Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
Skywalker_T-65 said:

It's Hornet and San Jacinto.

This said, try to avoid image spamming the thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I never realized just how small those Escort Carriers and Light Carriers are compared to the big Fleets.

Actually makes me quite a bit curious as to how they managed to get planes off the deck and recover them. It's one thing with Japan's Zeros or Britain's Seafires, given the former is very light and has a very short takeoff run, and the latter is heavier but has one of the most fuckoff overpowered piston engines to ever go on a fighter. But American naval aircraft are a different story. The Hellcat isn't exactly a light aircraft, and I can't fathom a Corsair being able to take off from such a short deck, much less land.

I dunno, maybe I'm just overestimating how much space those aircraft actually need to get airborne.
 
Head wind. That's one of the reason why the Indies can launch the Hellcat. Let's say you have 25kts wind, and the carrier steam into the wind at 30kts, then you have 55kts head wind to assist take off. Take off speed for a fully loaded F6F-3 Hellcat is 86mph/74.7kts, that means the Hellcat just need 30kts more to safely leave the deck. This, of course, is a simplified explanation.

Even the British found it hard to operate Seafire in calm weather, their Light Fleets are making 24-25kts tops after all.

As for CVEs, with their even shorter flight deck and slow speed had to settle with the Wildcats. And some of them were fitted with catapults.
 
Last edited:
Amancai said:
Head wind. That's one of the reason why the Indies can launch the Hellcat. Let's say you have 25kts wind, and the carrier steam into the wind at 30kts, then you have 55kts head wind to assist take off. Take off speed for a fully loaded F6F-3 Hellcat is 86mph/74.7kts, that means the Hellcat just need 30kts more to safely leave the deck. This, of course, is a simplified explanation.

Even the British found it hard to operate Seafire in calm weather, their Light Fleets are making 24-25kts tops after all.

As for CVEs, with their even shorter flight deck and slow speed had to settle with the Wildcats. And some of them were fitted with catapults.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They still do it to this day, because it's so effective.
 
spartan448 said:
I never realized just how small those Escort Carriers and Light Carriers are compared to the big Fleets.

Actually makes me quite a bit curious as to how they managed to get planes off the deck and recover them. It's one thing with Japan's Zeros or Britain's Seafires, given the former is very light and has a very short takeoff run, and the latter is heavier but has one of the most fuckoff overpowered piston engines to ever go on a fighter. But American naval aircraft are a different story. The Hellcat isn't exactly a light aircraft, and I can't fathom a Corsair being able to take off from such a short deck, much less land.

I dunno, maybe I'm just overestimating how much space those aircraft actually need to get airborne.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Recovery is easy. That's the whole point of the arrestor wires. That's all deck width, LSO, and pilot. It's how modern big-ass fighters with their high stall speeds can land on something as small as a carrier.

Amancai said:
As for CVEs, with their even shorter flight deck and slow speed had to settle with the Wildcats. And some of them were fitted with catapults.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To expand, they had the FM2 Wildcat, which was a variant optimized for small carrier operations, having a more powerful (1,350 hp) engine, and a taller tail to cope with the additional torque, as well as hardpoints for a pair of 250lb bombs, or 6 HVAR rockets.
 
Also, despite having been designed for it the Corsair (at least in initial production) was horrible at carrier operations anyway, to the point that it couldn't reliably land on one and they were reassigned to island airfields PDQ.
 
Czlyydwr Llrngwl said:
Also, despite having been designed for it the Corsair (at least in initial production) was horrible at carrier operations anyway, to the point that it couldn't reliably land on one and they were reassigned to island airfields PDQ.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Corsair's big problem was that they tended to bounce on landing, which meant the tailhook wouldn't catch the arrestor wire properly. The Fleet Air Arm managed to fix the problem (eventually), and the fixes made their way to USN/USMC Corsairs just barely in time for some Corsair squadrons to make carrier qualification and fly sorties before the war ended.
 
The main problem with the Corsair vis-a-vis carrier operations was the long nose, not the 'bouncy' landing gear. They were able to easily solve the latter with stiffer oleo struts on the main gear, but the long shnozz and the relatively low position of the pilot made it nearly impossible to see the carrier deck while landing. This was solved by shifting the pilot position upwards and bulging up the cockpit.
 
LordSunhawk said:
The main problem with the Corsair vis-a-vis carrier operations was the long nose, not the 'bouncy' landing gear. They were able to easily solve the latter with stiffer oleo struts on the main gear, but the long shnozz and the relatively low position of the pilot made it nearly impossible to see the carrier deck while landing. This was solved by shifting the pilot position upwards and bulging up the cockpit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
After the war, two pilots were talking, and they both remarked about how difficult it was to land their planes. One was a Corsair pilot, the other was a P-47 pilot. The 47 pilot said, according to what I've been told, 'I had it easy. If I missed the runway, I just rolled into the grass.'
 
P-38 Tricycle gear master race, bitches! All you had to worry about was torquing too hard on an engine-out and flipping over (not actually true IIRC but commonly believed at the time) or going into a dive and having the gremlins lock up the controls so you couldn't pull out.
 
Actually for fighters like Corsairs and T-bolts the tail-dragger configuration was a serious benefit, as it lifted the nose and thus allowed for a larger propellor for the same given landing gear height. Otherwise you'd have to add about a foot or so to the landing gear so that when under load your prop wouldn't dig into the ground.
 
LordSunhawk said:
Actually for fighters like Corsairs and T-bolts the tail-dragger configuration was a serious benefit, as it lifted the nose and thus allowed for a larger propellor for the same given landing gear height. Otherwise you'd have to add about a foot or so to the landing gear so that when under load your prop wouldn't dig into the ground.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope. You have to have enough ground clearance for the prop either way, since part of taking off (not counting catapult assist) is having the tail rise to level position when you get up to speed. Here's a drawing of the t-bolt, showing it in the level flight attitude with gear down:
 
Last edited:
Czlyydwr Llrngwl said:
Nope. You have to have enough ground clearance for the prop either way, since part of taking off (not counting catapult assist) is having the tail rise to level position when you get up to speed. Here's a drawing of the t-bolt, showing it in the level flight attitude with gear down:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are failing to take into account oleo loading in your analysis. The landing gear has significant 'play' to absorb the shock of landing, and when the plane is on the ground the oleo struts are fully compressed. The tail dragger attitude thus improves prop clearance during taxi and initial roll-out until the oleos are offloaded by the increasing lift on the wings. By the time the tail rises to a horizontal position the oleos have offloaded enough that the landing gear is between 8 to 12 inches 'taller' than when they are compressed, lifting the nose so that the prop retains sufficient clearance.

The P-38 is not the best example for this comparison, rather you need a tricycle geared *single engine* fighter, that would be the P-39, and take a look at how long and spindly the landing gear is on that bird in comparison to taildraggers.
 
Sir_Braazmiir said:
He does seem to have it. Along with a penchant for writing completely nonsensical stories that make no logical sense. Shipgirls are still highly resistant to all anti-personnel weaponry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
JMPer has said that, due to the way MSSB works, shipgirls are only proportionately resistant to anti-personnel weaponry on land. That is, battleships are meant to be resistant to hits even from their own guns, so on land you'd need the largest practical man-portable weapon to take them down, like a 12.7 or a 14.5mm weapon. Cruiser and destroyers, logically follow with less resistance to small arms while on land.

Actually, that does beg the question - would a 20mm autocannon be less effective than a 12.7mm sniper rifle, or even a 20mm rifle, on the grounds that it really isn't man-portable anymore, so that it counts as the least powerful AFV weapon, rather than the most powerful infantry weapon?
 
Linkstore said:
JMPer has said that, due to the way MSSB works, shipgirls are only proportionately resistant to anti-personnel weaponry on land. That is, battleships are meant to be resistant to hits even from their own guns, so on land you'd need the largest practical man-portable weapon to take them down, like a 12.7 or a 14.5mm weapon. Cruiser and destroyers, logically follow with less resistance to small arms while on land.

Actually, that does beg the question - would a 20mm autocannon be less effective than a 12.7mm sniper rifle, or even a 20mm rifle, on the grounds that it really isn't man-portable anymore, so that it counts as the least powerful AFV weapon, rather than the most powerful infantry weapon?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're in the wrong thread. This is Sky's story not JMP's.
 
Last edited:
First of all, rip. Second of all, yeah, let us not continue this here.

... you have no idea how tempted i am to delete that. Oh well.
 
Since this is just too cute to not share...


Her official artist strikes again. Somehow, someway, WSG!Sara gets cuter with each new outfit I swear. >.>


(also snuck in a reference to KC!Sara. Really is the Yoshinori of WSG with less revealing outfits)


More on topic: If I pass the test Wednesday, I'm going to celebrate by working on this before I start studying for the second test. May get something up. At the least, I want to get another chapter preview put together.
 
And...passed.

If all goes well, then, I'll have something up in here tonight. Be it a full chapter or just a preview.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top