Shipbucket

I added 3/4 a meter so that should help.
Shrug. That is dazzle. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
The guys on the Princetons trapped planes with fouled decks full of parked planes amidships as did the CVEs. Apparently plow ins were an accepted operational hazard as the land-ons were rolled forward during massed recovery ops.. In addition, if the plane handlers do their jobs right, the amidships park is only where the risers receive fuel and flight deck maintenance before being rolled forward to the catapults.
B-25 Mitchell = 16.5 x 21 x 5 meters
TBF Avenger = 13 x 17 x 5 meters.

That Mitchell would have to have folding wings and lose about 7 feet of tail. It could still hog the deck as long as you can pass planes under it. Again this plane handling is based on common WW II practice for the Bogue airgroups when they operated Avengers and Wildcats off those C-3 merchant hulls. Only in their case, the trapped plane was rolled forward to be struck below by using the forward centerline elevator--centipede fashion. The plane then moved backwards through the hanger under all those parked planes above it and was lifted onto the flight deck into the rear of the plane park to await its turn at the catapult. It was a conveyor type system that operated in conjunction with the plane yo-yo; where the deck crews rolled the massed planes forward to the stem to allow trap space and then rolled them back astern so they could clear the catapult and/or c lear a takeoff run. It appears that was the only way they mechanically could get more than thirty planes off a 550 foot flight deck. Weird isn't it? My respects to those guys.


.

I doubt they would do this if what you describe would be useful. you need a lot more space for landing your aircraft then what you have drawn, unless you have also invented VTOL's in the 1930's.

As for the B25, even if it had a folding wing and tail, it still would be the size of a few avengers due to the B25 being twin engined, with the landing gear all the way at the engines.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Good points, acelanceloet.

Could I say in mitigation that I did illustrate pathways for the trap, but these pathways to the aft elevators also include the cable arrest distance for the landing aircraft?

To put what I mean into perspective:



(US Navy photo)

Flight deck operations.

(YouTube US Navy training film)

Notice the Wildcat's stop distance on that Bogue and how it is rolled forward from section to section of the flight deck from each section director's control as the handlers push the Wildcat back to front in the plane yo-yo and how it is then serviced on the flight deck? The Japanese and the British (until the British adopted American practice) in this era usually fueled and armed in the hanger. The Americans tended to use the hanger more as storage, a garage to mechanically repair planes, and to move planes around under a fouled deck, preferring to service planes on the flight deck in the weather. Makes sense as it gives the most elbow room to work.

As can be seen from the way the plane yo-yo works, deck edge lifts can make a lot of sense, even when the carriers do not and cannot for various technical and historical reasons have angled decks, yet.

Next, some revised cruisers and destroyers;

Revised ships.

FLUFF and STUFF: STANDARDIZATION AND WHY TWO ENGINES FOR THE AIRCRAFT, MCCOY? YOU KNOW IT WILL NOT WORK.

One knows the arguments, the extra engine means four times the workload and one cannot fold the plane up to fit inside a 1931 carrier.

Meet the Martin B-10. The big kicker is the wingspan. At 22 meters wide it cannot fit on a flight deck. Change the wing chord. Now at 15 meters it fits. (Devastator has a 15 meter wingspan.)

Only two advantages the revised bird has. One, it can carry the one tonne AU electric torpedo easily. Two, It has three times the Devastator's operational combat radius. And this is with 1930 technology. The Devastator is not even possible until 1935 when the Pratt twin Wasp Junior is initially refined.

I will recommend to try to draw at an better quality. at the moment every ships you have drawn look.... like a cartoon...

hull windows: are you drawing a warship or a cruise ship....

look at how ships are drawn and compare it to you'r drawing.

Everything is so ...... argh.... not shipbuckt quality, I can't take it serious, after so many drawings... a few first one, okay.... many many many drawing later.... and no improvement on the drawing quality, they look like a drawing done in 5 minute.... while a shipbucket drawing can take several hours to months to do.

I second HueHuen's comments, the talent for making an AU is there, but the quality of the drawings is lacking. Read the tutorials, look at what other artists have done, spend more time drawing, and carefully look over it before posting. Please use shipbucket templates and art style, as everyone else has done.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

And with that very valid criticism from those who can, I shall desist any further drawing. There is no point of polluting this excellent site with what is clearly my second rate work. No-one's fault except mine.

Thanks for your patience. I will continue to enjoy the work of those who can. If I can add a small valid historical comment or two about a drawing of note, I will on occasion, but clearly my drawing days should be over.

No, no, by all means keep drawing. We aren't trying to discourage you from drawing by any means, just read the tutorials and see what others have done, and go from there. There is no problem with you contributing artistically to the site at all, just make sure you are doing it in the right fashion. Take some time to consider designs and make sure they are in the right style. I look forward to seeing your work in the future.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

On a second note, if you would like to join the shipbucket discord, myself and others present would be more than willing to help you improve your work.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939