ArmchairAdmiral wrote:
When Intrepid, Tico, & Hancock got the 27C, the starboard deck edge elevator was located further aft compared to the later 27C/125 given to Lex/Shangri-La/BHR, and all the subsequent 125 conversions. Why was the aft location not repeated in any other ships? Was it found to be inferior or less than optimal for some reason?
If you look at the Trumpeter and Dragon models that show the hangar interior, you can see just how far aft the structure beneath the island and 5" mounts extended. On the SCB-27A's, the new 5" singles were placed at the after end of that structure (closer to the original starboard magazines). However, on the first SCB-27C's, the 5" were moved aft so the elevator could be placed aft of the starboard hangar structure. This saved time and money in the conversion. But then they discovered that the elevator was too far aft for an aircraft to trap, release the hook, and taxi clear to the elevator quickly. Too much back taxiing was involved which slowed the landing cycle. So the elevator had to be moved forward and the cost and time for cutting through the hangar-side structure had to be accepted. That is why all subsequent starboard elevators were in the more-forward location. When CV's 11, 14, and 19 received SCB-125, a triangle of flightdeck was added to allow aircraft to taxi back to the elevator clear of the landing zone. However, in practice, this piece of deck ended up being used mostly for deck parking.