Aircraft Carriers

zenrat · October 12, 2013, 03:19:02 PM

Quote from: scooter on October 08, 2013, 03:25:39 PM
Dear gods, that looks like something out of Macross. Does it transform in to a giant robot as well?

That would remove the need to fit through the Panama or Suez Canals. It could just walk across.
Alternatively make it an amphibian - tracked or air cushion...

While we are on the subject of carriers i'm thinking through an alternative history and was wondering it it would have been possible to fly a Lancaster off the Ark Royal to bomb Antarctica a la the Doolitle raid.

PR19_Kit · October 12, 2013, 05:16:42 PM

Quote from: zenrat on October 12, 2013, 03:19:02 PM
While we are on the subject of carriers i'm thinking through an alternative history and was wondering it it would have been possible to fly a Lancaster off the Ark Royal to bomb Antarctica a la the Doolitle raid.

Not with the WWII era Ark Royal, it wasn't really wide enough to take the Lanc's wingspan.

I'm not sure that any British carrier was wide enough either, not until they get the new ones launched anyway.

pyro-manic · October 12, 2013, 05:36:06 PM

No chance, tbh. The Lancaster needed way too much distance to take off (4650ft according to THIS SITE). Look at something smaller. What's your timeframe? The Mosquito is an obvious choice for a later-war option, or perhaps the Beaufighter...

zenrat · October 12, 2013, 10:36:04 PM

Quote from: pyro-manic on October 12, 2013, 05:36:06 PM
No chance, tbh. The Lancaster needed way too much distance to take off (4650ft according to THIS SITE). Look at something smaller. What's your timeframe? The Mosquito is an obvious choice for a later-war option, or perhaps the Beaufighter...

Thanks Kit & Pyro.
I was thinking 1945 (so either the Ark Royal didn't get sunk in 1941 or they had a replacement in service in 4 years) and the plane would have to be capable of carrying a nuke.
Span of a Wellington was around 90' so again probably too wide.
According to my reference books Mk IX mozzies had bulged bomb bays for 4,000 lb bombs. Anyone know how the weight and dimensions of Little boy compare?
The Bristol Brigand just sneaks into my time frame but (as far as I can tell) it has no internal bomb bay and the 72' span might be getting too wide again. The Buckingham is a possibility but again a 71' span.
Of course if the Ark Royal was sunk in '41 then maybe the new Ark Royal was a renamed Yorktown class carrier purchased from the US?
There's no reason for it to be the Ark Royal or Lancasters. I just like the idea of the (arguably) most well known bomber flying off of the (arguably) most well known British carrier. Oh, and it'd be 617 squadron as well...

And all this is so I can justify the melting of the South Polar Ice causing a sea level rise leading to the Peoples Democratic Republic of Victoria establishing secret seaplane bases in the Mornington Archipelago to patrol the Bass Strait.

rickshaw · October 13, 2013, 03:39:05 AM

Why not use a Malta class?

PR19_Kit · October 13, 2013, 07:04:20 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on October 13, 2013, 03:39:05 AM
Why not use a Malta class?

Good thinking, they may just have been big enough for the job with their 115 ft beam.

The take-off run issue isn't really relevant in the carrier environment as the real take-off run would depend on the wind over the deck, which in turn would depend on how fast the carrier could go. In the Malta's case that was intended to be 32 kts or so, pretty darn quick.

rickshaw · October 13, 2013, 07:30:58 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 13, 2013, 07:04:20 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on October 13, 2013, 03:39:05 AM
Why not use a Malta class?

Good thinking, they may just have been big enough for the job with their 115 ft beam.

The take-off run issue isn't really relevant in the carrier environment as the real take-off run would depend on the wind over the deck, which in turn would depend on how fast the carrier could go. In the Malta's case that was intended to be 32 kts or so, pretty darn quick.

Plus RATOG, of which I'd expect a lot would be required to get a Lanc off the deck...

kitnut617 · October 13, 2013, 09:23:45 AM

Quote from: pyro-manic on October 12, 2013, 05:36:06 PM
No chance, tbh. The Lancaster needed way too much distance to take off (4650ft according to THIS SITE). Look at something smaller. What's your timeframe? The Mosquito is an obvious choice for a later-war option, or perhaps the Beaufighter...

I'm fairly sure I've seen photos of a Manchester set on a rocket powered launch cradle (looks like it ran on railway tracks IIRC), I seem to remember that was one of the requirements when first designed. So a Lancaster to the same spec isn't too far fetched --

EDIT: found a pic.

PR19_Kit · October 13, 2013, 01:45:19 PM

I'd want to be a LONG away from that when they fired the cat!

Rheged · October 13, 2013, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 13, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'd want to be a LONG away from that when they fired the cat!

I suggest that several individual pieces of the aircraft would be a long way away from the cat, just after it was fired.

rickshaw · October 13, 2013, 05:46:14 PM

Quote from: kitnut617 on October 13, 2013, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: pyro-manic on October 12, 2013, 05:36:06 PM
No chance, tbh. The Lancaster needed way too much distance to take off (4650ft according to THIS SITE). Look at something smaller. What's your timeframe? The Mosquito is an obvious choice for a later-war option, or perhaps the Beaufighter...

I'm fairly sure I've seen photos of a Manchester set on a rocket powered launch cradle (looks like it ran on railway tracks IIRC), I seem to remember that was one of the requirements when first designed. So a Lancaster to the same spec isn't too far fetched --

EDIT: found a pic.

Yeah, the plan was to launch heavily laden Manchesters from the then smaller airfields that were in existence. While they trialled it they found it was easier to just extend the runways. I'm sure that early Lancaster I's, converted from Manchesters still had the catapult attachment points. I'd think catapulting such a big aircraft would have been rather an interesting and dangerous experience, especially at AUWs.

zenrat · October 14, 2013, 02:00:01 AM

Food for thought. Thanks folks.

NARSES2 · October 14, 2013, 07:11:55 AM

That catapult Manchester just goes to prove that some of these real world designers were eating the same breakfasts as us

Captain Canada · October 14, 2013, 11:09:38 AM

Love the look ( and the idea !) of that Manchester on the cat ! Who knew ?

wuzak · October 21, 2013, 04:43:56 AM

Quote from: zenrat on October 12, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
According to my reference books Mk IX mozzies had bulged bomb bays for 4,000 lb bombs. Anyone know how the weight and dimensions of Little boy compare?

The 4000lb HC Cookie was 30" in diameter and 110" in length. At one stage I scaled off a model I have and estimated that the Mosquito bomb bay length was ~130" long - but not all of that could take the 30" diameter.

Little Boy was 28" in diameter and 120" in length. Little Boy used an American style box tail, which was wider than the body. Change the tail to a British style ring tail, and shorten it up some (do they really care about ballistics of this bomb?) and it could be made to fit in Mosquito B.IX or B.XVI (or B.IV with bulged bomb bay for that matter).

The problem with Little Boy was weight. For while the 4000lb HC Cookie weighed around, well, 4000lb, Little Boy came in at 9700lb. Although, accordiing to wiki, only 140lb of that was filling!