<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The flying aircraft carrier: why?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/</link>
	<description>Airpower and British society, 1908-1941</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:24:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Don Smith</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77308</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77308</guid>
		<description>The Bell Geddes Airliner #4 (Brett&#039;s &quot;that site&quot; link above).  Wow!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bell Geddes Airliner #4 (Brett&#8217;s &#8220;that site&#8221; link above).  Wow!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77168</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77168</guid>
		<description>ErrolC:

Yes, that sounds about right. Airships could cross the Atlantic non-stop, and blimps were useful in the anti-sub role in both world wars (though only coastally, AFAIK). Though now that you mention bad weather ... given the number of airships lost to storms, the North Atlantic wouldn&#039;t be the best place to have them patrol. The money would probably be better invested in a few more Sunderlands or VLR Liberators anyway.

Chris:

You&#039;re right! AP-1 (&#039;airship plane 1&#039;), an SS with a BE.2c underneath. Trials in 1915 were successful but the operational test on 21 February 1916 was a disaster as you say. AP-2 was already completed but scrapped. Ces Mowthorpe, &lt;em&gt;Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War&lt;/em&gt; (Stroud: Sutton, 1995), 43. Kennedy did say that &#039;air bases&#039; had been used in WWI, though he says they were used successfully for coastal patrols (against what, I don&#039;t know). I just assumed he was thinking of the SSs which used aeroplane fuselages as makeshift gondolas.

Ricardo:

Well, anything is worth trying once! Some great pics on &lt;a href=&quot;http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/FantasySectionIntro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;that site&lt;/a&gt;, thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ErrolC:</p>
<p>Yes, that sounds about right. Airships could cross the Atlantic non-stop, and blimps were useful in the anti-sub role in both world wars (though only coastally, AFAIK). Though now that you mention bad weather &#8230; given the number of airships lost to storms, the North Atlantic wouldn&#8217;t be the best place to have them patrol. The money would probably be better invested in a few more Sunderlands or VLR Liberators anyway.</p>
<p>Chris:</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right! AP-1 (&#8216;airship plane 1&#8242;), an SS with a BE.2c underneath. Trials in 1915 were successful but the operational test on 21 February 1916 was a disaster as you say. AP-2 was already completed but scrapped. Ces Mowthorpe, <em>Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War</em> (Stroud: Sutton, 1995), 43. Kennedy did say that &#8216;air bases&#8217; had been used in WWI, though he says they were used successfully for coastal patrols (against what, I don&#8217;t know). I just assumed he was thinking of the SSs which used aeroplane fuselages as makeshift gondolas.</p>
<p>Ricardo:</p>
<p>Well, anything is worth trying once! Some great pics on <a href="http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/FantasySectionIntro.htm" rel="nofollow">that site</a>, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricardo Reis</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77158</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricardo Reis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77158</guid>
		<description>Just come accross this: Ideas to put the Zeppelin threat at bay...

http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/zepcomics.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just come accross this: Ideas to put the Zeppelin threat at bay&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/zepcomics.htm" rel="nofollow">http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/zepcomics.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Williams</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77154</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77154</guid>
		<description>ObWW1: AP1 was, I think,  modified Sea Scout envelope with a BE2 attached beneath it. The idea was to use the blimp&#039;s endurance to hang about at 10,000 ft waiting for Zeppelins, then when one arrived, let the envelope go, and chase after it. It all turned out rather badly: the release mechanism fouled on the test flight, upending the plane and killing both pilots, one of whom was the designer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ObWW1: AP1 was, I think,  modified Sea Scout envelope with a BE2 attached beneath it. The idea was to use the blimp&#8217;s endurance to hang about at 10,000 ft waiting for Zeppelins, then when one arrived, let the envelope go, and chase after it. It all turned out rather badly: the release mechanism fouled on the test flight, upending the plane and killing both pilots, one of whom was the designer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ErrolC</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77151</link>
		<dc:creator>ErrolC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:56:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77151</guid>
		<description>&lt;q&gt;A few of these would have been very useful for hunting down surface raiders, for example, or U-boats for that matter. So they probably should be thought of as being more like escort carriers than fleet carriers.&lt;/q&gt;

Somewhere between escort carriers and MAC ships?
Higher speed than ships (could move between convoys?), but less endurance and impacted by bad weather for longer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><q>A few of these would have been very useful for hunting down surface raiders, for example, or U-boats for that matter. So they probably should be thought of as being more like escort carriers than fleet carriers.</q></p>
<p>Somewhere between escort carriers and MAC ships?<br />
Higher speed than ships (could move between convoys?), but less endurance and impacted by bad weather for longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
