WWII Carrier 'Landing Area' Question

I would tend to say 4 arresting wires, and best guess probably the aft third as the normal area.  Barrier nets would be errected about the island, IIRC

Naturally depends on the ship.

The Lexingtons had both transverse and fore and aft arresting cables in the early thirtys. The fore and afts were to keep aircraft from being blown over the side while on the transverse cable, as the aircraft of the time were kites. Something like 11-14 cables transverse at each end of the ship.

Length of landing area? I don't know but it was easily the fore or aft quarter length of the deck.

The Yorktowns as built collected aircraft over the bow or stern and had only transverse cables. I count 7 each in the front and aft in the drawings. The landing area is really big at each end, maybe a third of the length of the ship at each end.

The Essexes originally had three cables just forward of the island for landings over the bow, and 16 at the stern, pretty much all the way up to the aft edge of the island. the stern landing area was very long, the forward one short.

Rex would correct me if he were here, but I think the long hulls starting with Bennington did away with over the bow landing cables as these were not used.

Ranger and Wasp? Probably similar to Yorktown.

CVLs? Drawings suggest up to 12, all the way forward to about 1/3 back from the bow; for over the stern landings.

CVEs? A whole subject in itself, but they were all along the deck, except amidships at the island. 8 or so for over the stern and 3 for over the bow.

Things are quite different now.

Bill

Thank you. I guess I'm thinking more late war timeframe (44-45) and possibly later. I'm thinking Alaska class hybrid .  .  .  

What if (dang, I seem to say that alot!) Alaska classers retained like the Iowa's were? Fairly fast, and big enough to throw a flight deck and hanger bay aft .  .  . Hmmmm?

Then I would study the Midways. No over the bow landings of course.

Midway had 13 right up the the aft end of the island.

Length of the proposed ship is 808 feet.

Your challenge is that armored flight decks were considered essential by the war, and that usually meant reducing the freeboard below the hanger deck (s) level to keep the ship from rolling over in a gale.

Your flight deck cruiser is still designed for piston engined aircraft, but they'd be big and heavy. You would really need an angled deck. But that's 10 years away since your ship would have been designed back around the time of Pearl Harbor.

Just chewing the fat here. I'd have them taking off into the wind, and since the cruiser isn't going to do 15 knots in reverse, I would definitely put the deck forward to take off over the bow. maybe keep the barbette of B turret to deal with landing crashes.

Bill

I'm thinking maybe lighter deck, primarily spotting / observation aircraft. The Alaskas were rated at 31 knots, maybe a large scout cruiser. Decent armament, good speed, larger than normal aircraft capability. NGFS + mid to long range eyes + speed. Something to think about. Then later, Harpoon + Tomahawk + CIWS + 12" hi-cap + Helos or STOL + lower operating costs than a BB. It could have worked, I think they may have retired them too soon.

HooYah Deep Sea

...What if (dang, I seem to say that alot!) Alaska classers retained like the Iowa's were? Fairly fast, and big enough to throw a flight deck and hanger bay aft .  .  . Hmmmm?

Aha!

     This is going to get lots of answers. On the Hornet, after she was " Museumed" I noticed only six cables in total. With the first and last being spaced somewhat apart from the others in distance. The trick was to do your best to catch 3 or 4, then that would have you stopping at the Island aft or center area.

     There were no cables forward and the " Cats" were a wee bit shorter on the Angle part of the deck and weren't used much I understand. I think maintenance and shock to the airframes was the reason. Shock to the pilot? "Oh! we forgot there was a person inside"

As for a 'modern' conversion, here are two concept drawings I've been playing with.

If I pick up a 1/350 Alaska, I could use some of the pieces / parts I have from a Tamiya New Jersey (1990's version) that I never finished.