Talk:CAM ship

message: Does anyone have details on the catapults used? AFAIK, these were cordite powered and so were therefore more likely to have been cannon-like (i.e. propellant remains still), rather than a rocket bottle, as used post-war. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Naval Institute Proceedings article paraphrased in the "Take-off procedure" portion of this article clearly specifies rocket propulsion and the potential for bridge damage astern of the catapult would not have been expected from a cannon-like catapult. Thewellman (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: No they were not. Ralph Barkers The Hurricats makes it quite clear that, while cordite-powered catapults were considered, rocket powered catapults were used as they were not only cheaper & simpler to construct but had the strength to launch a land based fighter. Graham1973 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockets ? 

message: The article uses the acronym FDO without explaining it.
Ljosa (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The acronym is defined at its first use in the second paragraph of the Origin section. Thewellman (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does FDO stand for? 

message: Prior to the CAM ship concept there were Fighter Catapult Ships, which were requisitioned and commissioned merchant ships, fitted with an aircraft catapult, but which were operated by the RN.  HMS Ariguani is one such example.  She was requisitioned from Fyfes.Adeligneumann (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I checked the FAA Archive site, which confirms the story and gives more detail and ships. The article needs some attention, so I'll do the necessary. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighter Catapult Ship 

message: Lt.(A) Everett [note correct rank, he was a member of the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve, Air Branch] should not be listed under CAM combat launches for the simple fact that HMS Maplin, a commissioned Royal Navy warship, was Fighter Catapult Ship, not a Catapult Armed Merchantman.  For the record, Everett had two combat launches from that ship.
The first occurred on 18.07.41, when the ship was escorting convoy OB 346. His Sea Hurricane (W9277) was launched at 0940 in an attempt to engage and an Fw-200 [F8+AB (SG+KS); w/n 0043; Gr.Kdr. Hpt. Fritz Fliegel and crew KiA] but it was shot down by AA from SS Norman Prince. Per instructions, Everett headed to the nearest land base and safely landed at St. Angelo.
The second occurred on 03.08.41 when the ship was ecsorting convoy SL 81.  Again manning Sea Hurricane W9277 he was sent off again to engage a Fw-200C which was claimed probably destroyed.  In fact, the Kondor [F8+CL, w/n 006] was badly damaged and crash-landed in France with two aircrew two dead and one injured.  A second Fw-200 escaped. As noted, Everett ditched and was rescued by HMS Wanderer.  It is worth noting that this was the first, and only, enemy aircraft destroyed by an aircraft launched form a Fighter Catapult Ship.
Mark E. Horan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.106 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - he's mentioned in Fighter catapult ship, so I've taken the entry out. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lt.(A) Robert William Hanmer Everett, RNVR 

message: It would be interesting to know where or how they landed.
: They didn't - the pilot bailed out and was recovered by a boat from one of the escort destroyers.  The Hurricane was too small to ditch safely - especially with the low wing, there was a serious risk of it ground(sic) looping.
: One launch was close enough to land that the pilot diverted to a ground airfield and landed conventionally. This had always been seen as a possibility. There had even been thoughts at one time of stripping the undercarriage from the aircraft to lighten it, but this was rejected as it didn't save all that much weight and as the aircraft were expected to be engaging slow maritime patrol aircraft rather than fighters, lighter weight wasn't particularly needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What goes up, must come down