Britannian Aircraft

[klagldsf]

I don't doubt that there were many WWII single-engine carrier aircraft that, at least late in the war, would've weighed as much or more than an O/400 (which was largely wood and fabric anyway). But the real issues:

1. Sheer size/volume. They take up a lot of space and you would need a large carrier just to accommodate the elevators that in turn can accommodate such a large aircraft.

2. Available power. These aircraft especially need long take-off distances because while they may be light by modern standards, they were real heavyweights of the time and their engines produced miniscule power by today's standards. The O/400's engines each produced about the same amount of power as you would typically find in a new Honda Civic. You'd need a large carrier just to ensure enough runway space. And forget about catapults, these aircraft might not be able to take the stress.

3. Speaking of fragility, they might not be able to last very long in a carrier environment with that type of engineering and construction.

Weight ends up being overshadowed by other problems.

[APDAF]

I don't doubt that there were many WWII single-engine carrier aircraft that, at least late in the war, would've weighed as much or more than an O/400 (which was largely wood and fabric anyway). But the real issues:

1. Sheer size/volume. They take up a lot of space and you would need a large carrier just to accommodate the elevators that in turn can accommodate such a large aircraft.

2. Available power. These aircraft especially need long take-off distances because while they may be light by modern standards, they were real heavyweights of the time and their engines produced miniscule power by today's standards. The O/400's engines each produced about the same amount of power as you would typically find in a new Honda Civic. You'd need a large carrier just to ensure enough runway space. And forget about catapults, these aircraft might not be able to take the stress.

3. Speaking of fragility, they might not be able to last very long in a carrier environment with that type of engineering and construction.

Weight ends up being overshadowed by other problems.

1) I can make the wings fold-able or completely detachable and I could make it fold in the middle.
2) Given that the take off speed of WW1 bombers was about 30-40 MPH if not lower when the carrier is steaming at 20-25knots then the run up is a lot shorter especially if there is a strong headwind.
3) I can replace the wood with aluminum and canvas is very easy to replace.

[klagldsf]

1) I can make the wings fold-able or completely detachable and I could make it fold in the middle.

So according to your logic a B-52 can be stowed on a carrier as long as it's wings are foldable?

You seem to be missing the bigger picture in that there's more to an aircraft's dimensions than just folding wings.

2) Given that the take off speed of WW1 bombers was about 30-40 MPH if not lower when the carrier is steaming at 20-25knots then the run up is a lot shorter especially if there is a strong headwind.

Just because the take-off speeds are low doesn't mean it needs a short runway. It took a lot to get planes up to that speed. Plus now you need a large carrier to have the machinery to get up to those speeds. Yes, Lexington and Saratoga did it at that era. They were also the largest carriers by waterline the USN had until USS Midway.

3) I can replace the wood with aluminum

No, you can't. Depending on the application it makes the aircraft heavier. Plus it requires massive re-engineering, and at that point why stick with such an antiquated design? The British learned that in a hurry when they did exactly that with the Vickers Virginia Mk. X.

and canvas is very easy to replace.

No, it's not. I can tell you that from first-hand experience. One of the advantages of aluminum is that it DOESN'T need to be regularly replaced. And I'm speaking from the standpoint of owning and repairing a small personal-use aircraft. It gets much worse when you're talking a carrier-launched combat aircraft. The only advantage is that it's easier to patch bullet holes.

And that brings up the issue of having to have an onboard repair shop. The size of your plane is going to make that very difficult.

[APDAF]

I have now added the top view of the VK-2 Sigurd.

[ezgo394]

Fuselage is wayyy too wide of both of those aircraft.