SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

WWII Carrier 'Landing Area' Question

1033 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
WWII Carrier 'Landing Area' Question
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:31 PM

I've tried to look this up online already but can't seem to find the specific answer, so, WWII American carrier fans; how long is the actual 'landing area' on the carrier deck, and how many arresting cables were there typically?

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    August 2014
  • From: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posted by goldhammer on Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:55 PM

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

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:57 PM

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

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Sunday, March 7, 2021 8:13 PM

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?

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Sunday, March 7, 2021 8:27 PM

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

 

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Sunday, March 7, 2021 9:58 PM

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.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Bethlehem PA
Posted by the Baron on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:37 AM

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?

 
If I remember it correctly, there was a plan considered in 1942 to convert an Iowa hull to an aircraft carrier.  It was discarded as unnecessary, since the Essex program was ramping up and exceeding its deadlines.  It was a conversion akin to the Lexingtons here, and the Akagi in Japan - taking the hull in early stages of construction and converting it to an aircraft carrier.  I don't remember drawings, but I think such a ship might have looked a lot like an Essex, from the outside.
 
I think there were post-war plans considered, too, to convert an Iowa, or to convert one of the unfinished ones (the Kentucky?), to a hybrid, with an abbreviated flight deck aft.
 
I was thinking about using some of my 1/1200 Iowa kits to finish in a what-if configuration, along one of those lines.  It would be fun.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2019
  • From: New Braunfels, Texas
Posted by Tanker-Builder on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:56 AM

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"

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Friday, March 12, 2021 5:01 PM

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.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.