Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Nexus1171 on October 12, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
-
While this is a concept of mine, I welcome other ideas regarding the same concept: That being said...
Historically at least two airborne aircraft carriers have actually been built: The Akron and Macon -- There might be others, but I can attest to these two. Unfortunately both were destroyed due to either weather or structural defect but the fact of the matter is that they were both capable of carrying aircraft aboard them.
Unfortunately, the problem with them as I see it is (clearly any structural defecit :o) that they only had a capacity for 4 x F9C's which were extremely small. They were not able to carry more ordinary sized fighters of the era, and certainly not the fighters that would be in the air by the late 1930's such as the F4F or P-40, and certainly not the dive-bombers such as the SB2U and SBD; I'm not going to even discuss the TBD's
What I was thinking was a design that could carry both normal sized fighters of the time and reasonable numbers of them. I've outlined several designs below
CLASS-A
- Complement: Either 4 to 8 F4F or P-40
- Aircraft to be fitted with foldable wings
- Fuel and ammunition carried for the fighters to be 1/2 to 1/3 the equivalent of a sea-based vessel due to the speed differences inherent in these aircraft
- Fuel to run the ship for the same period of time
- Airship would by necessity have a number of defensive armament which would be dictated on size/shape of vessel with ammunition based on duration of mission
- Geodetic construction
CLASS-B
- Complement: 18 aircraft (either 18 x F4F/P-40; 12 x F4F/P-40 and 6 x SBD)
- Aircraft to be fitted with foldable wings
- Fuel and ammunition sufficient for aircraft sortie numbers 1/2 to 1/3 that of a traditional carrier
- Fuel to run the airship a duration 1/2 to 1/3 a normal on-station time between UNREP for a CV
- Necessary defensive armament based on size, ammunition requirements based specified mission duration
- Geodetic construction
CLASS-C
- Complement: 36-40 aircraft (either 36-40 x F4F/P-40; 24 x F4F/P-40, 12 x SBD)
- Aircraft to be fitted with foldable wings
- Fuel and ammunition necessary sortie numbers 1/2 to 1/3 that of a traditional carrier
- Fuel to run the airship a duration 1/2 to 1/3 a normal on-statio time between UNREP as a traditional carrier
- Necessary defensive armament for a vessel it's size; ammunition levels acceptable for mission duration
- Geodetic construction
Class A would probably be a plumper and grotesquely scaled up ZRS-4 Akron
Class B would either look like an even more obscenely scaled up version of Class A, though it's possibly even at this point some hull flattening/widening might be seen such as depicted here
(http://www.airwar1946.nl/whif/images/lz134-03.jpg)
Though I cannot imagine the need for a runway at this scale (the skyhook would be used)
Class C would almost certainly require some flattening and widening to allow a maximal degree of carriage capacity relative to length without producing an excessively "fat" ship. This design could use a skyhook and/or a runway up top in a manner similar to this design
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/10-1934/xlg_aerial_landing_field.jpg (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/10-1934/xlg_aerial_landing_field.jpg)
Crew would increase with the size of each vessel which is a major problem as well.
Airships are an interesting vehicle as despite their reputation as frail or flimsy, they are actually surprisingly sturdy in some cases
- Even hydrogen filled Zeppelins were able to get shot up left and right and often didn't blow up even despite carrying hydrogen in them
- Helium is a natural fire suppressant
- The airship if designed properly should have no fundamental structural point of failure
- While I suppose repeated blows with aircraft ramming it could rupture the helium; the fact is that it's still naturally buoyant
- The only way to destroy it would be to basically strafe the areas where the Gondola is, the crew compartments, and/or shell it with artillery repetitively or bomb it a couple times until the thing broke apart
Weather can be a problem, and that's one point where it might very well be weaker than a surface ship, that and getting shelled; other than that though it's a pretty tough beast in an odd way.
The logistical issues that would come into place would be
- Securing the funds to build it
- Developing the infrastructure to fuel and re-arm it
- Helium reserve limits. (I've done some research on the strategic helium reserve, and while I have no idea how much helium they had in the 1920's and 1930's: I do know the reserve has at least a billion cubic meters of the stuff as of the past 5-10 years)
Robyn
BTW: I apologize. I posted this on another forum; then I posted it here and I somehow thought I screwed up again and deleted it and I finally reposted it after I managed to get my two left thumbs to re-enter my pasword right
-
Cool idea and model Nexus 8), but I was wondering if maybe it would be too hard to have something as heavy as a flight deck on the top of such a 'light' single hull (envelope) vessel regardless of beam.
To me it would seem that putting something as heavy as the deck on top would impart a large rolling moment just like a top heavy ship attempts to 'turn turtle'. It would seem to be a very unstable design as pictured.
If you had to have a deck wouldn't it be better to have the deck suspended below the airship and therefore removing the rolling moment?
The other option would be to have two envelopes side by side with the flight deck suspended between the two complete with lower deck hangar and support facilities, and with two envelopes you'd have double the lift capability, therefore increasing the air groups size and capability.
The US Armed Services and civilian bodies have done studies into these ultra lift vessels for future needs.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?21700-High-Tech-Cargo-Airships (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?21700-High-Tech-Cargo-Airships)
-
Some years ago I was toying with this idea:
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/flycarrier01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/flycarrier01.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/flycarrier02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/flycarrier02.jpg.html)
-
Wow, nuclear powered of course?
-
The problem with any realistic (as opposed to pure fantasy) plans for large airborne aircraft carriers, especially those based upon airship designs, is that you still have to comply with the laws of physics. You also need to remain mindful of the cost/benefit ratios and practicality constraints.
For example, even if you did have something large enough to carry a large compliment of fixed wing aircraft, where are you going to fit all of their fuel, ordnance, spares, support equipment, crews, maint personal etc. etc?? Remember that airships are constrained in their operations by their very designs.
-
There were some interesting large nuclear-powered airsship proposals covered in an AIAA paper some 40 years ago with a mix of nuclear-headted turbofan and turboprop propulsion (the "prop" was more along the lines of a slow-turning *large* helicopter rotor). This was featured in a mid-70's or late-70's techno-thriller, Clash of Titans (not to be confused with any movie that adds a "the" after "of"). It carried a number of Harriers as well as AH-1 and UH-1 helicopters. It was going up against a developed Moskva with developed and production-ized Yak-36 fighters.
-
One deviation on this is the semi-hydrofoil carrier.
Foils able to support approx half of carrier weight are folded out. Engines come up to full power. As speed increases hull rises to point of half displacement. With drag reduced, speed further increases and props are still in water so no other propulsion is required.
-
Wow, nuclear powered of course?
No. An array of 125 diesel engines (4000 hp each) or so. For more information: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,31626.0.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,31626.0.html)
My idea is a giant floatplane for rapid deployment worlwide that operates from the water level.
-
My idea is a giant floatplane for rapid deployment worlwide that operates from the water level.
Can be wing in ground effect.
-
Some years ago I was toying with this idea:
waaahh!!! :icon_surprised:
I love the Beriev-6 version (because I love seaplanes) and I have a Be-6 kit somewhere inm y attic : I might try out something from your idea ... I just have to find a carrier of the appropriate size : it should be in a small scale I presume.
I had a try at something along the same line, but "land-based", from a B-24 (in red-yellow-blue, as usual):
(http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y435/ericr63/hyd/franklin-b24-s_zps97dbb907.jpg)
-
:)
-
GTX_Admin
The problem with any realistic (as opposed to pure fantasy) plans for large airborne aircraft carriers, especially those based upon airship designs, is that you still have to comply with the laws of physics. You also need to remain mindful of the cost/benefit ratios and practicality constraints.
That's correct. I was kind of hoping most of the ideas (however fictional) would be created with some idea of conformation to the laws of physics than the rule of cool. Admittedly the fact that I didn't say that from the outset is either my fault or my failure of imagination.
For example, even if you did have something large enough to carry a large compliment of fixed wing aircraft, where are you going to fit all of their fuel, ordnance, spares, support equipment, crews, maint personal etc. etc??
Those are all good points: As I think about it, I'm looking at some figures related to the airship itself
- ZRS-4/-5 had a crew of around 89: The number of helmsmen and navigators would basically remain the same despite the size of the ship
- The number of personnel to maintain the airship would increase considerably with size as a larger ship would have more volume and more parts to maintain
- The amount of fuel the airship would have to carry would have to increase simply for itself due to the larger number of engines to overcome drag; it would have to carry more ballast (even if it could replenish this in flight, the volume would have to be higher)
- The amount of defensive armament would go up as would all the ammunition needed to use them; the number of gunners would also need to go up. These would also require maintenance
- The number of quarters/bunks would need to go up and this would take volume up
Regarding to the capacity to carry aircraft
- The number of people needed to manage the placement of the aircraft on the deck (especially for the larger designs) would need to go up
- Larger aircraft have more parts and would in and of itself require more volume for their storage; furthermore bigger components also take up more volume
- More aircraft would also require more pilots, and backup pilots; furthermore, you'd need more personnel to maintain and move the planes around
- These aircraft would require spares; fortunately the number of sorties required would only be 1/3 to 1/2 that of a normal carrier
- Amount of fuel and needed for the number of sorties (fully fueled) per aircraft would effectively be a third to a half a normal aircraft carrier
- Ammunition (full) would need to be only there for 1/2 a third the normal number of sorties owing to speed differences in the plane
- Bomb-load is unclear (In fact I don't even *know* where I'd *find* data as to how many sorties the USN flew with bomb-loads and without)
Remember that airships are constrained in their operations by their very designs.
Good point...
Interestingly, there were proposals for large airships of this sort supposedly. Admittedly this might have been why they never flew. Admittedly there are other reasons
1.) A limit of funding
2.)A desire to spend said funding on other things like strategic bombers, flying-boats, sea-based aircraft-carriers, submarines, ships of various sorts, boats, land-bases and you get the idea
-
Found on the internet:
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/the_fighting_third_by_the_necromancer-d5sarbi.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8f/ec/24/8fec24695fe9ae11a775ed578e62b67e.jpg)
-
:smiley:
-
What were they smoking at Lockheed ?
-
I was thinking same thing. Or maybe was in water supply.
And then there is this; looks complex and expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wtVAleXl-FY (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wtVAleXl-FY)
-
Boeing Micro Fighter