torpedo under the fuselage. The first production TR.33 flew on 10 November 1945. This series was followed by six Sea Mosquito TR Mk 37s, which differed in having ASV Mk XIII radar instead of the TR.33's AN/APS-6.

QuoteA Sea Lancaster with folding wings would be a sight to behold.

The way I see it Seadude, the lack of any real specific information on the Habakkuk is a good thing as it encourages you to use your imagination freely.

Yes, I can use my imagination if I so choose. But at the same time, I also want to create a somewhat "technically believeable" Habakkuk too. I want to stay within the realm of what's plausible without going too far off the wacky and wild path. Could a Lancaster take off or land on a Habakkuk? Should it? I don't know. I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't. What I am saying is that to know what types of aircraft would be embarked on the Habakkuk, you have to look at what the missions of the ship were. Just because the Habakkuk has this nice big 2,000 foot long flight deck does not in any way mean that every and any type of aircraft can land or take off on the ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carrier-based_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Fleet_Air_Arm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II

But still, this does not "specifically" answer the question of what aircraft types, names, etc. would be carried by a Habakkuk type ship. But at least these links provide a better understanding of all available aircraft types that were used by the U.S. Navy and the British Fleet Air Arm and/or other services in WWII. All these lists have aircraft that also served during different time periods. So the thing to remember is to select naval carrier aircraft that operated during the 1943-1945 (or early 1946) time period when the Habakkuk was to be built and operated.

A few more points and clarifications concerning armament............

I may put some Bofors anti-aircraft 40mm quad mounts on my model. There will probably be a high amount (8-10) around the island superstructure as that is where all the command and control functions are which need to be heavily defended. I've got a lot of 40mm mounts as shown in one of the pics below, plus more in some extra ESSEX carrier kits I mentioned back on Page 1 of this thread.
In the second below pic, I was thinking of possibly putting some 40mm mounts between all the 5" gun pairings. I'm not sure how this will eventually work or look until I start building the main hull and flight deck next year.
It's not unusual to see a lot of defensive armament around a ship's island superstructure, especially on a carrier. The third picture below shows an Essex class carrier with 5" dual purpose mounts, 40mm gun mounts, and plenty of 20mm guns if you look closely.
It's probably doubtful that I'll have any 20mm guns anywhere on my Habakkuk model. But, we'll see. As WWII was getting near the end, 20mm guns were losing their effectiveness to shoot down enemy aircraft, particuarly in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese. Planes were flying faster and higher.
Another thing is that maybe it's a good thing I don't have a lot of armament on my model? A lot of references do mention that the Habakkuk was to have 40 4.5-5" dual purpose mounts plus numerous lighter AA armament. But you have to wonder, a carrier's main defense isn't necessarily it's armament but rather it's complement of aircraft it carries to provide defense of the carrier. Anyway, how much 40mm and 20mm I add will be decided next year after the main hull and flight deck is constructed.

Cutouts/ledges vs. weapon sponsons

For my model, I am going to use "cutouts/ledges" along the hull edge/circumference for placement of 5" gun mounts and/or 40mm gun mounts. See blue colored picture below.
This would be a more stable (For lack of a better word.) area for the armament to go on than weapon sponsons that overhang from the circumference of the hull. See second picture below.
Using overhanging weapon sponsons, especially on the Habakkuk is a poor engineering choice. Really poor IMO. If you have an enemy that is firing on the Habakkuk and they damage those sponsons severely to the point where your guns are falling into the ocean, then your only alternative is to go back to port to get them repaired. And at the time (1943-1944) when the Habakkuk was being designed, there were very few, if any, (or maybe non-existant) deep water ports that could handle the Habakkuk's 150 foot draft.
Almost every artist sketch, etc. I've seen of the Habakkuk shows overhanging weapon sponsons. It's far easier to use the cutouts/ledges I mentioned and shown below as they might be easier to repair without having to possibly go back to a port.

Moar dakka!

IIRC, one of the complaints brought forth to BuShips, mainly by Enterprise officers, was the lack of AAA on the ship, especially when her fighters were off conducting their missions, and the IJNAF showed up to tell the USN to get off their front lawn

I agree with you about the cutouts verses the ledges. The area of the ship they are fitted to is Pykrete so ledges without some suporting structure going into the Pykrete, which could be compley and time consuming to build and so makes the argument for ledges quite strong. Saying that, a hybrid platform would increase the weapons arc of fire.

Gondor