Talk:Flight deck

message: Flight deck is another name for cockpit. I think we need a disambiguation page. Acdx 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is needed is a simple disambiguatio link at the top of the page linking to Cockpit. - BillCJ 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: sourced from H.T. Lenton, British and Empire warships of World War II;
The Malta class were designed to carry armour;
* 4.5 inch belt amidships
* 1 inch flight deck
* 2.5 inch central strake on main deck and outboard strakes on middle deck
* 2-3 inch box citadels
* 3 inch steering gear roof and closing bulkheads
* 1.5 inch longitudinal bulkheads.
Emoscopes Talk 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the Record

message: To illustrate difficulty/danger of missed approach on straight flight decks and the evolution of the angled flight deck. Anynobody 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant stuff! :) Emoscopes Talk 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes that's a good idea. Also, perhaps add a fourth animation with a deck barrier up, to prevent the landing aircraft crashing into the parked ones. Perhaps also emphasise on the caption that in the first animation, aircraft can only land or take off, but in the later ones, they can do both at the same time. Emoscopes Talk 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angled and axial deck animations added 

message: I'm still trying to figure out a good way to illustrate the deck barrier, but as I type this an idea just occurred to me so I'll try to work it in too. The modern angled deck now shows simultaneous launch/recovery. Anynobody 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated 

message: It seems rather obvious to me that the parked aircraft should be rotating in the opposite direction than shown on impact. The approaching craft will take the inward pointing wings with it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.113.125 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics bug in cvs122ani.gif 

message: See www.dcfp.navy.mil - U.S.S. PRINCETON (CVL-23), BOMB DAMAGE -
Battle for Leyte Gulf, October 24, 1944 (LOST IN ACTION)   for further info (or the link in the section head). Anynobody 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Princeton (CVL-23)]] was bombed not hit by kamikaze 

message: Since this article is about the flight deck, I have moved this subsection to the aircraft carrier article. Anynobody 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved hurricane bow to [[aircraft carrier]] 

message: Realistically making a deck that could absorb all the shock of a jet aircraft hitting it at 100-150 knots without causing damage to the jet sounds like wishful thinking at best. They say a carrier landing (with landing gear) is more of a controlled crash than a landing. Without gear it'd just be crashing. Even if it was possible, handling a plane without landing gear sounds like a pain: One would need a tractor/crane and separate cradle for each aircraft landing. Anynobody 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying out, with early jets landing gear counted for a lot of weight, and it was tried. GraemeLeggett 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this statement in the ref you added doesn't give enough specifics, what setbacks are they talking about (damage to the fuselage I'm betting if this did happen): One of the more unusual ideas was to save weight and cut down landing accidents by having undercarriage-less aircraft. They would be launched by a special catapult and would land on a flexible rubber deck. Trials were even carried out with a mock deck at Farnborough, using Sea Vampire aircraft. After initial setbacks the concept proved practical, but even so, the Admiralty abandoned the idea. Anynobody 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a printed source (Carrier Aviation: Air Power Directory ed. by David Donald, AIRTime Publishing) that states the angled deck was presented by Capt Dennis Campbell at an Aug 1951 meeting of the Royal aircraft Establishment who were discussing the "flex deck". It seems that with the angled deck, there was no need for the rubber deck, as the angle solved all the problems the rubber deck was attempting to address. I'll try to get a proper quote for it later. - BillCJ 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The source was a stopgap found quickly online until i got a chance to get Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters Since 1950 out from the library again. GraemeLeggett 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the subject of the types of planes to be handled (and this is working from memory) - the idea came from the combination of the expected landing weights (naval aircraft are heavier because of folding wings, stressed airframes etc) and the size of the decks. GraemeLeggett 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the mention of "flexible deck" is notable, or maybe just has undue weight.  By the way, the US Navy uses the term "flex deck" to describe certain carrier air operations: when aircraft are allowed to return to the carrier to land at flexible times.  This is unlike typical cyclic operations wherein aircraft can only recover during specific periods.E2a2j (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See linked video here: Rubber deck. The pilot is Eric "Winkle" Brown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.196 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale behind the flexible deck concept was that with the introduction of jet aircraft there was no vulnerable propeller to worry about damaging, and the early jet engines were thirsty on fuel, so removing the undercarriage reduced weight allowing more fuel to be carried without reducing overall manoeuvrability or speed. Although successful, the trials were abandoned when later engines became more fuel-efficient. The 'fuel problem' was why the Royal Navy didn't use any jets  in the Korean War, as they were regarded as having insufficient range or endurance to do anything useful, piston-engined Sea Furies being preferred instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.59 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flexible decks needs a source 

message: I have added some additional info on the development of the angle deck. All additions and changes have been check and referencedJacob805 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angle deck revised

message: For an article about carrier's flight deck, there is VERY little explanation of the CATOBAR system, which is being used by most of the carriers.
Comparisons between Sky-Jump, and Catapults would be helpful.
Or at the very least, link to the catapult system's page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an interesting 1960 RN instructional film called Launch & Recover on YouTube here:  that has some useful stuff on steam catapults, etc. The carrier featured BTW, is HMS Hermes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catapults section? 

message: Get real, Damwiki- this really is nationalist special pleading.  You're seriously equating Swordfish to Corsairs and Avengers?  Your assertion that the use of deck park was the only significant difference US and UK carrier capacity is getting very, very stale. Solicitr (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not directly comparing capacities, just showing that WW2 USN CVs carried a very large, permanent, deck park, since you have previously stated that my reference to pre-war USN CV deck parks was not valid for WW2. Some months back I gave the hangar dimensions for each class and the RN capacities in terms of folded wing Swordfish and your data for the Essex class capacity (which was clearly lower in the late war period). As I have stated to you in the past, the aircraft capacity of any given carrier is determined by hangar capacity and the available parking area on the flight deck forward of the last barrier. The article clearly states that armouring the flight deck caused a reduction in the number of aircraft carried, but, again, once a deck park is added to RN armoured carriers the disparity is reduced considerably.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with Damwiki here. The case for removing the info from the article has not been made. Perhaps it needs clarification, but that should be discussed here first also. - BilCat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text: DamWiki insists on maintaining the categorical statement, which is categorically false, that "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers".  This is part and parcel of DamWiki's very POV campaign to create the impression that RN armored-deck carriers did not, as they did, pay a heavy price in air group capacity.  Yet let's look at the numbers, as provided in his own cite: "On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park."  51 aircraft in the hagar deck alone (103 total)- while no RN armored-deck carrier, even after adopting USN practices including the use of a deck park during this same period (Okinawa), ever managed to operate more than 54 aircraft total. Solicitr (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: HMS Implacable carried 81 aircraft by adopting a permanent deck park and this is stated and referenced in the section under discussion.  The USN Essex class were much larger ships, with nearly 20% greater displacement than the RN armoured carriers, so it is no surprise that they carried a greater aircraft complement but I have very patiently explained all this in the past. The article makes it very clear that armoured flight decks would impose a penalty on aircraft capacity, but as the references show, the greatest part of the disparity was due to the USN's permanent deck park, which on Bennington, actually exceeded her hangar capacity. Threats and name calling are no substitute for accurate, cited, information.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we said "a large part of the disparity" instead of "the largest part of the disparity"? We can keep the same sources, but perhaps quote the texts in the ref tags so the user can draw their own conclusions. This avoids any appearance of synthesis on our part. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that. Another source for information on Deck parks in RN armoured carriers is British Warships of the Second World War, by John Roberts, p.61. He states the nominal aircraft capacity (using late war aircraft) of the Implacable class as 72 with 48 in the hangars and 24 as a permanent deck park so this shows very clearly how the use of a deck park greatly increased RN carrier capacity.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In stead of using inmprecise quantifiers like "most" or "greater part" or "large part", would it not be better to escheew those flexible terms in favor of actual numbers? Otherwise there will just be continual sniping over which adjective better fits the relationship of 72 vs 48, or 110 vs 72.Solicitr (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok, here's a proposed rewrite of the section on armored flight decks:
When aircraft carriers supplanted battleships as the primary fleet capital ship, there were two schools of thought  on the question of armor protection being included into the flight deck. The USN initially favoured unarmoured flight decks because they maximized aircraft carrier hangar and flight deck size, which in turn maximized aircraft capacity in the hangar, and on the flight deck, in the form of a permanent "deck park" for a large proportion of the aircraft carried.[2][3] In 1936 the Royal Navy developed the armored flight deck aircraft carrier which also enclosed the hangar sides and ends with armor. The addition of armor to the flight deck offered aircraft below some protection against aerial bombs while the armoured hangar sides and ends helped to minimize damage and casualties from explosions or fires within or outside the hangar.[4] The addition of armour to the hangar forced a  reduction in top-weight, so the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[5] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck aircraft carrier. Additionally, Royal Navy aircraft carriers did not use a permanent deck park until approximately 1943; before then the aircraft capacity of RN aircraft carriers was limited to their hangar capacity. The 23,000 ton British Illustrious-class had a hangar capacity for 36 Swordfish sized aircraft and a single 458 ft x 62 ft x 16 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.8m) hangar, but carried up to 57 [6] aircraft with a permanent deck park while the 23,400 ton Implacable class featured increased hangar capacity with a 458 ft x 62 ft x 14 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.3m) upper hangar and the addition of a 208 ft by 62 ft by 14 ft (63m x 19m x 4.3m) lower hangar, forward of the after elevator, which had a total capacity of 52 Swordfish sized aircraft or a mix of 48 late war aircraft in the hangar plus 24 aircraft in a permanent deck park[7], but carried up to 81 aircraft with a deck park.[8] The 27,500 ton USN Essex class had a 654 ft x 70 ft x 17.5 ft (198m x 21m x 5.3m) hangar that was designed to handle a mix of 72 prewar USN aircraft.[9]  but carried up to 104 late war aircraft using both the hangar and a permanent deck park.[10][11] The experience of World War II caused the USN to change their design policy in favor of armored flight decks: "The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks." [12]
*[2] Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125.
*[3] USS Bennington, Action Report, OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OCCUPATION OF OKINAWA INCLUDING STRIKE AGAINST KANOYA AIRFIELD, KYUSHU. 28 May to 10 June, 1945, p.18. On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park. At that time she carried 15 TBMs, 15 SB2Cs and the rest were a mix of F6Fs and F4Us. She was prompted to utilize, and report on, her maximum hangar storage due to a Typhoon.
*[4] Eadon, Stuart, editor, Kamikaze, The Story of the British Pacific Fleet, Worcester 1991, , p.338-339: In nine kamikaze strikes "...The Fleet Air Arm suffered...44 personnel killed...By contrast Bunker Hill lost 387 dead in the Kamikaze attack on 11th of May 1945."
*[5] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p62.
*[6] Brown, David, Warship Profile 11, HMS Illustrious Aircraft Carrier 1939–1956, Operational History, p257. 42 F4U Corsairs and 15 Fairey Barracudas.
*[7] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p61.
*[8] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. 48 Seafires, 21 Avengers and 12 Fireflies.
*[9] Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1982.
*[10] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. USS Bennington: 37 Hellcats, 37 Corsairs, 15 Helldivers and 15 Avengers.
*[11] Francillion, Rene, US Navy Carrier airgroups Pacific, 1941-1945, London, Osprey Press 1978.
*[12] Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56.
Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Any further comments on my proposed changes? If not, then I'll implement them in a week or so.Damwiki1 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry, for the long delay but I decided to do further research on the maximum number of operational aircraft used by an Essex class carrier during WW2, and 104 was the largest I could find. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Illustrious class were built within the London Naval Treaty limitations of 23,000 tons, the Essex class built after the US had abandoned the treaty were more than 10,000 tons larger at full load.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Flight Deck of British Aircraft (1945)":  - unedited British Pathe newsreel footage of BPF carriers in operation and there doesn't seem to be a noticeable lack of aircraft - at one point there are around 24 Seafires parked on deck. More here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revision: capacity comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Flight deck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228171944/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil:80/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050113082026/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/nan/backissues/2000s/2000/ja2000/ppp.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2000/ja2000/ppp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901213306/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Flight deck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019135316/http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part4.html to http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: “ (aircraft now launched from the bow and re-embarked on the angle, leaving a large open area amidships for arming and fueling)”
I have read this sentence several times and cannot understand it. Please clarify for non-technical reader. Launched… and then re-embarked? 124.150.79.224 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked it to say "aircraft now launched from the bow and landed on the angled flight deck" does that help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fromer member of the RAN FAA, I would word it "aircraft now launched from the bow and recovered on the angled flight deck", but maybe that's just me.  - Nick Thorne talk 08:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify…