ANOTHER Navy Carrier Query ...

Let's see if I've got this right:

If a plane has made a carrier landing it's good-to-go in the Navy Carrier Classes.

The Jap Baka Bomb made dozens of carrier landings in WW2.

Hmmmm ....

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-06 AT 09:51 AM (CST)
 
Dozens??? If I recall most were shot down with their mother planes before they got in range. I don't think there were more than a handful (one or two, maybe) successful attacks.

Incidentally, the proper name should be "Ohka" (the first vowel being a long "o"), meaning "cherry blossom". "Baka" means "stupid", a moniker given to it by Americans. (And it's not "Ohkra", either, as someone spelled it here last year ... that's a vegetable.. [photo not recovered: rofl.gif] )

>Dozens??? If I recall most were shot down with their mother
>planes before they got in range. I don't think there were
>more than a handful (one or two, maybe) successful attacks.
>
>Incidentally, the proper name should be "Ohka" (the first
>vowel being a long "o"), meaning "cherry blossom". "Baka"
>means "stupid", a moniker given to it by Americans. (And
>it's not "Ohkra", either, as someone spelled it here last
>year ... that's a vegetable..
>[photo not recovered: rofl.gif] )

The "baka" probably came from Japanese-American translators working with the Allies in the Pacific at the close of the war. It means stupid or idiot with overtones of reckless or foolish behaviour.
The weakness of the Okha was in it's delivery method to the target. Once launched under favorable conditions, it was virtually unstoppable and a major threat to Allied warships. This is why the Ryan Fireball and the "Super Corsair" were being given priority development at the close of the war: they were the only fleet defense aircraft fast enough to effect a succesful intercept. The A-bomb ended need for them, and only 66 Fireballs and a handfull of F2Gs were built. Cook Cleland's racers that won the last of the post-War Thompson rophy races were out of that batch.

Here's one a Larry Richards kit. No carrier landings to date.

GREAT PIC! With landing gear, a hook, and scaled down for a .15 engine ... it would be perfect for .15 Sportsman Carrier!

>The "baka" probably came from Japanese-American translators
>working with the Allies in the Pacific at the close of the
>war. It means stupid or idiot with overtones of reckless or
>foolish behaviour.

The same people came up with "kamikaze" - apparently the real term was "shinpu". Japanese can be pretty arcane - sometimes there is more than one way to read a word.

I suppose if they really wanted it to be an insult, they would have used "manuke" instead.. "Baka" is actually pretty mild. Like calling someone a "moron".

>The weakness of the Okha was in it's delivery method to the
>target. Once launched under favorable conditions, it was
>virtually unstoppable and a major threat to Allied warships.
>This is why the Ryan Fireball and the "Super Corsair" were
>being given priority development at the close of the war:
>they were the only fleet defense aircraft fast enough to
>effect a succesful intercept. The A-bomb ended need for
>them, and only 66 Fireballs and a handfull of F2Gs were
>built. Cook Cleland's racers that won the last of the
>post-War Thompson rophy races were out of that batch.

Yeah, I'd read about the origins of the F2G, but I didn't realize the FR was designed for the same purpose. The F2G supposedly didn't live up to its promise so it wasn't pushed that hard. Something like 10 production airframes made, plus a few prototypes.

I wonder how the Sea Hornet would have done in this role. I found, to my surprise, that it had a top speed of over 480 mph. Not on the deck, of course, but it had a laminar flow wing and 4000 HP in the nacelles.

>>The "baka" probably came from Japanese-American translators
>>working with the Allies in the Pacific at the close of the
>>war. It means stupid or idiot with overtones of reckless or
>>foolish behaviour.
>
>The same people came up with "kamikaze" - apparently the
>real term was "shinpu". Japanese can be pretty arcane -
>sometimes there is more than one way to read a word.
>
>I suppose if they really wanted it to be an insult, they
>would have used "manuke" instead.. "Baka" is actually
>pretty mild. Like calling someone a "moron".
>
>>The weakness of the Okha was in it's delivery method to the
>>target. Once launched under favorable conditions, it was
>>virtually unstoppable and a major threat to Allied warships.
>>This is why the Ryan Fireball and the "Super Corsair" were
>>being given priority development at the close of the war:
>>they were the only fleet defense aircraft fast enough to
>>effect a succesful intercept. The A-bomb ended need for
>>them, and only 66 Fireballs and a handfull of F2Gs were
>>built. Cook Cleland's racers that won the last of the
>>post-War Thompson rophy races were out of that batch.
>
>Yeah, I'd read about the origins of the F2G, but I didn't
>realize the FR was designed for the same purpose. The F2G
>supposedly didn't live up to its promise so it wasn't pushed
>that hard. Something like 10 production airframes made, plus
>a few prototypes.
>
>I wonder how the Sea Hornet would have done in this role. I
>found, to my surprise, that it had a top speed of over 480
>mph. Not on the deck, of course, but it had a laminar flow
>wing and 4000 HP in the nacelles.

Beautiful airplane, those of the RAF were it's last piston engine fighters and saw action against Communist insurgent forces in Malaysia in the early '50s. Some of their duties included escorting motor-pans with school children back and forth to school on the rivers. The CTs (Communist Terrorists) would sometimes try and attack these boats and the Hornets would then strike with 60 lb rocket projectiles and 20mm cannon fire.

I think the problem with the F2G was that it required an EXPERT pilot especially in any kind of a deck take off or landing situation. The huge engine created a torque reaction on take-off that only the very best pilots would have been able to deal with- the stock Corsair was no toy to deck land either and this one was much worse. The Fireball delivered the same or better performance with twin engine safety and less headaches so the choice for the Navy was an easy one. Had the war continued into 1946, the Fireball might well have built up a good combat record.

Reading up on it, they were retired fairly early (1955, "with regrets, due to spares shortages"). Found a really good article here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss_3.html

Too bad none exist today. They also saw some action against Chinese YAKs, I think, after the Chinese shot down an airliner off Hong Kong in the 50s.

(Take a look around the site. It's more or less the equivalent of Elevon, for non-American aircraft).

>This is why the Ryan Fireball and the "Super Corsair" were
>being given priority development at the close of the war:
>...only a handfull of F2Gs were
>built. Cook Cleland's racers that won the last of the
>post-War Thompson rophy races were out of that batch.
>
>JAK

One of Cook Cleland's racers is owned and operated by Bob Odegard, a duster pilot from North Dakota. He brought it to Reno in June for the Pylon Racing Seminar where he used it to get his unlimited air racer's certification.

He also brought it to Reno this fall and raced the airplane, which has won prestigious awards as a museum piece.

It was the first time the airplane had been on the race course in 57 years.

Al Rabe: Can you design a stunt version?

Don't forget the Grumman F8F Bearcat. It was designed with this very purpose in mind. Get off the deck, up to altitude and out to the barrier before the "Kamakaze" got into strike range. It was easier to fly then the F4U. This is based on a book called "From Eighty Knots To Mach Two", by Richard Linnekin.

They don't make 'em like they used to, SIGH...

My brother's best friend was an unwilling participant in the Bataan Death March. It's indeed BAKA Bomb.

By the way, the landings were at about 75 degrees or so.

Also, Baka Bomb was the term used in my (U.S.) Naval Science class.

Hi John. You must realize that ALL foreign aircraft of the Axis were given "code" names due to the fact our intelligence was virtually none existant in those days. Except for the Zero, which was disignated the "Zeke" in allied parlance, it was one of the few ever to be called by its Japanese name, Zero-Sen. The set up was fighters had mens names mainly from the Appalachian area, bombers had female names, trainers had trees names,etc. This was set up by an USAAF intelligence officer from Tennessee I believe, thus the types of names used. Uniquely American. Kate, Judy, Betty, etc were bombers or torpedo planes, Zeke, Hamp, Oscar, Tony etc fighters; Willow, Elm, Cherry, etc were trainers.

>The set up was fighters had
>mens names mainly from the Appalachian area

Ah.. I always wondered about that.

>Zeke, Hamp, Oscar, Tony

Don't forget the Claude. (That sounds French, though..)

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-06 AT 03:13 PM (CST)
 
>By the way, the landings were at about 75 degrees or so.

Yeah. But that would have been 75 degrees nose down. Probably not fair to call that a landing. I would think that the landing would have to be on a Japanese Carrier, for a Japanese airplane, German Carrier for a German plane, etc. Steve

OF COURSE the "landings," as such were direct hits! HEY, FELLAS, this thread is a freakin JOKE.

DONCHA GET IT? Carrier landings by a BOMB!

>OF COURSE the "landings," as such were direct hits! HEY,
>FELLAS, this thread is a freakin JOKE.
>
>DONCHA GET IT? Carrier landings by a BOMB!

Actually, a Baka or a Stuka or a V-1 wouldn't be as big a joke as the MO-1.

"Actually, a Baka or a Stuka or a V-1 wouldn't be as big a joke as the MO-1."

Hoooo-ha! This really cracked me up! Thanks!

In all fairness, I have to point out that great atrocities are committed by ALL sides in war. Surrendering Japanese troops at the war's end were also subjected to a death march by the Australians. It is a matter of historical record although not well known (or acknowledged) in the West.

You're the first person I've ever heard from that defended the Jap WW2 atrocities.

I guess the Holocaust didn't happen either?

>You're the first person I've ever heard from that defended
>the Jap WW2 atrocities.
>
>I guess the Holocaust didn't happen either?

This is NOT the place for this. I wasn't defending any such thing, merely pointing out an irrational reaction- just as your's is.

Many of the weapons systems people model were not a laughing matter to the victims,,,,V1 Buzz Bomb, Baka Bomb, Mitsubisi Zero, Stuka.

The interesting part is that nobody seemed to think or say much about it in the 1955-1965 era, when more actual victims were around. Now, in 2006, 61 years after the war, people are worried about offending somebody with old enemy markings.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-06 AT 08:02 PM (CST)
 
>Surrendering Japanese
>troops at the war's end were also subjected to a death march
>by the Australians. It is a matter of historical record
>although not well known (or acknowledged) in the West.

Would you care to document that assertion?

This thread was supposed to be a joke, and now we're fighting about war crimes. Sheesh.

Well, I went and looked it up. The record of the Ohka wasn't very good. Something less than a half dozen actual hits, not a single one of them a "carrier landing". It seems pretty much all the successful hits were on destroyers.

AH, shoot!

I guess that I really need to do some serious work on my sense of humor. (Get it? This throwaway is a joke, too.)

>>Surrendering Japanese
>>troops at the war's end were also subjected to a death march
>>by the Australians. It is a matter of historical record
>>although not well known (or acknowledged) in the West.
>
>Would you care to document that assertion?
>
>This thread was supposed to be a joke, and now we're
>fighting about war crimes. Sheesh.

Sure thing. You can find one reference in this excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/SUICIDE-SQUADS-Classic-Conflicts-Richard/dp/1840650826

It's in the Epilogue Chapter at the end of the book. It's a fascinating study of all the "special attack" units fielded during WW-2, Japanese, German, Italian, and British. Highly recommended work.

Thanks.

Sorry about the cranky tone of my previous post ... I'd never heard of such a thing and it somewhat shocked me. Although given the treatment our troops received in Changi and on the 'death railway' to Burma it wouldn't surprise me if there was payback.

cheers,
Colin

>Thanks.
>
>Sorry about the cranky tone of my previous post ... I'd
>never heard of such a thing and it somewhat shocked me.
>Although given the treatment our troops received in Changi
>and on the 'death railway' to Burma it wouldn't surprise me
>if there was payback.
>
>cheers,
>Colin

Don't let it concern you. I have a tremendous fondness for Australians and considering the horrors the Japanese perpetrated against them during the conflict, one has a difficult time blaming them- they are tough people when wronged.

You might be interested in this - the mass breakout of Japanese POWs from the prison camp at Cowra, NSW, in August 1944.
http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/anecdotes/cowra.html

The Japanese Gardens in Cowra are a memorial to those killed, and are well worth a visit if you ever find yourself in that part of New South Wales.

cheers,
Colin

Thanks Ty, for the reminder on the Bearcat- quite true. If any of you have ever been to the AF Museum in Dayton, you doubtless have seen the Ohka hanging up overhead near the B-29 (at least last I was there)- it isn't very big and coming in at 500 mph or so would likely present a real tough target to AA or friendly fighter defenses.

Speaking of the MO-1 - what exactly WAS it? How many were made? Where did the pilot sit?

I asked someone once about why it was so popular. Apparently, it's not because of the simple construction. It's the moments.

Isky,
The MO1 was a single engine light observation float plane that was generally flown off cruisers etc.
There was a wheeled version of it but I don't think it was used in any quantities.

Memory tells me it never made any actual carrier landings but probably some simulated ones.

The normal mode of operation was to retreive the airplane from the sea after a float landing and winch it back on board the ship.
Hence the comments about the "joke".

I think it's popular for CL Carrier because of it's general layout and high wing configuration which makes it easy to locate controls, fuel tank, etc in the fuselage.

I'm sure there are others her with more knowledge about the full scale airplane but that's a general description.

>Isky,
>The MO1 was a single engine light observation float plane
>that was generally flown off cruisers etc.
>There was a wheeled version of it but I don't think it was
>used in any quantities.
>
>Memory tells me it never made any actual carrier landings
>but probably some simulated ones.
>
>The normal mode of operation was to retreive the airplane
>from the sea after a float landing and winch it back on
>board the ship.
>Hence the comments about the "joke".
>
>I think it's popular for CL Carrier because of it's general
>layout and high wing configuration which makes it easy to
>locate controls, fuel tank, etc in the fuselage.
>
>I'm sure there are others her with more knowledge about the
>full scale airplane but that's a general description.

It was flown as much as a landplane as on floats, being designed to readily convert to either set. There is a photo of one touching down on the carrier USS Langley. I think two were attached to her for trials. They weren't very successful, being too large and heavy and somewhat cumbersome to handle aboard ship. They weren't fitted with arresting gear, just flown onto the deck and then the deck crew grabbed on and hauled it to a stop as best they could.
They were the Navy's first all metal monoplanes- 36 were built.
The reasons for the model's popularity were pretty well summed up above.

John,
Thanks for the info on the carrier landings on the Langley. I wasn't aware of that. Do you know where I could obtain a copy of that photo?
All the photos I've seen show the thing being winched aboard a cruiser, or sitting on a steam catapult (float version) on the side of a cruiser waiting for launch.
Some of the info I have, said that it was deemed basically unfit for arrested carrier landings due to a "weak" fuselage and landing gear structure. I remember having a tough time trying to collect scale data on the thing with wheeled landing gear back in the middle 80's. There was a lot available on the float version but about the only thing I could find on "wheels" were sketches and a small three view. No photo's. I sort of lost interest as a scale subject.

I am surprised that our expert carrier fliers haven't jumped on this. The picture that was published at the time the plan was published for a MO-1 for Navy Carrier shows there was a hook and arresting cables. If you also read the rules it states any plane is eligible that has made take-offs and landings on board a carrier ship. Also if the plane was tested for carrier operation on dry land. Watched a Blue Angel pilot make an emergency landing at an air show one year when engine started to malfunction. First time I had seen a carrier landing on dry land. Didn't realize until then that the jets the Angels fly are carrier ready at all times. ---DOC Holliday

>I am surprised that our expert carrier fliers haven't jumped
>on this. The picture that was published at the time the
>plan was published for a MO-1 for Navy Carrier shows there
>was a hook and arresting cables. If you also read the rules
>it states any plane is eligible that has made take-offs and
>landings on board a carrier ship. Also if the plane was
>tested for carrier operation on dry land. Watched a Blue
>Angel pilot make an emergency landing at an air show one
>year when engine started to malfunction. First time I had
>seen a carrier landing on dry land. Didn't realize until
>then that the jets the Angels fly are carrier ready at all
>times. ---DOC Holliday

There have been a couple MO-1 articles, one of which was a profile. The shot of it heading in to the deck of the Langely is taken from the side (it was in Model Aviation, in the Carrier column a few years ago), no evidence of any arresting gear at all. There is a good photo of the floatplane version airborne (a side view from below) on page 121 of "American Combat Planes" again- no evidence of a hook or any place to attach one. I think the rules were changed because of this- the MO-1 had become very popular and someone pointed out it really didn't meet the rules (at the time) since it had no arresting gear. The construction article with the photo of the MO-1 was in American Aircraft Modeler, I have the issue somewhere but cannot find it at the moment. It shows the aircraft on the ground from the front slightly off the port quarter, but I sure don't recall any hook under the fuselage. Maybe someone else has the issue handy and can check.

>>I am surprised that our expert carrier fliers haven't jumped
>>on this. The picture that was published at the time the
>>plan was published for a MO-1 for Navy Carrier shows there
>>was a hook and arresting cables.

Maryland Aviation Museum page

Which makes me wonder - were Air Force F4s fitted with carrier gear? I recall hearing that most land-based jet fighters have a tailhook, and most military bases have arresting gear available at the ends of the runways, but the arresting hooks for land planes aren't as beefy as on Navy jets.

Isky,
All the USAF F-4C,D,E models had arresting gear although it was primarily used for emergency end of runway landings and engine run-up after maintenance or engine change the F-4's were capable of carrier landing though the landing gears were not as beefy as the Navy gears one of my squadron commanders was instrumental in setting up and teaching fellow USAF pilots how to land on carriers. Most USAF pilots would rather puke than try to land on a carrier. Just not their cup of tea. Another note, the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds aircraft of that era and even today are all combat and carrier capable. Sure would hate to mix it up with some of the best pilots in the world.

Scott
(spent more time under a running F-4C than I care to think about, probably the biggest reason I have hearing problems today. Even with protective hearing gear everything in close proximity shakes when running over 80% thrust.)

Most Air Force fighter aircraft have arresting hooks. They are used for emergency landings to catch cables placed across each end of the runway.The good old "Fantom" was designed for the Navy hence the serious hook.
I'll bet you have some scars on your back from all those sharp drains sticking out all over the belly too don't you?
skyshark58 FLY CARRIER-GET HOOKED

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-06 AT 07:58 PM (CST)
 
Hi Isky. Based on the Naval Aviation history books I have, the MO 1, Martin Observation first model, was made in one batch of 12 with out floats. The rest were shot off BB's and CA's as naval gunfire spotters. That's it, and the Navy only used it for two years. Pretty sad excuse for a carrier plane. "Mah opinion and ahm stikin toit."

LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-06 AT 07:34 PM (CST)
 
This is a case where the model is FAR more successful than the real airplane ever was! Whoopsie! Had to edit this again. The Aeromarines were a touch earlier. These had straight axle gear with the British type spring loaded arresting "claws" under it to grab the fore and aft wires on the Langley. Curtiss delivered the four F6C-2s (same type gear) in 1925, so the system had already been in use for a couple years or so. This system was not a very good one (the accident rate was rather on the high side it seems) and the US Navy shortly abandoned it (as did the British) in favor of the transverse wire system still in use today. Interestingly, the Brits waited a few years to adopt the transverse system and for several years of the inter-War period, their aircraft had no arresting gear at all.
Here is a rare landing shot (Aeromarine biplane)coming aboard Langley:

Note the cable "grippers" under the gear spreader bar.

JAK

PS: MO-1 span was 53' 1" and it weighed (landplane) 4642 lbs at full gross. Top speed was 104 mph. No wonder it was a flop. The design was by a former Junkers engineer.

>Here is a rare landing shot (Aeromarine biplane)coming
>aboard Langley:
>
>

Hmmm.. doesn't display. Site down at this time, perhaps.

>PS: MO-1 span was 53' 1" and it weighed (landplane) 4642 lbs
>at full gross. Top speed was 104 mph. No wonder it was a
>flop. The design was by a former Junkers engineer.

I THOUGHT there might've been some resemblance to a Ju-52, but I figured it must've been my imagination..