Airship Aircraft Carriers

[rickshaw]

You don't need a conventional carrier deck anyway, as you can just drop the plane and it would then gain sufficient lift from its own wings to fly.

But the difficult bit is, of course, 'landing' the thing afterward, as more than one pilot has found out.

If you think hooking on would be difficult, flying on, on top of a rolling deck would be even harder, IMHO.  Admittedly, if you "went over the side", you could self-recover, whereas on a seaborne carrier you'd end up in the drink.

I suspect hooking on would become a great deal more routine.

[PR19_Kit]

I'm not so sure. The precision needed to get the hook into the trapeze would be a whole order higher than 'hitting the No. 3 wire' on a deck to my mind. The guys 'landing' the RF-84Ks onto the GRB-36s using the FICON system only reckoned on a 60-70% 'first hook' rate.

[rickshaw]

I'm not so sure. The precision needed to get the hook into the trapeze would be a whole order higher than 'hitting the No. 3 wire' on a deck to my mind. The guys 'landing' the RF-84Ks onto the GRB-36s using the FICON system only reckoned on a 60-70% 'first hook' rate.

Their problem and same for the F-85 was that the airflow around the bomber fuselage made it difficult to get onto the trapeze.  My understanding of the Sparrowhawks on the US Airships was that the hooking on was much easier because both the airship and the fighter were flying at significantly lower airspeeds and the trapeze hung quite a bit lower than on the B-36s.   

Compare this with this.  The FICON system looks much dicier compared to the more sedate Sparrowhawk.

[PR19_Kit]

That FICON vid shows the original straight wing F-84G test flights and the very early B-36 trapeze. The operational FICON system used the swept wing RF-84K and a much better designed trapeze that did indeed hang lower from the B-36 than the early version.

The issue about 'landing' on a trapeze or a deck is that the former needs very accurate flying in two planes, whereas the latter is only really citical in one, the vertical, as the deck is much wider than a trapeze hook.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Zeppelin structure was an excellent design, for its weight and it wasn't until Barnes Wallis created geodetic structures was it bettered.

1: When did Barnes Wallis first understand the use of Geodetic construction
2: When was this knowledge first made public in the UK and US
3: Was there anybody in the US who could have realized the wisdom of this type of construction

To the question about having two, closely linked airships with a structure in between, that's been the study of several advanced airship concepts, such as the Skycat series which IIRC Lockheed took over.  The problem with it is that the structure connecting the two airships is essentially dead weight and subject to considerable torsional stresses, just like a sea catamaran structure.   Its an interesting solution and yes, it could form the basis of a airship aircraft carrier, with the planes being dropped through hatches in the floor.  However, I suspect such a structure would be unacceptably heavy using early 20th century materials and design.

Thank you for your response. 

I'm wondering if
1: Anybody would have seen the use of an ovalized design which would be flatter and could more easily mount a deck up top
2: If such a design would be technically feasible as it's just one hull.

As to putting an aircraft deck on top of an airship, the problem is that would make the airship top heavy and like all balloons, it would prefer to have the heaviest part of its structure on the bottom, with the result that unless substantial ballast was places below the airship's gas bags, it would invariably turn turtle.

No good...

Much more sensible again to put the hangar and launching system on the bottom of the airship.   You don't need a conventional carrier deck anyway, as you can just drop the plane and it would then gain sufficient lift from its own wings to fly.

Could you stack planes inside the hanger and be able to effectively maintain them?

[rickshaw]

The Zeppelin structure was an excellent design, for its weight and it wasn't until Barnes Wallis created geodetic structures was it bettered.

1: When did Barnes Wallis first understand the use of Geodetic construction
2: When was this knowledge first made public in the UK and US
3: Was there anybody in the US who could have realized the wisdom of this type of construction

To the question about having two, closely linked airships with a structure in between, that's been the study of several advanced airship concepts, such as the Skycat series which IIRC Lockheed took over.  The problem with it is that the structure connecting the two airships is essentially dead weight and subject to considerable torsional stresses, just like a sea catamaran structure.   Its an interesting solution and yes, it could form the basis of a airship aircraft carrier, with the planes being dropped through hatches in the floor.  However, I suspect such a structure would be unacceptably heavy using early 20th century materials and design.

Thank you for your response. 

I'm wondering if
1: Anybody would have seen the use of an ovalized design which would be flatter and could more easily mount a deck up top
2: If such a design would be technically feasible as it's just one hull.

As to putting an aircraft deck on top of an airship, the problem is that would make the airship top heavy and like all balloons, it would prefer to have the heaviest part of its structure on the bottom, with the result that unless substantial ballast was places below the airship's gas bags, it would invariably turn turtle.

No good...

Much more sensible again to put the hangar and launching system on the bottom of the airship.   You don't need a conventional carrier deck anyway, as you can just drop the plane and it would then gain sufficient lift from its own wings to fly.

Could you stack planes inside the hanger and be able to effectively maintain them?

You can find all the answers to your questions with a bit of research either online or off, Kendra.  I'll answer the last one though. 

Yes, you could.  The two USN Airships which carried aircraft had an internal crane whch moved them back from the entrance into a hangar where they were hung from the ceiling but could be serviced as well (I've always assumed a series of gantries which allowed the "groundcrew" to be able to reach the aircraft.   Hanging them meant they could be moved to the exit rapidly and hung on the trapeze and then lowered through the opening and launched.

[tinlail]

I have not seen mention in this thread the "Brodie Gear" http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/secretweapon.aspx http://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/no-runway-no-aircraft-carrier-no-rotors-%E2%80%94-brodie-gear/ It is basically a trapeze system , on a long wire that function as a overhead runway for the plane. One of these on a airship would allow it to carry planes who's landing speeds were faster than the airship cruising speed.

Still no help on the dreadfully low carrying capacities of airships however.

[PR19_Kit]

With exquisite timing take a look at this :-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video--first-rigid-airship-since-hindenburg-to-take-flight-134823789.html

Note they claim that the full size vesrion will lift 65 tons of cargo with a length of only 450 ft. It also seems to have hovercraft type landing gear and can 'compress its lift gas to adjust its bouyancy'......

Yet another attempt to make airships into environmentaly friendly heavy lifters, I just wish one of them would be properly fiunded and WORK!

[KJ_Lesnick]

You can find all the answers to your questions with a bit of research either online or off, Kendra.

I did a check on google and there were some ships from the 1790's that had some basic geodesic construction but I'm not sure how far it went beyond that.  As for Wallis's full research I can't find anything and I don't know what library I could find this information in.  Regardless, being that there's a forum with people who know their stuff like here -- I could probably get an answer faster.

Yes, you could.  The two USN Airships which carried aircraft had an internal crane whch moved them back from the entrance into a hangar where they were hung from the ceiling but could be serviced as well (I've always assumed a series of gantries which allowed the "groundcrew" to be able to reach the aircraft.   Hanging them meant they could be moved to the exit rapidly and hung on the trapeze and then lowered through the opening and launched.

Do you have a diagram or a picture of this?

[pyro-manic]

There are pictures of the Akron/Macon hangar setup available on the internet. A simple google search for "geodetic construction" turns up a lot of information. There are also books on the subject. Find the book title and ISBN, and look around for it - libraries should have an online search/request function, and there's Amazon, Barnes&Noble, etc. People don't appreciate being asked to do somebody else's research for them.

[KJ_Lesnick]

joncarrfarrelly

ZRS-4/ZRS-5: Contract signed Oct. 6, 1928 fixed price of $8,000,000 for two airships.

How much would an airship that could carry 18-20 planes and a geodetic construction cost?  I have a feeling it would be a great deal more.

I did a check for carriers such as the Saratoga Class and the Yorktown Class for comparison

Saratoga Class: $28,000,000-$45,000,000 million USD
Yorktown Class: $70,000-$78,000,000 million USD


pyro-manic

There are pictures of the Akron/Macon hangar setup available on the internet.

I found a hanger set-up diagram.  I wish somebody had a line-drawing I can use, but I found a model which illustrates the point well enough

A simple google search for "geodetic construction" turns up a lot of information.

The wikipedia entry makes a loose mention about managing stress requirements and maximizing force produced by the gas-bags by forming the structural members into a spiral (helical) shape.

A more important question than this was if anybody in the United States was had the technological know-how to produce an airship with a geodesic construction by the early/mid-1930's?

[deathjester]

Could they not, as this is a whiff, have hired Barnes Wallis to design it for them?  He was well known as an airship designer.

[rickshaw]

Could they not, as this is a whiff, have hired Barnes Wallis to design it for them?  He was well known as an airship designer.

Alternatively, an American designer could have worked under Wallis and gone back to the USA to work in their airship division?  He may have acquired the knowledge and understanding necessary to use Geodesic.

[Rheged]

Could they not, as this is a whiff, have hired Barnes Wallis to design it for them?  He was well known as an airship designer.

Alternatively, an American designer could have worked under Wallis and gone back to the USA to work in their airship division?  He may have acquired the knowledge and understanding necessary to use Geodesic.

Canadian Vickers in Montreal had a lot to do with  the Fore River Yard at Quincy. Massachusetts in the then neutral United States  in 1915.   (Google H class submarine--group 2-- to find out more)  There was also at that time what is described in the Vickers, Barrow, archive as " a quiet but most productive mutual interchange of engineers and design data"  between Fore River, Montreal and Barrow in Furness.  Young Barnes-Wallis  could well have made friends with American engineers and have exchanged ideas on a personal basis. It's plausible enough to confuse and disorientate the JMN fraternity.

I'm currently looking into the  1938 purchase by USN  of 50 (Canadian) Vickers Vermont reconnaissance-bombers;  a trimotor development of the Wellington.   Backstory to follow when I can get my head round the U S interservice politics of the 1930's.   If anyone fancies building a tri-motor  Wellington  in USN or USCG markings.................  the idea is out  there to be used!

[Spey_Phantom]

Airship carriers?

well, 2 things jump to mind when thinking of that, first is the Halicarrier from the Avengers movie 





concept art 1




and second (for the Steampunk and Dieselpunk fans), is the airbourne carrier from "Sky Captian and the world of tomorrow".