PDA

View Full Version : CVE's



DOC_96th_COL
05-28-2004, 08:36 PM
Hello Folks,
I was wondering if there would be any CVE's in Pacific Fighter?

DOC_96th_COL
05-28-2004, 08:36 PM
Hello Folks,
I was wondering if there would be any CVE's in Pacific Fighter?

heywooood
05-28-2004, 08:42 PM
Doc.. you need to take a look at the top 5 or six topics on this board.(skip the first one) Just read through the threads and a lot of your questions will be answered. I believe there will be CVE's as well as most of the significant ships that participated in the PTO. Welcome to this forum.

DOC_96th_COL
05-28-2004, 09:04 PM
Thank you for you response heywooood I will continue to scan the forums for my answers.

heywooood
05-28-2004, 09:54 PM
Yeah - Doc

There was a thread there from the E3 show that is not there now.. the E3 thread of Luthiers does not have the overview that Burnin 777's had.

Rest assured though that CVE's will be included.

DOC_96th_COL
05-28-2004, 09:59 PM
Thanks heywooood,
Outstanding, Nothing like trying to land on the back of a Yugo instead of a Cadilac.

heywooood
05-28-2004, 10:06 PM
Right - jeep carriers will be harder to land successfully on than the larger ones.

Luthier1 - who is the lead developer of PF - said in an earlier post that most of the major ship types would be modeled. So far, there is no list of either ships or planes (no official list anyways) and we are all waiting for more info to appear here and in other forums and publications.

[This message was edited by heywooood on Sat May 29 2004 at 08:04 AM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
05-29-2004, 05:41 PM
Interesting Heywooood. I just read a post by Burnin, in another thread, that said catapults would not be modeled in PF. At least, not by it's Fall release. That will make takeoffs very dicey on Jeep carriers as well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

stansdds
05-29-2004, 07:17 PM
Yeah, you will need a strong head wind and start at the very aft section of the flight deck, much like CFS2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Fliger747
05-29-2004, 09:20 PM
CVE's, Escort carriers were built on merchant type hulls and had a top speed of (maybe) 18-19 knots. They were not capable of operatingwith the "fast carriers". CVL's, built on a light cruiser hull were capable of 30 knots and operated with the fleet through some of the major battles of the last half of the Pacific War. Some of these CVL's became quite famous, such as the Cowpens, Beleauwood and Princton (sunk).

DOC_96th_COL
06-01-2004, 04:43 PM
S` The Reason I was asking about the CVE's was my Grandfather was on one in WWII he said they made the majority of there launches without the CAT unless it was with a tail wind.. They used FM2 which was a modified Hellcat with taller tail/rudder section and longer alerions My GF took place in the battle of Leyte Gulf.
His Carrier was one of the ones jumped by the BS and heavy cruisers and turned them away

IV_JG51_Razor
06-01-2004, 06:57 PM
If anyone out there get Air & Space magazine, there is an article about those very Jeep carriers Doc! And there is a picture of a Wildcat preparing to deck launch (sans catapult) with another Jeep carrier in the background getting shelled by the IJN. It's a pretty tight fit, and you can see several planes spotted along the starboard side ahead of the Wildcat's position.

In a coop, where you could arrange for this type of scenerio to begin with, that would work great. But, for a DF server, I have my doubts. This is where a catapult modeled would be just perfect. There would be enough room ahead of the barriers for a couple of planes to spawn and taxi onto the cat. For an unassisted deck launch, you'd have to start way back in the arresting gear in order to have enough deck remaining to get off.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

stansdds
06-01-2004, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> FM2 which was a modified Hellcat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the FM-2 was a derivative of the F4F Wildcat.

SkyChimp
06-01-2004, 08:01 PM
I understand CVLs had pretty bad handling, and that CVEs, with their more stable hulls, were actually better for air ops.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

Fliger747
06-02-2004, 01:11 PM
I hadn't heard that. From a "ship driver's" point of view the major problem would be the increased tophamper as compared to the CL's from which they were derived. Removal of the 4 6" turrets and 5"38 twin mounts and related armor and splinter protection probably compensated a lot for this. As crusier hulls they were fast and manuverable. Rolling moment would probably be the major factor in a seaway, pitching not so much a prolem. The shorter, tubbier CVL hulls had more of a pitching problem, especially in the Atlantic.

An interesting point, one I might investigate further once I return to proximity to any relevent reference works.

Regards!

Tater-SW-
06-02-2004, 02:18 PM
Grumman started production on the F6F-3 "Hellcat" and passed production of the latest F4F on to Eastern (General Motors) who had already been producing F4F-4s.

Under naval nomenclature, the first letter is the basic type (F=fighter, SB=Scout Bomber, TB=Torpedo bomber, etc). The number, if any, is the plane number of that type by that manufacturer (4 meaning the 4th fighter from Grumman). The last letter is the Manufacturer (F=Grumman, M=Eastern, D=Douglas, U=Vought, etc). The dash number is the sub-type, or mark of plane (-3 third revision, -4 fourth revision, etc).

F4F-3 Third revision of the 4th Fighter produced by Grumman. The first revision of the fighter produced by eastern was the FM-1 (which was just a XF4F-8). There were almost as many FM-1s produced as F4F-4s. The most numerous Wildcat was the FM-2 with almost 4800 produced.

Eastern also built TBFs (first TB built by Grumman), called TBMs.

tater

SkyChimp
06-02-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
I hadn't heard that. From a "ship driver's" point of view...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how true it is. But I did find this:

Design/Conversion: Conversion was very complete, including replacement of all cruiser superstructure and weapons with a hangar, flight deck and island; the funnels were trunked over to the starboard side. The hull was bulged for stability. Original carrier design included 2 single 5/38 DP guns, but these were replaced by 2 quad 40 mm. The CVL conversion took the hull to the limits of its capabilities. These ships were poor seaboats, very lively in heavy weather, and difficult to fly from; in some cases CVEs were considered better aviation platforms.

From:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_light.htm

Main site:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

Fliger747
06-02-2004, 05:32 PM
The bulging (port one filled with cocrete) was what reduced the speed to 30 knts from the 32 or so the original cruiser stats. Cramped, an expedient, etc were terms often applied to these. ate examples built off of a CA hull were somewhat better. Two of our Presidents served aboard CVL's in WWII. In Stiechen's Book of Pacific War photos, a jg jumping for the basketball hoop on the elevator (on the hangar deck) is Jerry Ford. Bigger was better as Naval Aviation grew up, even the Essex's were too small for many future requirements.

The Sangamon CVE's were apparently the best of the (CVE) lot due to their tanker origins and relatively powerfull steam plants. As a plus they had a greater av gas capacity.

The term CVE was often represented to mean "Combustible, Vunerable, Expendable".

SkyChimp
06-02-2004, 06:50 PM
If you peruse that website to which I posted a link, and look at the USS Sangmon section, you will see that the USS Sangmon's original configuration was this:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/non-cv/trenton.jpg

That ship was, according to the website, transformed into the USS Sangmon AO28:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/non-cv/ao28.jpg

AO28 was converted into CVE 26 USS Sangmon:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cve26-2.jpg


The only problem is is that middle picture isn't USS Sangmon. That's USS Neosho (AO23), the oiler that was sunk at Coral Sea:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/AO/AO-23_Neosho.gif
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/AO/AO-23_Neosho-deck.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

DOC_96th_COL
06-03-2004, 05:46 PM
S` I stand corrected on the FM version I see where i typed Hellcat instead of Wildcat TY for the correction, The majority of the CVE's were Casablanca Class CVE's

DOC_96th_COL
06-03-2004, 05:48 PM
http://www.bosamar.com/ap16.html
http://www.bosamar.com/arcpho4.html

Fliger747
06-04-2004, 09:51 AM
Chimp:

I saw a great photo, taken on the flight deck of one of the CVL's of guys playing ball, with the ship in a 20 degree roll! Now it is possible that she was also in a turn, but the caption indicated that such rolling was common.

Really be some fun for the "carrier aces" if they model that one accuratly!

SkyChimp
06-05-2004, 03:07 PM
Fliger,

I'm a natural. I can stick a 3-point landing on anything. That's right, 3-point. One landing gear, the prop, and a wing tip.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

RedDeth
06-06-2004, 03:20 AM
we only lost 1 CVL in ww2. we lost 6 CVEs . and four CVs.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg