World War Two Aircraft Catapult
Discussion
Fascinating.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-67...
You can clearly see the outline on Google Maps though, so I suppose they always knew it was there.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-67...
You can clearly see the outline on Google Maps though, so I suppose they always knew it was there.
I wonder why? It is understandable, and has been trialled a number of times, to want to launch interceptors as quickly as possible, but why bombers? Unless each had it's own catapult, I can't see a raid being any quicker to launch. Dispersal options a possibility, but they would still need a runway or field to land back on.
LimaDelta said:
I wonder why? It is understandable, and has been trialled a number of times, to want to launch interceptors as quickly as possible, but why bombers? Unless each had it's own catapult, I can't see a raid being any quicker to launch. Dispersal options a possibility, but they would still need a runway or field to land back on.
It does say in the article - to allow use of shorter runways and to allow aircraft to take-off with higher payloads (more fuel, so increased combat range).The 'shorter runways' bit was probably done with at least an eye on dispersal. If your bombers can be sent to airfields (or semi-developed sites that aren't full airfields) that aren't a massive airbase with long concrete runways then the options for dispersal are significantly improved. WW2 bombers needed a significantly longer take-off run than they did for landing, so dispersal airfields fitted with catapults (with aircraft landing unladen and taking off on the catapult) have a certain sense to them.
Simpo Two said:
It's huge compared to the steam catapults of aircraft carriers. Wonder why they didn't use existing technology?
It wasn't existing technology - the steam catapult wasn't developed until the 1950s. Most aircraft carriers before then didn't have any sort of catapult, and the ones used to launch scout aircraft off cruisers/battleships etc. were hydraulic and only suitable for launching small and light machines, not medium bombers. Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 11th October 13:18
2xChevrons said:
It wasn't existing technology - the steam catapult wasn't developed until the 1950s
Oops! One thinks 'steam' and assumes it's old tech!As for getting bombers airborne using less runway, or with heavier loads, land was plentiful so you'd think they'd just make the runway longer. And once you've got the first aeroplane on its way to Germany, how long to reset and launch the next?
They weren't daft so maybe there's a reason we haven't figured out.
Simpo Two said:
Oops! One thinks 'steam' and assumes it's old tech!
As for getting bombers airborne using less runway, or with heavier loads, land was plentiful so you'd think they'd just make the runway longer. And once you've got the first aeroplane on its way to Germany, how long to reset and launch the next?
They weren't daft so maybe there's a reason we haven't figured out.
Well, the idea was canned while still in the experimental stage and without ever even being used for practical tests, so even the people behind the idea reckoned it wasn't worth pursuing. As for getting bombers airborne using less runway, or with heavier loads, land was plentiful so you'd think they'd just make the runway longer. And once you've got the first aeroplane on its way to Germany, how long to reset and launch the next?
They weren't daft so maybe there's a reason we haven't figured out.
Land - sufficiently open, flat and unused land for bomber bases - wasn't exactly plentiful in the UK. Especially if you're thinking along the lines of "what if we're invaded and can't secure bases in East Anglia/Lincolnshire?". And the catapult was thought of in the pre-war years. Once the war kicked off, it's much easier for governments to just bring in the (American lent-leased...) bulldozers if they really want a new bomber airfield, but that may not have been quite so simple pre-Munich Crisis.
As the article says, the catapult seems to have been overtaken by both events and technology. The renderings show it being used with an Avro Manchester, but Bomber Command would end up getting long-range four-engined heavy bombers that could lift more munitions and fuel (as well being too large for the catapult) thus making the idea superfluous.
The threat of (and then the reality) of war produced a lot of 'boffin' projects that probably had very doubtful use-cases but were worth trying out in case they produced a vital edge. Anything that allowed a bomber to carry more fuel or more bombs (or both) was desirably. Perhaps it wouldn't be practical to launch an entire squadron of bombers off a catapult (or even multiple catapults) but if you want to send a small number of aircraft on a long-range strike mission with a load of bunker-busters then it's worth at least experimenting.
2xChevrons said:
Simpo Two said:
It's huge compared to the steam catapults of aircraft carriers. Wonder why they didn't use existing technology?
It wasn't existing technology - the steam catapult wasn't developed until the 1950s. Most aircraft carriers before then didn't have any sort of catapult, and the ones used to launch scout aircraft off cruisers/battleships etc. were hydraulic and only suitable for launching small and light machines, not medium bombers.In addition to the benefits of shorter runways, getting the aircraft airborne with runway in front of it allows it to abort and land ahead if problems are detected. Any propeller or jet is very inefficient at low speeds, so anything that can be done to get the aeroplane moving quickly in a short space saves onboard fuel and increases safety.
Halmyre said:
Wonder if the steam catapult was a spin-off from this?
I doubt it was. The steam catapult was developed by the Royal Navy, being an idea of the Admiralty's Engineer-in-Chief (Cmdr Colin Mitchell) who had also invented the other end of the process, the arrestor cable. The use of steam probably seemed quite natural, since it was a 'known quantity', proven to be able to deliver a large amount of power in a short amount of time and capital ships of the time generated it in large and continuous quantities as a matter of course.
This catapult project was a Royal Aircraft Establishment idea, so would be under the Air Ministry. There might have been a small amount of cross-pollination from this, via the rocket-launched CAM aircraft (as mentioned at the bottom of the BBC article) to the carrier steam catapult, but I'd be surprised if it was anything significant. I doubt Commander Mitchell ever considered using compressed air for his system when four Admiralty boilers with 300psi of superheated steam available.
It was nothing to do with "short runways". At the time this catapult was being specified and developed for RAF Bomber Command, there were no runways at all.
By the mid 1930s it was obvious that RAF bombers would need to carry more bombs and heavier bombs that were in the process of being developed. The Air Ministry set out a bomber specification in 1936 which would allow this to happen. It was this specification that gave rise (eventually) to the Short Stirling, the Handley Page Halifax and the Avro Lancaster.
However, that was a bit further down the line.
Both the initial Avro and Handley Page designs were intended to be powered by a pair of two new, powerful, Rolls Royce engines, called the Vulture. In addition, It was specified that the Vulture powered aircraft should be capable of being launched by a catapult. The reason for this was because it was assumed that a fully laden Vulture powered bomber would not be able to take off safely from the existing Bomber Command airfields of the time, which were all grass and relatively small. On an all grass airfield, it is possible to take off directly into the wind as there is not a single defined runway that you must follow. That is the reason why the catapult had a turntable system attached. This allowed the aircraft to be pointed directly into the wind.
As it turned out, Rolls Royce began to run into problems with the Vulture. Handley Page abandoned their design before the prototype was built and amended it to be powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins (and later Bristol Hercules) engines. This aircraft became the Halifax.
Avro persisted with the Vulture and built the Manchester. The Manchester also retained the catapult launch capability and it was tested on a catapult at Farnborough. The Manchester did enter service but the catapult was deemed impractical for operational use and the idea was abandoned. The Manchester itself was also a flop, entirely due to the Vultures. So, belatedly, Avro followed Handley Page's lead and revised the design to take four Merlins. This of course, became the Lancaster.
Here are some pictures of a Manchester on the Farnborough catapult -
By the mid 1930s it was obvious that RAF bombers would need to carry more bombs and heavier bombs that were in the process of being developed. The Air Ministry set out a bomber specification in 1936 which would allow this to happen. It was this specification that gave rise (eventually) to the Short Stirling, the Handley Page Halifax and the Avro Lancaster.
However, that was a bit further down the line.
Both the initial Avro and Handley Page designs were intended to be powered by a pair of two new, powerful, Rolls Royce engines, called the Vulture. In addition, It was specified that the Vulture powered aircraft should be capable of being launched by a catapult. The reason for this was because it was assumed that a fully laden Vulture powered bomber would not be able to take off safely from the existing Bomber Command airfields of the time, which were all grass and relatively small. On an all grass airfield, it is possible to take off directly into the wind as there is not a single defined runway that you must follow. That is the reason why the catapult had a turntable system attached. This allowed the aircraft to be pointed directly into the wind.
As it turned out, Rolls Royce began to run into problems with the Vulture. Handley Page abandoned their design before the prototype was built and amended it to be powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins (and later Bristol Hercules) engines. This aircraft became the Halifax.
Avro persisted with the Vulture and built the Manchester. The Manchester also retained the catapult launch capability and it was tested on a catapult at Farnborough. The Manchester did enter service but the catapult was deemed impractical for operational use and the idea was abandoned. The Manchester itself was also a flop, entirely due to the Vultures. So, belatedly, Avro followed Handley Page's lead and revised the design to take four Merlins. This of course, became the Lancaster.
Here are some pictures of a Manchester on the Farnborough catapult -
saw the first few posts in this topic at lunchtime, which got me looking at other history for the site.
https://pages.harwellcampus.com/harwell-heritage-t...
takes a look through some of the events from when it was RAF and through to today. The one that caught my eye was waypoint 7, which includes:
On 22nd April 1957, on a dark, wet evening, a dual seater T-33 ‘Shooting Star’ jet plane belonging to the US Airforce (USAF), took off from Kent, heading for Bournemouth. The crew suffered the loss of their compass and instrument failure, combined with a shortage of fuel and were lost in the growing darkness, looking for a spot where they could land safely.
They could see a place that had runways, large hangar buildings and a large red flashing light and thought they were above RAF Abingdon. Circling twice, they lined up in readiness to land on Fermi Avenue, touching down near the B 412 building (now R12), bursting two tyres whilst braking to avoid Easter traffic on the Newbury Rd, near the entrance to Fermi Avenue.
and
In the following days, rather than dismantling and removing the plane from the AERE site, a decision was made to attach a rocket to each wing to help it take off on a much shorter than normal runway...... The jet fighter went through another security fence, very close to the GLEEP reactor, tearing all three wheels and a booster rocket off,.....
Noteworthy from a personal point of view as my office is in R12!
https://pages.harwellcampus.com/harwell-heritage-t...
takes a look through some of the events from when it was RAF and through to today. The one that caught my eye was waypoint 7, which includes:
On 22nd April 1957, on a dark, wet evening, a dual seater T-33 ‘Shooting Star’ jet plane belonging to the US Airforce (USAF), took off from Kent, heading for Bournemouth. The crew suffered the loss of their compass and instrument failure, combined with a shortage of fuel and were lost in the growing darkness, looking for a spot where they could land safely.
They could see a place that had runways, large hangar buildings and a large red flashing light and thought they were above RAF Abingdon. Circling twice, they lined up in readiness to land on Fermi Avenue, touching down near the B 412 building (now R12), bursting two tyres whilst braking to avoid Easter traffic on the Newbury Rd, near the entrance to Fermi Avenue.
and
In the following days, rather than dismantling and removing the plane from the AERE site, a decision was made to attach a rocket to each wing to help it take off on a much shorter than normal runway...... The jet fighter went through another security fence, very close to the GLEEP reactor, tearing all three wheels and a booster rocket off,.....
Noteworthy from a personal point of view as my office is in R12!
A bit of thread drift, but still related to catapults; RAE Bedford had a raised carrier deck for catapult and arrester work. Described here: RAE Bedford - Naval Air Department
We're so used to seeing that fuselage with the four Merlins that it looks underpowered even without knowing anything else about it.It wasn't anything to do with being underpowered. It was to do with getting heavy bombers out of small grass airfields.
In the end, the solution was to enlarge the airfields and lay hardened (tarmac or concrete) runways.
The first operational squadron of Stirlings (No. 7) had terrible problems with their new aircraft getting bogged down on their grass airfield base at Oakington. What they did was lay some runways and get rid of some hedges through compulsory land acquisition. It was lot easier than installing hundreds of catapults on dozens of airfields. There were also issues with the sheer practicality of setting up the aircraft on the catapults. When you appreciate that at the height of the Bomber Command offensive in the years 1943 to 1945 there could be at least 20 bombers taking off from each airfield on any given evening, imagine how complex it would have been trying to attach these bombers to their individual catapults.
The Vulture's main issue wasn't that it was underpowered. It was that it was hopelessly unreliable and prone to bursting into flames. Essentially, the Air Ministry stopped Rolls Royce from wasting any more time on sorting the Vulture's problems out. This Ministry order also applied to the Peregrine, which doomed the Whirlwind. The Governments attitude was that Rolls Royce had their hands full developing the Merlin and the Griffon and they shouldn't get diverted onto projects that might never be sorted before the war had ended.
That was also the initial reason why the established engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Armstrong Siddeley, de Havilland) were not encouraged to get involved in work on gas turbine technology. Whittle was forced to work with Rover - who had some spare capacity. In the end they were allowed to get involved because Rover were making a bit of a pig's ear of the job.
In the end, the solution was to enlarge the airfields and lay hardened (tarmac or concrete) runways.
The first operational squadron of Stirlings (No. 7) had terrible problems with their new aircraft getting bogged down on their grass airfield base at Oakington. What they did was lay some runways and get rid of some hedges through compulsory land acquisition. It was lot easier than installing hundreds of catapults on dozens of airfields. There were also issues with the sheer practicality of setting up the aircraft on the catapults. When you appreciate that at the height of the Bomber Command offensive in the years 1943 to 1945 there could be at least 20 bombers taking off from each airfield on any given evening, imagine how complex it would have been trying to attach these bombers to their individual catapults.
The Vulture's main issue wasn't that it was underpowered. It was that it was hopelessly unreliable and prone to bursting into flames. Essentially, the Air Ministry stopped Rolls Royce from wasting any more time on sorting the Vulture's problems out. This Ministry order also applied to the Peregrine, which doomed the Whirlwind. The Governments attitude was that Rolls Royce had their hands full developing the Merlin and the Griffon and they shouldn't get diverted onto projects that might never be sorted before the war had ended.
That was also the initial reason why the established engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Armstrong Siddeley, de Havilland) were not encouraged to get involved in work on gas turbine technology. Whittle was forced to work with Rover - who had some spare capacity. In the end they were allowed to get involved because Rover were making a bit of a pig's ear of the job.
Eric Mc said:
It wasn't anything to do with being underpowered. It was to do with getting heavy bombers out of small grass airfields.
Seems they'd made a bomber they couldn't use, even if the engines had been reliable: 'it was assumed that a fully laden Vulture powered bomber would not be able to take off safely from the existing Bomber Command airfields of the time, which were all grass and relatively small.'
GliderRider said:
Simpo Two said:
Now there's a physics exam question - how high and how heavy would the weigh need to be to launch an F18 from a carrier? 
Are we talking F/A-18A @ Max takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,541 kg), or F/A-18E/F @ Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)?Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff