|
The A-3 was actually the smallest aircraft entered in its particular design competition, which was for a 100,000 lb strategic bomber that could fly from a flush decked carrier with a nuclear bomb on board.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 16:18 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 05:48 |
|
Groda posted:The A-3 and A-5 definitely get the most "they take off from where?" from me. You can tell they didn't have confidence in the carrier launch, because they have a bunch of outboard motors on the deck there, ready to be attached prior to flight.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:01 |
|
The A-3 has kind of airliner vibes to me. Maybe that weird East German airliner project, baade 152? Or the Fairchild Dornier 328JET. I like it.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:06 |
|
My favorite aircraft genre are all the 50s turboprops that failed utterly due to the T40.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:09 |
|
The A-5 Vigilante was too pretty to have failed so badly and I suspect the team that made it into a reconnaissance bird felt the same way.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:40 |
|
Urcinius posted:Something that cracks me up in US Navy records straight through current US Navy journal and magazine articles is the continuous recognition that a carrier is a long-life vessel that needs to be designed as well as possible to age gracefully. What makes me laugh are statements that carriers need to be designed as much as 50% larger than contemporary requirements to account for growth in aircraft size, weight, and takeoff & landing runs. I have zero belief that a carrier designed to a larger size for future operations isn’t going to be immediately operated to its total capacity. For example, a carrier the size of 108 original planes with expectation of being only able to operate 72 in 10 years will be operating 108 upon commissioning not 72. Then the Navy will still complain when the air group eventually shrinks to 72. Surely the idea - with length especially in mind - is that if you lengthen your carrier then you can put more planes on it now and less, larger ones in the future, but if you don't, you go from putting the current number of planes on it now to zero (0) modern planes in the future because the carrier isn't big enough for them to take off.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 18:20 |
|
feedmegin posted:Surely the idea - with length especially in mind - is that if you lengthen your carrier then you can put more planes on it now and less, larger ones in the future, but if you don't, you go from putting the current number of planes on it now to zero (0) modern planes in the future because the carrier isn't big enough for them to take off. Nah. At least not for the US Navy. Their concern has been sheer numbers and capability when considering size and operating complement. (There’s a Navy doc quoted below for those who want to skip my explanation. It’s a good thought, but basically any prospective propeller plane* can take off from any carrier with at least a 600’ deck if not a 500’ deck. The key considerations for propeller planes performing a rolling takeoff are 1) wind over the deck and 2) loading condition. Both affect the necessary takeoff run. Generally any propeller plane can takeoff in 25kt wind over the deck unless in an extreme loading condition. When overloaded, 30-40kts wind over the deck becomes necessary to control the takeoff run to an acceptable length of the carrier’s deck. The Grumman TBF only needs about 440’ to takeoff in 25kt wind. That’s why carriers were able to launch planes even while swinging at anchor. Anything north of 600’ is capable of operating propeller planes and the greater length only affects the number of planes it can operate - not if. Hell, most of the carriers of WWII could launch a number of B-25s. That capability was not unique. Then the jet revolution changed everything. Now the consideration is the design of the catapult - length and capacity of the catapult. No jet aircraft can perform a rolling takeoff from any carrier without other limitations (short-or-vertical takeoff features or limited loading and a ski jump). Even the light but capable A-4 Scooter needs ~1800’-4000’ to takeoff in 25kt wind over the deck. This has largely standardized takeoff distance for carriers that use catapults. Now wind over the deck usually only affects loading condition using catapult launch. A lot of planes can be catapulted while the carrier swings at anchor if in light load conditions. This is why the Colossusclass could have a long and useful career into the 1990s operating the A-4 despite their 690’ long flight deck. Even still, takeoff distance, in general, is second to the space necessary for landing as the dominant limitation in deck space available to park planes out of the way of flight operations. The run out distance of an arrested landing is standard for a plane in a given load situation, but overall landing area is further governed by redundancy. Which wire does the plane catch? How many barriers need to be erected to ensure a run-away plane is caught before it plows into planes parked on deck? Angling the landing area outboard from the rest of the flight deck greatly assisted with controlling the need for extreme redundancy. A plane which misses the arresting wires on an angled deck will continue safely out over the water. Then just 4 arresting wires are necessary and no barriers are needed for regular operations at all. This has also fairly well standardized the required size of landing areas. Once you have your takeoff area and landing area sized, the remaining space is available for your air group. Basically, anything big enough to land one plane can operate one plane. The extra size is for the ability to operate 10, 25, 50, or 100 planes. The sizing debates were very much about numbers and defensive features - not about basic capability to even operate planes. Read the materials enough and you start picking up that “can’t operate” is simply a more forceful way of saying “can’t operate the number of planes that we believe is necessary.” If we wanted to design a carrier that operates just one nuclear bomber, we could probably do so on a flight deck of just 400’. * by prospective propeller plane I mean any of the propeller planes designed and operated until jet planes supplanted propeller planes. Continued propeller plane development would eventually have required the angled deck and catapults that jet planes needed. Here’s a historical paper by Admiral (then Lieutenant) James S. Russell that was passed around the Navy in 1940. Not only does he explain what I have already covered well, but he also tackles hangars too. I’ll try to reproduce his charts in the near future for y’all. A Statistical Analysis of the Growth of Carrier Based Airplanes and Discussion of Effect on Carrier Design and Operation, Prepared by the Carrier Desk, Bureau of Aeronautics (signed James S. Russell) posted:In studying the design of new aircraft carriers it is necessary to predict the size and weight of the landing and take-off performance of future carrier based airplanes.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 21:37 |
|
I should acknowledge this whole page more and say that yes the need to operate multiple nuclear bombers off of a carrier using 1940s operating practices and technology required a largest carrier yet designed - the USS United States. The ‘debate’ over that carrier led to the Revolt of the Admirals when the United States was cancelled. Therefore, again, yes a debate involved basic capability. However that debate is specific to the few years between the advent of the nuclear bomb and before the development of the steam catapult and angled deck.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 21:47 |
|
I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me? They seem like daylight saving.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:06 |
|
Translate some of your horizontal speed to vertical speed. It's like having your engines point down for a few seconds without actually having to have engines that point down.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:20 |
|
Groda posted:I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me? It's an alternative to the conveyor belt deck.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:20 |
|
Did anyone ever experiment with catapults powered by powder charges rather than steam?
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:22 |
|
The Lone Badger posted:Translate some of your horizontal speed to vertical speed. It's like having your engines point down for a few seconds without actually having to have engines that point down. Are carriers with skijumps by definition not able to get aircraft to a speed where they don't stall in level flight by the end of the runway, and need the extra verticle loft?
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:29 |
|
ski jump carriers dont have catapultsThe Lone Badger posted:Did anyone ever experiment with catapults powered by powder charges rather than steam? this is how seaplane catapults on like battleships and stuff work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dmNyts7f1w&t=908s this timecode should show you the charge being put in the breech, it literally looks & works like an artillery tube but without the projectile steam is just vastly vastly more convenient, if you have the weight budget for all the associated plumbing HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 22, 2023 |
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:34 |
|
And airplanes have wings. The longer you can keep the machine in flight with the engine accelerating it all, the more lift/energy the komplex produces. So the plane can be heavier and still overcome the momentum keeping it from getting airborne
|
# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:42 |
|
Groda posted:The A-3 and A-5 definitely get the most "they take off from where?" from me. This plane needs to go on a diet
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:25 |
|
Groda posted:I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me? My uninformed opinion: The farther up in the air you go, the farther out you can glide before your wings have to lift you up.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:34 |
|
Maybe the question is they're having a hard time understanding how fast they get going before going up since they're not being catapulted? I've had similar thoughts.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:48 |
|
Quackles posted:My uninformed opinion: The farther up in the air you go, the farther out you can glide before your wings have to lift you up. And also, it also rotates the aircraft closer to an optimal climb attitude. But the main thing is that by trading a little bit of forward velocity for vertical velocity, it gives valuable seconds (even if it was just a parabolic arc from gravity alone) before the aircraft hits the ground to power up to sufficient velocity. Take off rolls are specified in meters/feet but really it is more about time spent at unimpeded full thrust to rotate the aircraft and then fast enough to climb.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:30 |
|
They should just raise the flight deck.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:38 |
|
Nenonen posted:They should just raise the flight deck. Put a catapult on top of a pagoda mast
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:55 |
|
Nenonen posted:They should just raise the flight deck. Just think about how much hanger space they could fit with a flat top on this bad boy
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:58 |
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Just think about how much hanger space they could fit with a flat top on this bad boy Thinking about how that thing would behave in anything but a mirror calm sea made me reflexively run to the toilet and start heaving.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:21 |
|
MikeCrotch posted:Put a catapult on top of a pagoda mast and turn the catapult 90 degrees up
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:45 |
Cythereal posted:Thinking about how that thing would behave in anything but a mirror calm sea made me reflexively run to the toilet and start heaving. They are alot more stable than you'd expect (bad experiences at sea don't tend to lead to many return customers). Mostly because the ship extends much further underwater than it looks from the surface - got to house all the crew and stores for months for thousands of people there.
|
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:48 |
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:They are alot more stable than you'd expect (bad experiences at sea don't tend to lead to many return customers). Mostly because the ship extends much further underwater than it looks from the surface - got to house all the crew and stores for months for thousands of people there. And also awesome stability thrusters, is my understanding.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:03 |
|
They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system. Hmm, do aircraft carriers have them? Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Oct 23, 2023 |
# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:10 |
|
Fangz posted:They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system. Looks like something you'd use to shiv another boat.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:37 |
|
Fangz posted:They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system. No, because aircraft carriers are about going fast as gently caress (one of the advantages of a nuclear powerplant). If the weather is bad enough you are just aren't launching aircraft anyway.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:04 |
|
MikeCrotch posted:No, because aircraft carriers are about going fast as gently caress (one of the advantages of a nuclear powerplant). If the weather is bad enough you are just aren't launching aircraft anyway. While the CVs might not have stabilizers (and I think it is more about conservatism of design rather than worrying about the negligible speed impact), extending the sea state that a carrier can deploy aircraft is very much an important goal. I watched a doco about a carrier in the southern ocean doing pitching decks practice (ie take off from a carrier in rough weather just to practice landing in rough weather) and the CO launching tanker aircraft to give more goes at bringing aircraft safely back to deck (because the newer pilots were struggling to bring them in). They were thinking they might have to ditch one or two and recovery the pilots by helicopter at one point.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:16 |
|
Apparently the Queen Elizabeth class has them, as does the De Gaulle. Anyway yeah, I would expect them to be more common in the future. A carrier isn't rushing around at max speed all the time, most of the time they are a floating city so an improvement in livability isn't nothing. Further, you might not have the choice about operating in a bad sea state - if you have planes coming in out of fuel, well, you're gonna land them, or they'll have to ditch. See also what happened to Halsey's carriers in Typhoon Cobra. quote:Planes went adrift, collided, and burst into flames. Monterey caught fire at 0911 (18 December) and lost steerageway a few minutes later. The fire was brought under control at 0945 and the C.O., Captain Stuart H. Ingersoll, decided to let his ship lie dead in the water until temporary repairs could be effected. She lost 18 aircraft burned in the hangar deck or blown overboard and 16 seriously damaged, together with three 20-mm guns, and suffered extensive rupturing of her ventilation system. Cowpens lost 7 planes overboard and caught fire from one that broke loose at 1051, but the fire was brought under control promptly; Langley rolled through 70 degrees; San Jacinto reported a fighter plane adrift on the hangar deck which wrecked seven other aircraft. She also suffered damage from salt water that entered through punctures in the ventilating ducts. Captain [Jasper T.] Acuff's replenishment escort carriers did pretty well. Flames broke out on the flight deck of Cape Esperance at 1228 but were overcome; Kwajalein made a maximum roll of 39 degrees to port when hove-to with wind abeam. Her port catwalks scooped up green water, but she lost only three planes which were jettisoned from the flight deck; it took one hour to get them over the side. Three other escort carriers lost in all 86 aircraft but came through without much material damage."[7] Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 23, 2023 |
# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:27 |
|
Fangz posted:See also what happened to Halsey's carriers in Typhoon Cobra. Those stabilizers aren't going to do that much in a ship-sinking typhoon.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 15:38 |
|
It'd help a bit in a smaller version of that storm. Edit: in fact there's a paper that says these fins can reduce the roll by a factor of 3-6. Others state a 90% reduction. These are pretty significant numbers! waggle waggle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjn_gRuBeV4 Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Oct 23, 2023 |
# ? Oct 23, 2023 15:50 |
|
While cruise ships have a lot of modern technology that goes into keeping them afloat if the weather turns bad, I think that the most common and important technology is the global surveillance network that monitors the weather so that ships can just change course to avoid trouble. The way that you can't see any of the bulbous bow beneath the waterline really does make the ship look like it's just sitting on top of the water doesn't it.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 17:36 |
|
TIL that the laundry on Royal Navy ships was done by Chinese civilians who lived on board and alongside the ship's crew. This old-timey racist tradition was in place until...this week. https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1716538880415961256
|
# ? Oct 23, 2023 23:46 |
|
FMguru posted:TIL that the laundry on Royal Navy ships was done by Chinese civilians who lived on board and alongside the ship's crew. This old-timey racist tradition was in place until...this week. quote:Nepalese Gurkhas will replace them due to fears that Beijing could threaten the servants’ families in China to make those on board ships pass on Royal Navy secrets, The Sun has reported. I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:08 |
|
Randallteal posted:I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something. I mean, yes?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:26 |
Randallteal posted:I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something. You can get quality service alot cheaper from one than the other.
|
|
# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:28 |
|
Do they still employ Somalis in the boiler room because they withstand hot environments so much better and are convenient to kidnap while travelling via Suez?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2023 03:53 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 05:48 |
|
As I understand it, it's not really a racism thing, more a matter of ships picking up workers in the British colony of Hong Kong (and previously, Singapore) who were already doing laundrying stuff for the fleet based there. I'm also not sure about this being a "centuries old tradition", since dedicated laundries in ships were only ordered by the admiralty in the 1950s. https://www.commsmuseum.co.uk/dykes/smallsnips/laundry/laundry.htm https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...laundry&f=false Most sources I can find put it as a cold war arrangement. If you look at navy forums they've been doing this transition for years. https://www.navy-net.co.uk/community/threads/chinese-laundry.41489/ quote:Up to the mid 90's, most ships had a pair of chinese laundreymen, who operated the laundry and charged the ship's company for the privelege. This led to a situation where most people would dhoby (wash) their underwear in the bathrooms etc, and stokes would dhobi his ovies down the boiler/engine room. I mean the source of this story is the Sun so I'd view it with a grain of salt. Both and the Chinese and the Nepalese are employees of a company called Worldwide Laundry Services, a subsidiary of Serco. I don't think the navy gets to pick Chinese people for their ships, though with the handover of Hong Kong there were apparently a number already working on the ships who chose to stay on under a new contract. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1997/nov/03/navy-laundrymen Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Oct 24, 2023 |
# ? Oct 24, 2023 12:52 |