|
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10892288)
There were hangars on two decks ?
|
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10892288)
There were hangars on two decks ?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f29d71dd77.jpg Post refit, both Ark and Eagle lower hangars were only served by the forward lift, as the aft third of the hangars were converted for other use. Eagle made excellent use of 4 deck space by converting the lift area into the Wardroom and the hangar space into the Wardroom dining room and between the two was the biggest Wardroom bar ever on a grey funnel liner :ok: |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10892288)
There were hangars on two decks ?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....372a275185.jpg Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift. |
'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'. :E
|
Originally Posted by Compass Call
(Post 10892574)
'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'. :E
|
Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift IG |
Originally Posted by John Eacott
(Post 10891989)
Here you are :ok:
Technically there were two hangars on four decks, as each hangar took two deck spaces From what I understand the design and size of the hangars of the Audacious class (Eagle and Ark Royal) went through a number of iterations; driven in particular by the need to raise hangar height. I assume from drawings that the need for two hangars, offset from the centreline and not full length(?) was driven by the internal configuration, a design informed by lessons from the sinking of the previous Ark Royal. At the time of their initial design they would have been the largest carriers built, so total size can't have been the issue. I may of course be talking gash. I never saw the inside of either; I was still at school when the Ark was taken out of service and anyway only saw the outside of Eagle (when she was tied up in Pompey after her last commission). |
It's actually because RN philosophy was until recently to be able to hangar all aircraft, which when they were designed were Fireflies, Sea Furies and so on. Just before aircraft began to grow significantly, not least in height.
The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam. QEC is the first RN carrier designed with hangar capacity below designed aircraft complement. There is simply not enough volume in any hull to get all aircraft hangared these days |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 10893058)
The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam.
|
It could be a bit noisy in the North Sea tomorrow , NOTAM for 'High Seas Firing' in place ;
H4092/20: Fireworks/Projectile firing will take place Q) EGPX/QWMLW/IV/BO/W/000/360/5530N00035W032HIGH SEAS FIRING WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY 555000N 0011800W - 555000N 0000500E - 552000N 0001700E - 550200N 0004000W - 550200N 0010000W - 555000N 0011800W. FOR INFO VHF 123.3 AND UHF 276.7. 2020-09-0500/AS5LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL360 FROM: 27 Sep 2020 07:00 GMT (08:00 BST) TO: 27 Sep 2020 09:00 GMT (10:00 BST) And here is the NOTAM for the exercise itself ; H3937/20: Exercises will take place Q) EGTT/QWELW/IV/BO/W/000/660/5430N00100E100INCREASED AERIAL ACTIVITY. UP TO 15 FAST JET AND UP TO 8 HEL WILL OPERATE FM ACFT CARRIER WI 100NM 543000N 0010000E (NORTH SEA). SQUAWK CODES MODE 3 WI RANGE 1700 - 1727 IN USE. OPS CTC 123.300MHZ / 280.850MHZ . 2020-09-0423/AS3LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL660 FROM: 21 Sep 2020 00:01 GMT (01:01 BST) TO: 03 Oct 2020 23:59 GMT (04 Oct 00:59 BST) |
Out of curiosity, what is the nominal max load of F-35 (and other aircraft) for the QE class carriers?
|
tdracer - public figures vary, for instance the RN website says up to 40 but I've seen 36 F35-B + 4 Merlins as the eventual 'standard air group' and a maximum of 60+ mixed types and 72 surge capacity. So you pay your money and takes your choice. Others may have a better sourced public domain figure.
|
Originally Posted by John Eacott
(Post 10891994)
One of a series of photos I took, so here's the dit :cool:
We were operating in the Med and cross-decked with USS Forrestal, but like all good things it came to an end and we brought our toys home to Mother and tried sending theirs back. Unfortunately 207 repeatedly went U/S and things became dire as we were due into Grand Harbour where Dom Mintoff, Malta's PM, had declared all things military associated with the USA to be unwelcome. A last attempt to launch 207 failed so it was rapidly dispatched to the lower hangar before we entered harbour. All was well, and the US Marine crew thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of being on a warship which allowed grown men to consume alcohol. After the usual Cocker's P, visits from local dignitaries, etc, it was deemed safe to bring 207 up from the Buccaneer hangar into the upper hangar where the 892NAS team could work on the snags. Somewhere along the way the odd 892 sticker zaps became a better idea of a complete repaint on the fin. This became quite handy when ground runs were required, as all USMC markings were covered with brown paper and the tail seemed quite enough to allow runs on deck, noise to Valletta residents notwithstanding. Came time to leave harbour and the first call was to Flying Stations, launch the VMFA-531 F4 regardless of servicability. Off it went back to Forrestal where Cdr Bill Quirk, CO of 531, was so taken with the zap that he kept it all the way home and launched to lead his squadron with one of the best zaps of its time :ok: A few more images, including one when I went over to Forrestal to pick up our maintenance guys and return (some) of theirs! https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....faf2de3194.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....70cb4d90b9.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....da021566dc.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4675b137fc.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f5ebc2c2b1.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f6e825fc1e.jpg In 1980, 824 NAS definitely helped the USS Midway Battlegroup turn the tide protecting allied oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran/Iraq conflict ! Well, at least when it came to HDS... |
Yep - it’s a good time not to be flying anywhere near the North Sea - looking forward to hearing about the Hawk recoveries alongside the Coastal fuelled O&G aircraft ;-)
not to mention the girls and guys playing outside of the exercise areas.....good luck one and all! |
Originally Posted by FODPlod
(Post 10892323)
British Implacable, Audacious and Courageous class aircraft carriers (and possibly others) had both an upper and lower hangar.
Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ? Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ? And another Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing? Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10893712)
Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ?
Many Imperial Japanese Navy Carriers were built with two hangar decks, Making The US tendency towards a single hangar deck the odd one rather than the norm. Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ? Furious, Glorious and Courageous had lower 'flying off decks' which extended over the bows from the upper hangar. The intention being to speed up launching fighters by having them fly directly from the hangar. The Japanese tried this too but by the later 30s these decks fell out of use as aircraft got bigger and needed more space for launch. And another Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing? No. Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage |
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell
(Post 10893810)
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.
Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available ! While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often Worth a Google |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10893816)
Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar
That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available ! While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often Worth a Google Sure enough. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...f-world-war-ii |
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell
(Post 10893810)
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.
|
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 10894102)
No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.
god speed. cheers |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.