Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)
Subject: Re: Left-handed carriers
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 01:52:54 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Nov20.015254.23990@cbnews.att.com>
References: <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov16.051445.21240@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Lines: 51



From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)

>If memory serves, the Akagi was to be a sister ship to the Kaga, and
>the Hiryu to the Soryu.  They were to sail in pairs, Akagi and Hiryu
>on the starboard, so that the respective landing circles would not
>intersect.

Correction:
Such circular landing patterns are true for American aircraft carriers, 
but not true for the Japanese carriers.  Reason: American carriers have 
"vertical" smokestacks behind the island, and this smoke partially
blocked the sight of the flight deck if an aircraft landed in a straight
line.  Hence, American pilots needed to land low from left.  On Japanese
carriers, the smoke stacks are mounted "horizontally" on the sides, 
as to discharge the smoke outward.  Thus, the Japanese pilots had a 
good view of the flight decks as they landed, and they landed from
high in a straight line.

However, like the port-side island, the Japanese disconnected the practice
of horizontal smokestacks after the Shokaku class carriers.

>Also, I believe the carrier Ranger, CV-4 (?), had stacks on the port
>side, but left the island on the starboard side, causing even greater
>problems.  Actually, I think the stacks were lowerable to a
>horizontal position, but I'm not certain.

The Ranger (CV-4) had six smokestacks, three mounted on each side.
The aviators wanted flush deck carriers, but there was always the problems
of (1) the ship commanding officer not knowing what was going on on the
flight deck and (2) getting the boiler smoke to discharge horizontally.
The compromise was the smokestacks that could be swung into horizontal 
position for air operations, and into vertical position during non-air 
operations.  Thus, the island was smaller.

>The proposed carrier United States had no island, only a retractible
>tower for flight operations.  This was during the '50's, I believe.

Correction: Studies of this aircraft carrier was ordered on February
7, 1946.  There were several problems with the flush-type carrier: ship
control, boiler smoke disposal, location of large radar and radio
antennaes, etc. The aviators wanted no island, which would limit the 
size of aircrafts. The Bureau of Ships wanted an island for ship control 
and smoke disposal. An official drawing of the United States was released 
in October 1948, showing no island. The United States was simply too 
large, too expensive, and too vulnerable.  She was "killed" in April,
1949, nine days after her keel was laid.