• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

RN post war carrier conundrums

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
127
Yup. The Tracer has a spot factor of 2.35 when using the A-4 as your baseline equalling a spot factor of 1. The Hawkeye has a spot factor of 2.25. It's not a huge difference, but on a smaller ship, every little bit helps.

Edit: Just to clarify, spot factor is based on the folded size of the aircraft, not the size with the wings extended. Extended, the Hawkeye is clearly a bigger aircraft then the Tracer. But it folded up smaller than the earlier E-1 did
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,678
Reaction score
1,226
I think this was deliberate. Grumman deliberately designed the Hawkeye to correct the (many ?) flaws in the E-1B... without taking much more room on the carriers.
Weight, by contrast... grew a lot. Which somewhat defeated the purpose of the whole thing... what's the point in having an aircraft, same volume but twice the weight, since the catapults will have a hard time throwing the said weight ? (and catapults don't give a rat about volume or span, incidentally).

I often think that the French Navy should have created a Turbo-Tracer, that is: an E-1B with turboprops. What is really interesting is, the French flying firemen (la Sécurité Civile) exactly did that. They changed their Trackers into TurboTrackers.

I found tantalizing bits on Google books that French Navy E-1B very nearly happened, twice - once at the beginnings of Clemenceau and Foch in the 60's, and another time in the late 80's, before the CdG got Hawkeyes.

Well incidentally, my wet dream French Navy air group consists of
- Mirage F1M interceptors
- A-7 Corsairs for strike
- E-1C TurboTracers for AEW
- Breguet 941 COD (it very nearly happened, it was proposed - in your face, Hercules on Forrestal !)
(crap ! ASW Breguet 941 from Clemenceaus ??!!! my mind is blown).
 
Last edited:

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,639
Reaction score
396
Yup. The Tracer has a spot factor of 2.35 when using the A-4 as your baseline equalling a spot factor of 1. The Hawkeye has a spot factor of 2.25. It's not a huge difference, but on a smaller ship, every little bit helps.

Edit: Just to clarify, spot factor is based on the folded size of the aircraft, not the size with the wings extended. Extended, the Hawkeye is clearly a bigger aircraft then the Tracer. But it folded up smaller than the earlier E-1 did
Thanks. I included span folded figures for E-1 and E-2 because of an inkling that they had something to do with it.
 

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
127
Unfortunately, Grumman ef'd it up. The E-2A was so damn unreliable that the Navy grounded the plane and put the E-1 back on the carriers and threatened to cancel the whole damn program unless Grumman fixed in one damn big hurry. That led to the E-2B which was better, but was only an interim solution. Grumman replaced as much of the internal vacuum tube electronics as they could with solid state electronics and deleted the telescoping mount for the radar to reduce complexity and add additional cooling to the cabin.
 

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
127
Yup. The Tracer has a spot factor of 2.35 when using the A-4 as your baseline equalling a spot factor of 1. The Hawkeye has a spot factor of 2.25. It's not a huge difference, but on a smaller ship, every little bit helps.

Edit: Just to clarify, spot factor is based on the folded size of the aircraft, not the size with the wings extended. Extended, the Hawkeye is clearly a bigger aircraft then the Tracer. But it folded up smaller than the earlier E-1 did
Thanks. I included span folded figures for E-1 and E-2 because of an inkling that they had something to do with it.
Yeah, late 50s/early 60s carrier aircraft tended to be big even when folded. Starting in the 70s and 80s, the Navy made a big effort to get their aircraft to fold up as small as possible.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
136
I am always intrigued by the US ASW Essex ships with their mixture of S2 and Seaking ASW and anti-snooper Skyhawks. A developed short take off ASW plane rather than the S3 might have allowed these and Karel Doorman and Bonaventure to be replaced by an updated new build Essex size ship. The UK could easily have designed and built such a ship to replace Hermes and Bulwark in the ASW role more effectively than the Invincibles. Italy and even France might have joined such a NATO small carrier programme with Arromanches 2 and Trieste/Italia
Sorry for replying to a months old post, but the S-3 Viking was actually designed specifically to be operated off the Essex class. They had a folding vertical stabilizer to fit them in the 17.5' hangers of the class. Same with the E-2 Hawkeye. The Hawkeye was originally equipped with a telescoping mount for the radar allowing the aircraft to be struck down into the hangers of the Essex and Midway classes.
I remember reading on a forum about how the telescoping mount was a PITA/flaky... not that it would have stopped it being used, just there would be a lot of ugly stories about it on the 'net today if it had been used more
 

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
127
I am always intrigued by the US ASW Essex ships with their mixture of S2 and Seaking ASW and anti-snooper Skyhawks. A developed short take off ASW plane rather than the S3 might have allowed these and Karel Doorman and Bonaventure to be replaced by an updated new build Essex size ship. The UK could easily have designed and built such a ship to replace Hermes and Bulwark in the ASW role more effectively than the Invincibles. Italy and even France might have joined such a NATO small carrier programme with Arromanches 2 and Trieste/Italia
Sorry for replying to a months old post, but the S-3 Viking was actually designed specifically to be operated off the Essex class. They had a folding vertical stabilizer to fit them in the 17.5' hangers of the class. Same with the E-2 Hawkeye. The Hawkeye was originally equipped with a telescoping mount for the radar allowing the aircraft to be struck down into the hangers of the Essex and Midway classes.
I remember reading on a forum about how the telescoping mount was a PITA/flaky... not that it would have stopped it being used, just there would be a lot of ugly stories about it on the 'net today if it had been used more
I wouldn't be surprised. The Hawkeye pushed the boundaries of what was possible when it was designed.
 
Top