The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 602 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 31  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9864
Location: EG48
My 1/350th bias is coloring my thinking, I completely didn't think about any of the other scales. :doh_1:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Was just putting together some info to pass along to Steve on HORNET and I noticed something that may be well known, but I haven't seen any mention of it. So at the risk of hearing this is already well known, I'll say that it appears HORNET's tripod mast is further aft of the tripod masts on the two sister ships. How far? Looks like 8 - 10' - I'm having a little trouble matching it to frame markings. I noticed it when I used a light table and laid my Webb's Warships CV-5 plans (scaled to 1/350) on top of my MD Silver plans for CV-8 (also scaled to 1/350). All major details and assemblies on both islands align - except the tripod and its platforms. Roger, I know HORNET's spotting platforms were a bit different - that's not the source of the offset. When looking at either set of plan's view of the pilothouse roof, and comparing the forward (of the three) mast location, on CV-5 it is forward of the two MG mounts and slightly forward of the aft end of PriFly. On HORNET, this same mast is aft of the two MG mounts and well aft of the aft end of PriFly. Another good point of comparison in the starboard profile view is that CV-5's forward leg of the tripod is well forward of the vertical pole of the boat crane, on CV-8 the same mast pole is aligned vertically with the boat crane pole. As I said, everything else is aligned on the two plans as far as major stuff.
Feedback welcome - like to give Steve the most accurate info possible. Scans I have made are way too large a pixel count to post, unfortunately.

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
John W. wrote:
Was just putting together some info to pass along to Steve on HORNET and I noticed something that may be well known, but I haven't seen any mention of it. So at the risk of hearing this is already well known, I'll say that it appears HORNET's tripod mast is further aft of the tripod masts on the two sister ships. How far? Looks like 8 - 10' - I'm having a little trouble matching it to frame markings. I noticed it when I used a light table and laid my Webb's Warships CV-5 plans (scaled to 1/350) on top of my MD Silver plans for CV-8 (also scaled to 1/350). All major details and assemblies on both islands align - except the tripod and its platforms. Roger, I know HORNET's spotting platforms were a bit different - that's not the source of the offset. When looking at either set of plan's view of the pilothouse roof, and comparing the forward (of the three) mast location, on CV-5 it is forward of the two MG mounts and slightly forward of the aft end of PriFly. On HORNET, this same mast is aft of the two MG mounts and well aft of the aft end of PriFly. Another good point of comparison in the starboard profile view is that CV-5's forward leg of the tripod is well forward of the vertical pole of the boat crane, on CV-8 the same mast pole is aligned vertically with the boat crane pole. As I said, everything else is aligned on the two plans as far as major stuff.
Feedback welcome - like to give Steve the most accurate info possible. Scans I have made are way too large a pixel count to post, unfortunately.


A whole new mystery to solve! You might be on to something John. Checking MD Silver books for all three, here is what my best reading glasses determined. First let me say that the MD Silver book on CV-8 is the best of the bunch. The CV-5 and 6 sets have outdated drawings and early copies of revised drawings in them. Okay, to the meat. The masts themselves were initially identical, as built. Hornet's lower tripod platform was cut down considerably while her sisters, completed earlier, had theirs built up with additional structure prior to CV-8's existence.

The drawings I referenced in the books all had frame number notations, so any scaling errors are eliminated. The distance between frames was 4'0" so that gives us the starting point. All notations were at the top of the pilot house and air plot level, 109'6" above base line. The poles are all 2 feet in diameter. The center point of the vertical leg and the aft legs are 10'6" apart measured fore and aft.

The CV-5/6 drawing shows the vertical forward pole centerline as being 18 inches aft of frame 80 and the centerline of the aft poles as being dead on center with frame 83. At 4 foot spacing, that works out to 10'6" apart, a figure confirmed in one of the many drawings

The CV-8 drawing shows the vertical forward pole as being six inches forward of frame 82. That puts the aft legs at 24 inches aft of frame 84 (or midway between frame 84 and 85). While not notated on the plan, my ruler falls at that very spot for aft legs. This gives us 6 feet farther aft on the aft legs, and 6 feet farther aft when figured from the forward vertical leg.

So, CV-8's tripod legs were mounted 6 feet farther aft than her sisters.

Well Done, John W!

Theory: the reason for this was radar. The FD radar atop the forward Mk 37 director might have needed a better arc or greater clearance from the tripod structure. Hornet had design modifications to the original plans to accommodate radar, and this may be one of them.

Now that this is confirmed, I studied photos with the relationship in mind, and it is practically smacking me in the face! Compare similar views of CV-8 and CV-6. Note the distance between funnel mast and director locations. Double face palm!

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3297
Mike,

A question. In looking at the difference in the plans between CV-5/6 and CV-8 ... how far below decks does the forward leg of the mast go to where it is anchored? I'm use to destroyers, and the foremast "support structure" goes down below the deck it appears to be mounted to. The support structure takes up a sizable amount of space and needs to be there and everything was designed to "fit together". The answer for the relocation of the tripod may be more related to arrangements below where the tripod was located. The needs for the radar equipment may have resulted in rearranging of space in the bridge including support for the tripod. Looking at below decks in the bridge arrangements between the two different designs (CV-5/6 and CV-8) of the three sisters may show a difference in that area. Otherwise I don't see a physical need to relocate the tripod mast for the FD (Mk 4) radar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Nice catch/observation, John!!! Wow, it amazing that we are still discovering things like this! I'm looking forward to seeing what Steve creates for the Hornet based on the info you have provided!!!

Mike - thanks for the validation/confirmation of the different location of the tripod mast and I agree with your idea that it was relocated due to the requirements of the radar.

You guys never cease to amaze me!!! :worship_1:

Kelley

_________________
Image


Last edited by TOMLABEL on Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Looking at the General Plans for Yorktown 1940, I see what looks to be a deck hatch behind the starboard pilot house door leading downward. Am I reading this correctly or is it something else as I don't see it shown on any of the other pages of the plans related to that specific area?

Any ideas?

Thank you.

Kelley


Attachments:
Down Hatch.jpg
Down Hatch.jpg [ 119.5 KiB | Viewed 1349 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
It's surprising to find things that have been staring us in the face for all these years, but that's part of the fun in this hobby of ship modeling. Next, Tracy will dig up a memo to Bu C&R explaining that the first two ships had been discovered to have a structural weakness in the island due to the bending forces of the spotting tops on the tripod, and that the CV-8 tripod had to be moved further aft to counteract. Or not. It's all Steve Larsen's fault. I wouldn't have been overlaying those drawings if it hadn't been for Steve's nefarious plan the raid my wallet in support of a scale HORNET in 1/350.

Rick - The forward mast pole is shown on the drawing of the navigating bridge deck, but not on the drawing of the Flag Bridge deck below. The two canted (battered) mast legs are called struts in the plans and show on the top of the Pilothouse drawing but not on the Navigating Bridge deck below. A detail drawing of the CV-8 Navigating Bridge and Pilot House in the MD Silver plans (page 82, Mike) shows what appears to be the foundation for the forward leg of the tripod (the "foundation" is labeled "mast" and resembles a flange) and it is ever so slightly forward of a bulkhead at frame 82. That bulkhead is called out as 30# STS. Coincidentally, the vertical pole of the boat crane outboard of the island is centered on Frame 82. There do not appear to be any foundations on that drawing for the aft two mast legs - consistent with them terminating a deck higher than the forward vertical tripod leg.

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3297
On USN destroyers the foremast is seated on the main deck, but the support structures below that deck to hold the weight is below that and goes down a deck or two. Also, a brace to the back of the bridge at the Navigation level was used to support the mast, plus stays were used to prevent swaying. Post-WWII when they installed tripod foremasts, the "legs/struts" are anchored to the 01 deck. I'm not familiar with the structure that supports the much larger tripods on carriers, so wondered if they extended below the upper most deck. If not that is fine. But I suspect that the support structures below the Navigation Deck is pretty substantial, and built into the island superstructure. Plus, I assume that wiring and power go up the main mast leg making integrating different.

What I'm wondering is the bridge layout on the Flag Bridge deck level or even lower for CV-8 would have to be different because the tripod mast being moved. Was that layout altered for CV-8 compared to CV-5/6 because of the different fire control director with radar (Mk 37 w/Mk 4 radar) installation? The FD (Mk 4) radar wasn't the only radars added, the CXAM (CXAM-1) radar was mounted atop the tripod mast, so power and waveguides for that radar would be going up the tripod mast as well. CV-5/6 would have had to work "around" the existing tripod mast design, but CV-8 was built later and could incorporate changes to make the installation a better integration job for the newer "technology".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Rick E Davis wrote:
Mike,

A question. In looking at the difference in the plans between CV-5/6 and CV-8 ... how far below decks does the forward leg of the mast go to where it is anchored? I'm use to destroyers, and the foremast "support structure" goes down below the deck it appears to be mounted to. The support structure takes up a sizable amount of space and needs to be there and everything was designed to "fit together". The answer for the relocation of the tripod may be more related to arrangements below where the tripod was located. The needs for the radar equipment may have resulted in rearranging of space in the bridge including support for the tripod. Looking at below decks in the bridge arrangements between the two different designs (CV-5/6 and CV-8) of the three sisters may show a difference in that area. Otherwise I don't see a physical need to relocate the tripod mast for the FD (Mk 4) radar.


Rick, confirming what John said, the vertical pole has a heavy cross beam girder that the pole is mated to below the deck. The aft poles are secured in a much less substantial way. Big flanges and all,but no big below deck carry-through structure. Nothing below deck points to a reason for moving the structure aft, however, take another look at the comparison shots I posted. Picture CV-6 with Hornet's Mk 37 and FD radar in place of the Mk 33. The forward end of CV-6's tripod platforms would be right in the way of the top of the FD radar antenna if it was swiveling around. They would nearly be close enough to bump. If the antenna was that close to a big hunk of steel, then the radar signals might have been adversely affected.

This leads me to another interesting point, for which I had not yet made the connection. When CV-6 got her first FD radar in mid-1942, still using Mk 33 Directors, the aft one was mounted above the director as per expected. However,the forward unit was put on arms extending out in front of the director. These arms moved around a bit, as I have seen them working in film footage. Perhaps this was because the vertical set up would not clear the tripod tops.

Image

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
This leads me to another interesting point, for which I had not yet made the connection. When CV-6 got her first FD radar in mid-1942, still using Mk 33 Directors, the aft one was mounted above the director as per expected. However,the forward unit was put on arms extending out in front of the director. These arms moved around a bit, as I have seen them working in film footage. Perhaps this was because the vertical set up would not clear the tripod tops.

Image



Very interesting Mike. Would this also be the reason why the sky lookout positions atop the pilot house have been moved forward from their previous locations?

Kelley

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
TOMLABEL wrote:
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
This leads me to another interesting point, for which I had not yet made the connection. When CV-6 got her first FD radar in mid-1942, still using Mk 33 Directors, the aft one was mounted above the director as per expected. However,the forward unit was put on arms extending out in front of the director. These arms moved around a bit, as I have seen them working in film footage. Perhaps this was because the vertical set up would not clear the tripod tops.

Image



Very interesting Mike. Would this also be the reason why the sky lookout positions atop the pilot house have been moved forward from their previous locations?

Kelley


Judging by the little eyebrows above the pilot house, and the location of the antenna in that photo, quite possibly. CV-6 had those lookout positions during the time frame she had the Mk 33 with the frontal mount FD radar.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3297
Mike,

Sorry, I'm not sure about there being "physical" interference issues with FD radar on ENTERPRISE. In my opinion there is plenty of distance between the Mk 4 antenna atop the Mk 37 director and the tripod platforms on USS ENTERPRISE. I see no difference in the Mk 4 antenna location on the fore or aft Mk 37 directors after her upgrade.

Image

As for mounting the Mk 4 (FD) antenna forward of the Mk 33 director on USS ENTERPRISE being a "non-standard" installation, that is incorrect. On the pre-war destroyers with the same director the antenna was ALWAYS installed forward of the director. Also, look at USS WASP's FD antenna installation forward of the director as well. Most of the cruisers with the Mk 33 director (NEW ORLEANS class, WICHITA, and BROOKLYN class)) had the antenna mounted in front as well. The only ones I see with the antenna mounted on top are the enclosed-type Mk 33 director where the Mk 3 fire control antenna was installed forward and below the Mk 33 director, hence no room for the antenna mounted there. Mounting the antenna ABOVE the Open-top Mk 33 director installation is the oddball installation. If anything the forward mounting of the antenna would have had physical interference issues with the tripod and bridge structures ... which is likely why the aft director had the antenna mounted above ... there wasn't enough room to rotate 360 degrees.

What I'm saying about the main support for the tripod leg on USS HORNET, it HAS to have been moved and different from the location that existed on USS YORKTOWN and USS ENTERPRISE. They are physically in different places on the bridge superstructure. keeping the support structure in the same place while moving the mast makes no sense. The question is why they did that. For modeling the ships it is unimportant. But is a question about the design differences between USS HORNET and her sisters. You guys have plans of both ships ... are the arrangements on the Flag Deck and below DIFFERENT on HORNET than on ENTERPRISE??? If so what was added/changed to HORNET that wasn't in YORKTOWN/ENTERPRISE?? I think that may yield at least a clue. :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
Judging by the little eyebrows above the pilot house, and the location of the antenna in that photo, quite possibly. CV-6 had those lookout positions during the time frame she had the Mk 33 with the frontal mount FD radar.


Cool!!! Thanks, Mike!!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Rick E Davis wrote:
Mike,

Sorry, I'm not sure about there being "physical" interference issues with FD radar on ENTERPRISE. In my opinion there is plenty of distance between the Mk 4 antenna atop the Mk 37 director and the tripod platforms on USS ENTERPRISE. I see no difference in the Mk 4 antenna location on the fore or aft Mk 37 directors after her upgrade.

Image

As for mounting the Mk 4 (FD) antenna forward of the Mk 33 director on USS ENTERPRISE being a "non-standard" installation, that is incorrect. On the pre-war destroyers with the same director the antenna was ALWAYS installed forward of the director. Also, look at USS WASP's FD antenna installation forward of the director as well. Most of the cruisers with the Mk 33 director (NEW ORLEANS class, WICHITA, and BROOKLYN class)) had the antenna mounted in front as well. The only ones I see with the antenna mounted on top are the enclosed-type Mk 33 director where the Mk 3 fire control antenna was installed forward and below the Mk 33 director, hence no room for the antenna mounted there. Mounting the antenna ABOVE the Open-top Mk 33 director installation is the oddball installation. If anything the forward mounting of the antenna would have had physical interference issues with the tripod and bridge structures ... which is likely why the aft director had the antenna mounted above ... there wasn't enough room to rotate 360 degrees.

What I'm saying about the main support for the tripod leg on USS HORNET, it HAS to have been moved and different from the location that existed on USS YORKTOWN and USS ENTERPRISE. They are physically in different places on the bridge superstructure. keeping the support structure in the same place while moving the mast makes no sense. The question is why they did that. For modeling the ships it is unimportant. But is a question about the design differences between USS HORNET and her sisters. You guys have plans of both ships ... are the arrangements on the Flag Deck and below DIFFERENT on HORNET than on ENTERPRISE??? If so what was added/changed to HORNET that wasn't in YORKTOWN/ENTERPRISE?? I think that may yield at least a clue. :smallsmile:


Rick, I never said the forward mount was "non-standard" and I am quite aware of the many forward FD mountings including Wasp and the several cruisers you mentioned. In fact, Wasp's Mk 33 were the closed type and still had forward mounts. I simply pointed it out on CV-6, along with the fact that her aft unit was vertical. If the aft one was vertical, why not the forward one, if it could then rotate 360 degrees with no trouble? You allow for the aft unit being vertical to clear 360 degrees, but why not the same for the forward one if there was no clearance issue? And it might not be a physical clearance issue, but a radio signal clearance issue.

That all said, don't make the assumption that any of the measurements of the Enterprise pilot house area post 10/43 match up to either CV-8 or pre-mod CV-6. They are not in the same exact positions, or of the same design as Hornet, and the Mk 37 base might be re-positioned from original Mk 33 layout. Hornet's aft Mk 37 sits higher than CV-6's post 43 unit and I think Hornet's forward unit sits in a slightly different position as CV-6's post 43 unit as well. CV-6 had different Mk 37 base structures than CV-8 as well. I have to check if CV-6's Mk 37 mounts, both fore and aft are slightly relocated from original Mk 33 locations as well. I believe her forward unit was moved closer to the front of the pilot house, and it gets a bit confused to view because there was a structure to house electronic gear built in the space behind the Mk 37 and the first tripod pole. Need to check the pre and post modification plans before I can say for sure.

There is nothing in the plans regarding structure under the sky top platform to indicate a reason to move the tripod aft 6 feet on Hornet. It could be nothing more than the designers looking at possible improvements in the layout. Hornet's yardarms did line up a little better with her signal bridge and flag lockers as a result. Not a major reason, but maybe they determined it was a trouble free relocation and did it. It could be something that simple. No real difficulty in relocation of one structural girder a few feet back. Radar clearance may have still been the reason. Remember, radar was largely experimental as Hornet was completing. Maybe they decided a little extra clearance to gain a better clear arc and avoid unwanted radar signal reflections could not hurt. Later experience may have shown they were overly concerned, because the radar arrays of later war ships had adverse reflection possibilities all around them.

_________________
Mike
Image


Last edited by Michael Vorrasi on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1775
As far as the MK-4 on the MK-33 directors is concerned, don't forget that they were still trying to figure out how to attach the things to existing systems. As Rick said, the face-mount was the original standard for an open-topped MK-33. The forward MK-33 was so fitted right after Midway. But apparently, the after MK-33 posed some problems that required some thought before they figured it out. Between Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, the after director finally received her overhead MK-4 radar, apparently because of physical restrictions ruling out a face-mounted antenna. Don't forget that Portland also had the same thing done to her space-restricted MK-33's at the same time Enterprise got her after antenna. The North Carolina's had the forward three MK-37's fitted with MK-4 relatively early. But the antenna on the aftermost MK-37 would have interfered with the sight lines of the after MK-38 main battery director. The after MK-37 was not fitted with MK-4 radar until they figured out how to mount it above the other director's sight lines. Then they applied the same solution to the round-bridge Cleveland's. (Or maybe it was the other way around as to which type got the high antenna first.) In short, each installation had problems to be surmounted, and they didn't figure all of the solutions out at the same time. Another consideration was the balancing of weights on the MK-33's. They had a relatively narrow base which meant that new, off-center weights were a problem. But the added weight of the brackets to lift the antenna above the mount also created issues. It was all new, and apparently, none of it came easily.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Dick J wrote:
As far as the MK-4 on the MK-33 directors is concerned, don't forget that they were still trying to figure out how to attach the things to existing systems. As Rick said, the face-mount was the original standard for an open-topped MK-33. The forward MK-33 was so fitted right after Midway. But apparently, the after MK-33 posed some problems that required some thought before they figured it out. Between Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, the after director finally received her overhead MK-4 radar, apparently because of physical restrictions ruling out a face-mounted antenna. Don't forget that Portland also had the same thing done to her space-restricted MK-33's at the same time Enterprise got her after antenna. The North Carolina's had the forward three MK-37's fitted with MK-4 relatively early. But the antenna on the aftermost MK-37 would have interfered with the sight lines of the after MK-38 main battery director. The after MK-37 was not fitted with MK-4 radar until they figured out how to mount it above the other director's sight lines. Then they applied the same solution to the round-bridge Cleveland's. (Or maybe it was the other way around as to which type got the high antenna first.) In short, each installation had problems to be surmounted, and they didn't figure all of the solutions out at the same time. Another consideration was the balancing of weights on the MK-33's. They had a relatively narrow base which meant that new, off-center weights were a problem. But the added weight of the brackets to lift the antenna above the mount also created issues. It was all new, and apparently, none of it came easily.



Dick makes a great point about how we were feeling our way along on radar. Getting back to the relocation of Hornet's tripod and whether or not it was related to radar, remember that she was being built with radar in mind and well in advance of any such installations on her sisters. The designers might have taken the opportunity to give better radar arcs when they could build it right into the ship with little or no trouble. The FD does have a better arc with the tripod moved farther aft, even if just a few degrees got added.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
One thing that strikes me as I look at the islands of the first two ships as compared to CV-8, is how relatively open HORNET's pilot house / chart room / air plot is compared to the other two. The citadel in the first two ships eats up a lot of space on that deck, where as with CV-8 there seems to be more deck space available - some of it gained by pushing the mast back 6'. I also see a cryptic label "air intelligence" in this area on HORNET. Perhaps this area was designed with radar in mind - after all, where are the consoles for the radars? Not only were we feeling our way with radar, it was reasonably hush hush too. Pushing up the citidel to the roof and pushing the mast back increased the volume of what might be labeled today a special signals space.
Food for thought.

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3297
John,
That is the kind of observation I was interested in and would explain why go to the effort of changing the tripod mast location for what was suppose to be a repeat unit of the class. I suspect that making space available at the Flag Bridge level or in a "shack" at the Navigation Deck for the radar equipment, the transmitters and receivers were large and needed to be as close as possible to the antennas, and displays (precursors of the CIC) would be a logical reason.

Mike,
USS HORNET was laid down in 1939, launched on 14 December 1940, and commissioned on 20 October 1941. The first CXAM radars were installed in 1940. So, lessons learned could still be incorporated into HORNET for radar integration, along with what else was learned from YORKTOWN/ENTERPRISE. The FD (Mk 4) radars lagged (first installs in September 1941) the development of the search radars and likely couldn't completely be known. However, the improved Mk 37 director was in development and being installed on destroyers. Adjusting the bridge layout to accommodate this new "fangled" radar (I have read some very interesting views of old salt destroyer COs about the introduction of radar in their ships in 1941/42 :Mad_5: ) would be a logical reason to move the tripod.

I have studied the development of USN destroyers during WWII and found that the integration of radar in existing designs and even in new construction was not as simple as bolting the equipment in place.

As the war went on there were a lot of issues dealing with electromagnetic interference between the radars, beacons, radios, electronic warfare, etc ... many that weren't anticipated to be installed in 1940. But, the blockage of structures for these lower frequency radars wasn't as big of an issues as it was for the SG radar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
I was going back through the Ballard expedition photos the other day and ran across this pic of the top of the pilot house which shows the sky lookout stations/shielding. You can also see the access ways to both structures. It wasn't until the picture of this area came out in Steve Wiper's new Yorktown book that I had ever noticed them.


Attachments:
Pilot House Top 1.jpg
Pilot House Top 1.jpg [ 49.65 KiB | Viewed 1168 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Don't think this has been mentioned in the thread before: In the pic of Yorktown in PH drydock just prior to Midway, I've never understood why the bottom of front of the starboard platform looked like it was tilted downward towards port. Comparing it against the ENT platform, and drawing a line at the point where Yorktown's platform was cut off to make arrangements for the large bridge platform, I can see that the bottom angle is actually part of the bottom bracing that you see on the ENT on both starboard/port sides. This seems to confirm to me that the Yorktown's and Enterprises platforms were identical prior to Yorktown having a portion of hers cut off.


Attachments:
#3 CV5_1.jpg
#3 CV5_1.jpg [ 92.57 KiB | Viewed 1166 times ]
CV5 Strbrd Catwalk.jpg
CV5 Strbrd Catwalk.jpg [ 49.94 KiB | Viewed 1166 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 602 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 31  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 42 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group