Pocket Aircraft Carrier concept, UK 1936

[lastdingo]

hat tip to ModernMechanix blog

‘Pocket’ Aircraft Carrier to Mother Seaplanes
Following the trend toward “pocket-size” warships, an airplane carrier designed by a British aircraft manufacturer has a displacement of only 3,000 tons. It
would be specifically commissioned to handle seaplanes. Over-all length would be 361 feet, with a fifty-two foot beam. Its cruising radius would be 5,000 miles.

The depicted aircraft appears to be the Supermarine Walrus. Comparable to J2F Duck, but much uglier.

 

[Jemiba]

Interesting concept, I'm just not quite sure about the tasks, it could have been used for.
The Walrus probably could take off from the flight deck (take-off distance about 220 m,
take off speed around 100 km/h), but for recovering the ship probably would have to stop,
so not really useful as a convoy escort. And as a flying boat tender, it would have been
anchoring in the roads with the flying boats taking off from the watre, so no flying deck
would have been needed.

 

[Grey Havoc]

So presumably, this was a Vickers-Armstrongs proposal?

 

[lastdingo]

So presumably, this was a Vickers-Armstrongs proposal?

Unlikely, the proposing company was according to the scan an aircraft manufacturer, and Supermarine's aircraft is depicted in the concept art. I suppose it's from Supermarine.


Recovery during cruise speed would have been possible.
Navies of that time knew a device that was essentially a towed sail on the surface. The aircraft moved onto it on its own power and then the connection with the crane for recovery was made (or so I understood the installation).

Take off would be little problem, considering that 28 kts of speed without any head wind provides already about 50 kph speed to the aircraft.

 

[Jemiba]

Navies of that time knew a device that was essentially a towed sail on the surface.

Correct, this was used on the German "Schleuderschiffen" (catapult ships), too, to recover Do Wal,
later Do 18 and 26. But AFAIK, although principally making possible the recovery of a flying boat
from a ship under way, there were severe limitations due to the weather conditions. Additionally,
for a save recovery the ship had to steer against the wind. Not really a problem for the "Schleuderschiffe",
but not the best way, if part of a convoy. And a ship, as shown there probably wouldn't have been able to
reach a speed of 28 kts, I think. With regards to displacement and shape, it looks not much different to,
say HMS Nairana or HMS Pegasus from late WW I, or soem Japanese seaplane carriers from WW II, just
fitted with the forward flight deck. All of them could reach about 20 kts at best. So I still cannot see the
"raison d'etre", but maybe that was the reason for not following that way.

 

[robunos]

The aircraft appear to be Supermarine Seagull IIs or IIIs, rather than Walrus (the Walrus was, of course, originally known as the Seagull V).

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Jemiba]

Yes, you may be right, have blown up the piucture and the wheels seem
to be bigger and the cockpit open. But both aircraft (or variants) had the same
purpose, I think.

 

[Tony Williams]

This reminds me of a proposal from a private individual which appeared in The Aeroplane magazine around 1940. He proposed a small convoy escort carrier for the Avro Rota Cierva-type autogyro which was in RAF service at the time. Not to carry weapons, but simply to fly around the convoy reporting any sightings of U-boats to the escort warships.

Seems quite a sensible idea to me. The take-off and landing runs of the autogyros were of course extremely short, so only a small flight deck would be needed.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, IIRC the Sea Otter was fitted with an arrestor hook, but I'm not sure about the Walrus and its
immediate predecessor Sea Gull. And the ships layout certainly wouldn't allow landing back on the
flight deck.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This ship looks a lot like HMAS Albatross. For which the Seagull V (later called Walrus) was designed.

 

[Thiel]

If memory serves I got these from the Hiraga archive.

 

[Jemiba]

Great, many thanks !
I'm standing corrected, as the speed is given with 30 kts ! Would have
needed a kind of cruiser machinery, I think.
But the side view actually proves, that Sea Gull wold have been embarked.

 

[cluttonfred]

A very interesting design, though I suspect that the sea conditions in the North Atlantic are what gave the Admiralty pause when thinking about going ahead with such a project. Yes, the battleships and cruisers that carried embarked spotter planes did use the towed net system for bringing the planes back aboard, but that was for limited use, not round-the-clock anti-submarine patrols. It would have been interesting, to say the least, to land those Seagulls in the wake of the carrier in rough seas on a stormy night. Still, if the scheme did prove practical, the Seagulls could have been replaced later with Lend-Lease Vought Kingfishers. Such ships might also have encouraged final development and fielding of the stillborn Allied floatplane fighter projects like the Grumman Wildcat or Supermarine Spitfire conversions.

 

[Jemiba]

The problem with Kingfishers may have been, that floatplanes proved much more susceptible to damage during
taxiing on the surface and landing/take-off, than flying boats. And a broken strut often resulted in a complete
loss, whereas flying boats like the Do Wal or Do 18 proved considerably more robust.

 

[cluttonfred]

I am not so sure that I agree there as I think single-float floatplanes were comparable to the boat-hull design in terms of seaworthiness. An even more important flaw with my suggestion, though, is that the Kingfisher was a seaplane or a landplane but not an amphibian so it would have required some sort of trolley and rail system for handing and takeoff! Maybe Grumman J2F Ducks? Realistically, if this sort of fast seaplane carrier had actually been built, the Seagull's successor, the Walrus, would probably have been the most likely aircraft during the war years.

 

[Grey Havoc]

So presumably, this was a Vickers-Armstrongs proposal?

Unlikely, the proposing company was according to the scan an aircraft manufacturer, and Supermarine's aircraft is depicted in the concept art. I suppose it's from Supermarine.

Vickers-Armstrongs produced both aircraft and ships, and Supermarine was at that time a subsidiary of it's aviation division, IIRC.