Takeoff on Carriers

[oldpop2000]

I would like to see a review of how the game launches aircraft. Let me explain.

An aircraft like the F6F-5 would need 355 ft. in a 25 knot wind to take off at 86.5  knots. Without that wind, it would need 755 feet. The flight deck of the Yorktown class was 770 ft. So, with a deck load, the ship HAD to turn into the wind and generate at least 25 knots to launch the fighters first. The order of strike launch was always fighters first, then dive bombers, then torpedo bombers. For dive bombers and torpedo bombers, the distance and takeoff speed will be higher. 

Now, the basic catapult for that period was a hydropneumatics catapult with its maximum takeoff speed of about 120 MPH. Its maximum weight was 15,000 lbs. approx. 

Most aircraft by 1940 were very close to 10,000 lbs. of launch weight which does not give you much slack. So, carriers always turned into the wind, accelerate to 30 knots to generate a 25 knot wind across the bow to launch. Lighter aircraft obviously will have lower takeoff speeds but will probably still require the carrier to turn into the wind.

I am asking for the team to review their details. I am not saying they made a mistake but just review how the game handles this to ensure that it is adequate. I don't know if it isn't. I am just trying to help. These comments are based on the fact that aircraft performance deteriorates with time, especially when they are in combat operations. Engine power deteriorates due to piston and cylinder walls, superchargers don't produce the required air and structures will also increase drag due to damage from gunfire and operations. This all contributes to the lack of speed on take-off. This along with the reduction in speed of the carrier for lots of reasons.

This all revolves around fuel management. With 25 knots across the deck, I can reduce my throttle as soon as my wheels are off the deck and climbing out. This will cut down on my fuel usage and increase my range and ensure that I have enough fuel to get home. 

[kriegsmeister]

In the broadest terms, aircraft got bigger and faster, therefore the carriers got bigger and faster and this is just not represented at all ingame. With purpose built designs, you can make essentially the same CV and CVL classes from the month you unlock the tech al the way to 1970. My preferences are for unarmored, 30-33kt ships, carrying 34 or 100 aircraft, on 10-12k or 22-26k ton hulls with as much main battery HAA and MAA as I can. These are the cheapest ships that you can build with the maximum amount aircraft possible without incurring spotting penalties. I find armor to be superfluous as any attacking ships or aircraft that can get past your friendly forward sea/air forces and your CAP and screening ships would have been significant enough to wreck your fleet with armor. Regardless, other than armouring your carriers there is absolutely no need to build any larger than this and you can mass produce these and keep them in service almost indefinitely with minor -paintjobs- refits. Which is very ahistorical and very annoyingly gimmicky. There should be a real push to invest in larger stronger carriers throughout the 40's and 50's in the same vane as the dreadnought races before them.


So I believe Aircraft need to have 3 more stats for the minimum speed and size of the carrier they could operate on.


Takeoff Speed - Extrapolated as 1/4-1/6th of the aircrafts cruising speed, this would be the minimum speed a carrier needs to steam to launch an aircraft.

Runway Length - Extrapolated as minimum carrier tonnage that the aircraft can operate on

Aircraft Size/Hanger Size - A new value to determine how much space a carrier has for aircraft (based on tonnage/other equipment installed), and how big an aircraft is (primarily aircraft type with coefficients for speed/bombload/year...)


So how this would work is that every aircraft you build would have 3 stats as described above, for example, say we have a Torpedo bomber in 1922, pulling random numbers out of my -ass- hat we'll say it needs a carrier at least 9k tons that can sail at 22kts, and it has a size of 8. Our only carrier in service is a converted CA that weighs 12.5k ton, steams at 23kts, and has a hanger capacity of 150. So this Torpedo bomber is compatible with this carrier and if we were going with a full strike load without any fighters we could carry 18 aircraft. A few years later we develop another TB with requirements of 10k tons, 25kts, and size of 10. While our CVL is big enough and if restocked with the new TB's could carry 15, BUT it is not fast enough to launch the aircraft. Now this could be alleviated by refitting our CVL with deck mounted catapults, which I say shouldn't completely nullify the speed requirement but decrease it by a few knots, say 4 for our purposes. With it fitted, our ship can now safely launch aircraft with a 27kt Takeoff speed. So we're good again and our CVL has a complement of 15 TB's, but then even later we develop yet another TB, as one should, with stats of 14k tons, 27kts, and size 15. With this aircraft we are fast enough, could carry 10, but the "runway length" of our CVL is to short, therefore we cannot operate this new TB on our old CVL and will need to design a new ship to accommodate it.

This adds a few more numbers to the game but still keeps it relatively simplistic yet giving that just extra bit more granularity to add more depth.

[captainloggy]

This also would add an incentive to keep older aircraft types for lighter carriers, like the USN had to do historically in WW2, as their newer aircraft weren't able to operate aboard the smaller and slower carriers.

[brygun]

If this gets implemented it would have to go hand in hand with more control on aircraft types. Normally a player is likely to have just one and sometimes two of a certain type of plane. Let use torpedo bombers for the example. TRB-1 being type 1 of that plane, TRB-2 the second and so on. Likewise with CV1, CV2 etc.

If this is implemented the progression for bigger torpedo bombers you will get into situations where the player's CV1 can handle TRB-1 or TRB-2, CV2 can handle TRB-2 or TRB-3 while CV3 is the only one who can fly late game larger TRB-4. If we leave all TRB# in production there needs to be mechanisms for saying NOT to waste CV3 on TRB-1.

Both the player and the AI need to have that better airgroup onboard management.

>>>

Those additional data points like hanger space used ought to be added to the list of priorities. For example having folding wings reduces space needs but does reduce maneuvering and speed due to the mechanism weights.

[oldpop2000]

You are all aware that the takeoff and landing of a carrier aircraft has much to do with factors other than takeoff weight. Let's review just a couple.

1. Takeoff weight- obvious, power to weight is important

2. Engine power - The other half of the formula. More power, more takeoff weight.

3. Propeller blade angles - course pitch provides more push at altitude but fine pitch works better for takeoffs.

4. Aerodynamics - the less induced drag and form drag, the better the power to weight.

5. Flaps - Simple flaps or Fowler flaps make a difference.

6. Leading edge flaps - these pop out automatically at high angles of attack, possible with a steep climb out from the deck

Now, here is a page from the US Navy, about the evolution of carriers. Examine the difference in carrier deck lengths from the Lexington's to the Forrestal. I used the Forrestal because she was conventionally powered like the Lexington's. Yes, the Lexington's were turbo-electric but that is not a factor. navylive.dodlive.mil/2015/04/12/evolution-of-the-aircraft-carrier/

Lexington's were  commissioned in 1927. They had a length of 888 feet. The Forrestal was commissioned in 1955. She had a length of 1036 feet. This is a difference of 148 feet. In 1927 the standard US Navy fighter was the F3B, weight about 2945 lbs. at takeoff. In 1955, the standard naval fighter was the F-8 Crusader. Takeoff weight is 34,000 lbs. 

So, in twenty-eight years, US carriers gain 148 feet in deck length while the aircraft gained 32,000 lbs. of weight. Obviously it was the gain in engine power but also aerodynamics, the steam catapult, control surfaces, aerodynamics of the fuselage and wings along with the tail assemblies. The speed of both carriers was 33 knots. No difference. 

The point here is that there is far more to this than the deck length. There are factors that the team cannot possibly provide for you easily. Just some of thoughts. 

[brygun]

there is also the introduction of catapults to eliminate the majority of the deck length for take off. Landing space was still an issue with that being helped by it inspiring the angled deck.

[kriegsmeister]

Dec 8, 2019 15:07:12 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

You are all aware that the takeoff and landing of a carrier aircraft has much to do with factors other than takeoff weight. Let's review just a couple.

Fully aware, but if we want to get such features implemented into the game we need to simplify it by quite a bit.

[oldpop2000]

Dec 8, 2019 16:01:31 GMT -6 kriegsmeister said:

Dec 8, 2019 15:07:12 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

You are all aware that the takeoff and landing of a carrier aircraft has much to do with factors other than takeoff weight. Let's review just a couple.

Fully aware, but if we want to get such features implemented into the game we need to simplify it by quite a bit.

Absolutely, and it might more sense to just leave it the way it is and not add any complexity because I don't see how you can do it, without adding complexity. However, that is just my considered opinion. If you all want extreme complications, go for it.

[cmdrmerlin]

Does the game give you a warning when your aircraft are no longer able to operate from your carriers? I haven't noticed any alert but have found in one game that my fighters could take-off from my CVL but my new TBs wouldn't launch.

[brygun]

Currently (1.13) the carriers have a # of planes you choose in design. That sizing doesnt change as the game progresses.

Likewise "spot" the amount of planes that can be prepared for a single strike is based on the # of planes the carrier can carrier, not necessarily the square footage of the flight deck.