Comments on: The flying aircraft carrier: why? http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Fri, 25 May 2012 12:47:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Airminded · Future schemes of air defence http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-163113 Airminded · Future schemes of air defence Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:23:43 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-163113 [...] Britain. It would certainly seem that they might usefully be developed to serve the purpose of carrying a fast fighter, and, while drifting for periods with engine stopped, listening with sound locators for approaching [...] [...] Britain. It would certainly seem that they might usefully be developed to serve the purpose of carrying a fast fighter, and, while drifting for periods with engine stopped, listening with sound locators for approaching [...]

]]> By: Airminded · The dream of unmanned flight http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-157934 Airminded · The dream of unmanned flight Sat, 07 May 2011 18:14:11 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-157934 [...] was on it: an artist's impression of a both a flying aircraft carrier -- which idea I've discussed before -- and an airship drone -- which I [...] [...] was on it: an artist's impression of a both a flying aircraft carrier -- which idea I've discussed before -- and an airship drone -- which I [...]

]]> By: Don Smith http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77308 Don Smith Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:13:05 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77308 The Bell Geddes Airliner #4 (Brett's "that site" link above). Wow! The Bell Geddes Airliner #4 (Brett's "that site" link above). Wow!

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77168 Brett Holman Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:07:24 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77168 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'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're right! AP-1 ('airship plane 1'), 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 'air bases' had been used in WWI, though he says they were used successfully for coastal patrols (against what, I don'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 <a href="http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/FantasySectionIntro.htm" rel="nofollow">that site</a>, thanks. 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'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're right! AP-1 ('airship plane 1'), 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, Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War (Stroud: Sutton, 1995), 43. Kennedy did say that 'air bases' had been used in WWI, though he says they were used successfully for coastal patrols (against what, I don'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 that site, thanks.

]]> By: Ricardo Reis http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77158 Ricardo Reis Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:07:27 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77158 Just come accross this: Ideas to put the Zeppelin threat at bay... http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/zepcomics.htm Just come accross this: Ideas to put the Zeppelin threat at bay...

http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/zepcomics.htm

]]> By: Chris Williams http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77154 Chris Williams Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:00:42 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77154 ObWW1: AP1 was, I think, modified Sea Scout envelope with a BE2 attached beneath it. The idea was to use the blimp'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. ObWW1: AP1 was, I think, modified Sea Scout envelope with a BE2 attached beneath it. The idea was to use the blimp'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.

]]> By: ErrolC http://airminded.org/2008/07/04/the-flying-aircraft-carrier-why/comment-page-1/#comment-77151 ErrolC Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:56:14 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=521#comment-77151 <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> 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. 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.

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.

]]>