Aircraft Carrying Airship Projects

[Jemiba]

Aircraft were already launched from airships during WW I, when the British airship R.23 was
used for trials with two Sopwith Camel fighters. But the first practical design, that could launch
AND recover more than one aircraft, was the USN ZRS-4 Akron, later followed by the ZRS-5
Macon. In "Luftschiffe, die nie gebaut wurden" (Airships, that were never built), Zeppelinmuseum
Friedrichshafen I found two drawings of pre-projects, directly leading two those two airships
The shapes of the fins and gondola are different, the upper fin containing a cabin, too, and
the nose is more blunt.
A Goodyear advertisment from the '420s (!) shows a similar, but obviously heavily armed airship,
with a more modern fighter complement (looks like a F5U derivative), but that's for sure more a
notional drawing, than a real project !

 

[Grey Havoc]

It'd be interesting to find out if this had any basis in reality: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/diving-spider-plane-to-hurl-big-bomb/

 

[Jemiba]

The concept of the dirigible carrying hooked aircraft is clearly derived from the
USN Akron/Macon and to use those aircraft as bombers, too, would have been a logical
step. But I'm sceptical about this type of aircraft: With bomb and bomber so closely
linked, the aircraft would suffer severe aerodynamic dsadvantages after release. In the
shown form, there seems not to be very much room for an engine powerful enough to
drive the aircraft with its heavy load. And if those bombs would have formed part of the
armoury, it wouldn't have been just one or two, but probably quite a number and so, to
my opinion bitten off a large part of the dirigibles limited payload.

 

[sienar]

. In the
shown form, there seems not to be very much room for an engine powerful enough to
drive the aircraft with its heavy load.

From the looks of it, I don't think this would be a problem. It seems that the plane would be released from the airship above its target and the plane would essentially just dive after release. The plane would only be used to make the airship released bombs accurate and the engine would just need to be enough to get the plane back to the airship.

 

[Jemiba]

Taking the sketch literally, you're right. Nevertheless, I think the distance between the airship and the target would be
much longer, thahn just a "ballistic" dive. And if the aircraft should act as an interceptor, as stated in the caption, it probably
would need a powerful engine nevertheless.

 

[hesham]

My dear Jemiba,

here is a same concept from Mr. John Dingle of Michigan,proposed it for US Army
Air Corps,the far right aircraft in the picture seemed to be a tailless ?,page 340;

https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=qca6PvHpQ34C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ar&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[cluttonfred]

It'd be interesting to find out if this had any basis in reality: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/diving-spider-plane-to-hurl-big-bomb/

Neat, though the pilot would have been $#@! out of luck if the bomb release jammed. I doubt that anything that small could have climbed with a 4,000 lb bomb aboard no matter what the engine. In some ways this is very akin to kamikaze aircraft, just with a reusable rather than "disposable" airframe and pilot.

 

[hesham]

here is a same concept from Mr. John Dingle of Michigan,proposed it for US Army
Air Corps,the far right aircraft in the picture seemed to be a tailless ?,page 340;

https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=qca6PvHpQ34C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ar&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hi,

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Ala%20d'Italia/L'ALA%20D'ITALIA%201937%20010.pdf

 

[palg]

Very http://dynalifter.com/

 

[hesham]

Very http://dynalifter.com/

That's right Palg.

 

[Cdre. Peter Strasser]

Hi, if this has already been addressed I apologize, but I was just writing a piece about the parasite aircraft trials being conducted with HMA R-23, and two questions came up that I can't seem to find the answers to -

1. Was the first test with the dummy pilot and locked controls just dropped and left to glide to the ground?

2. If not, how was the engine of the Sopwith Camel 2F.1 N6814 started once the airship had taken off?

 

[Jemiba]

From Ridley-Kitts, "Military, Naval and Civil Airships since 1783", page 160 :

"During November 1918 an unpiloted Sopwith Camel fighter was taken aloft, suspended
on a release mechanism under the midship’s cabin and launched over the sea near Great
Yarmouth to test the feasibility of carrying aircraft for protective purposes. Later the same
month a Camel piloted by Lt R.B. Keys of the Royal Air Force was successfully dropped over
Pulham airstation, with the pilot descending safely to the ground."

No mention how Keys actually started the engine. By the available photos I think, cranking up
by hand, as on the ground was impossible, but the slip stream may have been enough ?

 

[nuuumannn]

"During November 1918 an unpiloted Sopwith Camel fighter was taken aloft, suspended
on a release mechanism under the midship’s cabin and launched over the sea near Great
Yarmouth to test the feasibility of carrying aircraft for protective purposes. Later the same
month a Camel piloted by Lt R.B. Keys of the Royal Air Force was successfully dropped over
Pulham airstation, with the pilot descending safely to the ground."

Hi, if this has already been addressed I apologize, but I was just writing a piece about the parasite aircraft trials being conducted with HMA R-23, and two questions came up that I can't seem to find the answers to -

1. Was the first test with the dummy pilot and locked controls just dropped and left to glide to the ground?

Apparently the first drop of the unpiloted aircraft was unpowered and the controls were locked in place as you mentioned above, the aircraft making a gliding descent to Pulham. During the manned attempt Keys essentially allowed the slipstream to rotate the engine as it nose dived after release and was able to start the aircraft with "no trouble" according to Patrick Abbott in The British Airship at war 1914 - 1918 (Terence Dalton, 1989)

Just a wee pedantic point regarding British airship designations, the 'R' prefix did not appear on British airships until R.26 and its predecessors were simply known as No.23 or No.24 etc. The early ships simply had the number printed on their flanks, whereas later ships had the 'R' prefix to their number.

 

[nuuumannn]

The British also carried out experiments with airship carrying aircraft post war; the R.32 carried a de Havilland DH.53 Hummingbird underneath on a swinging cradle. Successful drops were made by Commanding Officer of the Royal Aircraft Establishment Experimental Section, Sqn Ldr Rollo A. de Haga Haig in October 1925, one of which was a successful reattachment in flight.

A year later the hummingbird was replaced by two Gloster Grebes, and although successful releases were made, no attempts at reattachment were made. The Grebes were suspended below the airship with rigid spars and the cradle used for the DH.53 was not used.

Grebes J7385 and J7400 suspended below the airship. This latter aircraft was refurbished and sold to the New Zealand government following these trials.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Found via the comments in a RetroFuturism reddit thread:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTGBFY82Gik

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a related note:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/buaer-design-124-parasite-reconnaissance-aircraft.10678/

 

[southwestforests]

It'd be interesting to find out if this had any basis in reality: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/diving-spider-plane-to-hurl-big-bomb/

That is quite cool. It should be featuring in a miniatures game and in fan art on DeviantArt and there should be a nice plastic model kit.
And if I was in to radio control planes it could be fun to try a flying model of it.

And here 9 years later the link is giving,

This page isn’t working right now​

blog.modernmechanix.com can't currently handle this request.


HTTP ERROR 500

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding the USS Akron (ZRS-4), and the USS Macon (ZRS-5):

USS Akron (ZRS-4): Inflated Hopes…

Both Akron and its sister ship, the Macon, were acquired in the early 1930s to be the eyes of the US.Navy fleet. They were impressive -if somewhat stubby looking- ships lavishly equipped. They even…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Akron (ZRS-4): Just Relax.

1932, the USS Akron visits the desolate plain that later became the future Sunnyvale AB. Somehow this pic remains me that Dust Bowl’s classic of Dorothea Lange: “Next Time Try The Train– Rela…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

Curtiss XF9C-1 Sparrowhawk: Lukewarm approach.

May 3, 1932. Lt Howard L. Young flying the XF9C-1 prototype is seen here on its way to catch the Akron’s trapeze. The first day that Akron operated aircraft with its trapeze. The XF9C-1 Sparr…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Akron (ZRS-4): Dinosaurs to be.

By the 1930’s the Akron and the battleship were on their way out of usefulness for the military. In the case of the battleship, at least, it was the capital ship of its era…., the rigid…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Macon ZRS-5: Lighted Lightness.

A cathedral of light under construction. Its sister ship. Stairways to Heaven……

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Macon ZRS-5 (Model): Chase your Dreams.

Retired computer engineer Jack Clemens thought his retirement is just the perfect time to do something big. And what’s better than a flying model of one of the two huge American-built “…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Macon ZRS-5: You’re the one for me,Fatty (III).

Unusual upward view. This photo depicted the idiosyncratic Akron/Macon features: its 8 buried engines that drove their props via drive shafts, its somewhat chubby profile and the questionable stubb…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Macon ZRS-5: Perfect is the enemy of good.

The Luftschiffbau Zeppelin company were renowned by their very empirical and conservative airships design approach, a practice anchored in the 1914-18 period. When the American Goodyear-Zeppelin Co…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

USS Macon ZRS-5: The icing on that cake.

Special guests watching the assembly of the Macon nose. Poetry from nose to tail.

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

USS Akron and USS Macon

Akron and Macon were flying aircraft carriers designed for long-range scouting. Both crashed at sea, ending the U.S. Navy's rigid airship program.

www.airships.net

USS Akron (ZRS-4)

USS Akron (ZRS-4), the first ship of her class, was built at Akron, Ohio. Along with his sister ship, USS Macon (ZRS-5), both dirigibles had 6,500,000 cubic feet. Commissioned in October 1931, she performed tests and search exercises in the eastern United States and western Atlantic...

www.history.navy.mil

USS Macon (ZRS-5)

Built at Akron, Ohio, USS Macon was a rigid airship, which first flew in April 1933. Designed in 1926, along with sister ship, USS Akron (ZRS-4), to utilize Helium gas, the 6,500,000 cubic foot ship had eight power plants, which enabled propeller movement in all directions. Also stowed...

www.history.navy.mil

 

[publiusr]

Airships carrying about oblique wing drones could work perhaps—pivots connecting to the rigid airship’s frame perhaps.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Came across more photos of the Akron over at the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives on Flickr - (Glenn W. Bates album). With respect to this topic, this photo intrigued me. The photo was taken inside the Goodyear Airdock during the construction of either the USS Akron or USS Macon, and it features a representative model / construction model of the airships. (EDIT: The photo also appears to include designer Karl Arnstein). On the side of the model it says "Goodyear-Zeppelin," as one might expect. However, the lower tail-fin carries the designation "RM-7A". Any ideas if this is a design number? Google has failed me after searching variously and in combination for "USS Akron", "USS Macon," "Goodyear-Zeppelin," etc., and, of course "RM-7A." :-\


Here's the photo in question:

https://flic.kr/p/h6icod

View: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/10561645964/

And here's the link to the largest resolution version of the of the photo, where one can clearly see "RM-7A" on the lower tail-fin.

https://flic.kr/p/h6icod

View: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/10561645964/sizes/o/

 

[okakac]

From a site that seems to be for collectors of military objects. More pictures of the airship and the parasite over there.

 

[stever_sl]

In the early days of eBay (yes, I'm that old!) I saw a listing for a photo of the interior of an airship with an airplane in it. The airplane was a biplane with negative stagger, and the wing panels themselves weren't installed. The caption said something about the uniformed men in the photo being state police I believe. Just recently the mystery was solved, it turned out to be a Staggerwing being delivered to some wealthy family in Europe as cargo in the Hindenburg, or so says the caption of this other photo that must be the same aircraft. So technically Hindenburg was an "aircraft-carrying airship" although not in the usual sense...

 

[fightingirish]

What Happened To The Navy's Airborne Aircraft Carriers?
Rare historical photographs courtesy of the Daniel Oliver Gallery and used with permission. Visit: https://danieloliver.gallery/

By the early 20th century, Imperial Japan had established itself as the dominant force in Asia. Through ruthless military conquests, the small island nation greatly expanded its borders. The rising imperial power soon set its sights on conquering much of East Asia. By 1921, nearly a third of Japan’s national budget was dedicated to building one of the most powerful navies in the world.

In response to Japan and other world powers rapidly expanding their naval strength, the Washington Naval Treaty was signed in 1922 to impose restrictions on the size and number of warships. However, American military planners were not convinced—rightfully so—that Imperial Japan would adhere to these new restrictions for very long. The United States, surrounded by two enormous oceans, seemed increasingly vulnerable.

In War Plan Orange (first outlined in 1919 and revised in subsequent years), military planners devised strategies for a possible war with Imperial Japan. Particular attention was given to key targets like the United States' West Coast, Pearl Harbor, and the vital Suez Canal. With millions of square kilometers of open Pacific Ocean, it was possible for the Imperial Japanese Navy to go undetected for weeks before launching a surprise attack. Scout cruisers were the U.S. Navy’s primary means of searching for enemy fleets, but they were too slow, too few in number, and too costly to adequately cover the vast Pacific. Aircraft of the era also lacked the range to scout large sections of the ocean. In response, Admiral William A. Moffett, Chief of the U.S. Bureau of Aeronautics, advocated for a radical alternative.

Under Moffett's direction, the United States began experimenting with rigid airships in 1923. Airships appeared to be the ideal solution for enhancing the Navy’s long-range scouting capabilities. As "scout cruisers of the air," airships combined the extended range of surface vessels with speeds nearly as fast as aircraft. The Navy’s first two rigid airships, the USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) and USS Los Angeles (ZR-3), helped pioneer the operational intricacies of airship use in a military setting. Navy crews trained for long-range day missions and practiced mooring to ships at sea to replenish fuel and helium. The Navy also perfected the practice of carrying, launching, and recovering aircraft in mid-flight, which was considered vital for airship defense.

In 1929, construction began on two of the largest airships the world had ever seen: the USS Akron (ZRS-4) and the USS Macon (ZRS-5). Defended by machine guns and equipped with internal hangars capable of carrying five Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk biplane fighters, these airships were scouting warships in every sense. If they proved successful, there were plans to build at least a dozen more to help patrol the vast Pacific Ocean and keep America safe.

Thanks for watching!

View: https://youtu.be/w6vgVTJK_rg?si=mbgORBa1SE9Cygsn

Video link:

https://youtu.be/w6vgVTJK_rg?si=mbgORBa1SE9Cygsn

 

[Firefinder]

That Video got so much wrong its not even funny.

 

[kocovgoce]

My dear Jemiba,

here is a same concept from Mr. John Dingle of Michigan,proposed it for US Army
Air Corps,the far right aircraft in the picture seemed to be a tailless ?,page 340;

Flying Magazine

books.google.com.eg

А good idea even today for a safe trip with a hydrogen zeppelin because hydrogen is cheaper and if something happens the crew can detach from the zeppelin and land safely

 

[hesham]

From Modern Mechanix 1934/6,

here is another design to Mr. John C. Smith