lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) (11/15/90)
From: lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) Just thinking... Each and every last representation of an aircraft carrier I have ever seen shows a carrier with the control tower on the right hand side. Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? Thanks. -- Robert Lynch lynch@rice.edu =========================================================== Yellow ribbons...but no red flags? [mod.note: Yes, the Japanese Akagi had a port-side island. This was added during a reconstruction, the original having no island, and apparently the port side was the only place with room to spare. The Hiryu also had a port-side island, though her sister-ship, Soryu, was completed first, and with the island to starboard. Of course, some carriers, especially from WWII and previously, had no islands at all. - Bill ]
jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) (11/16/90)
From: jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) In article <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com> lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) writes: >Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? >Robert Lynch lynch@rice.edu > >[mod.note: Yes, the Japanese Akagi had a port-side island. This was >added during a reconstruction, the original having no island, and >apparently the port side was the only place with room to spare. The >Hiryu also had a port-side island, though her sister-ship, Soryu, >was completed first, and with the island to starboard. > Of course, some carriers, especially from WWII and previously, >had no islands at all. - Bill ] 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. 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 training carrier Wolverine had a similar problem, this time a large crane opposite the island. The proposed carrier United States had no island, only a retractible tower for flight operations. This was during the '50's, I believe. Hope you all find this interesting. -- The Mad Mathematician jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (11/16/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >Each and every last representation of an aircraft carrier I have >ever seen shows a carrier with the control tower on the right >hand side. The "control tower" is called an island. >Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? >[mod.note: Yes, the Japanese Akagi had a port-side island. This was >added during a reconstruction, the original having no island, and >apparently the port side was the only place with room to spare. The >Hiryu also had a port-side island, though her sister-ship, Soryu, >was completed first, and with the island to starboard. This Japanese practice applied only to their "fleet carriers" - meaning big carriers that that were the center of the fleet (carriers that the fleet was built around). The Japanese did this because they planned to sail the aircraft carriers side by side in a formation. Hence, Akagi and Kaga, being sister ships, will sail together, and Akagi, having port-side island, would sail starboard of Kaga, Kaga having starboard-side island. Akagi and Kaga were in Carrier Division 1. Similarly, Hiryu, being a sister ship of Soryu, would be teamed with Soryu. Hiryu, which has a port-side island, would sail on Soryu's starboard side (Soryu has a starboard-side island). Hiryu and Soryu were in Carrier Division 2 (if I remember right). The philosophy behind this was that the bridge personnels could see better from their ships' islands and keep proper distance between the carriers during maneuvers. However, Japan disconnected this practice when they built the Shokaku class carriers (both commissioned in 1941) and future carriers. Both Shokaku and sister ship Zuikaku had starboard-side islands. Shokaku and Zuikaku were in Carrier Division 3 (if I remember right). The fact that these Japanese carriers were assigned to their carrier divisions explains why same Japanese carriers were teamed in carrier battles. For example, in the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan committed all carrier divisions - Akagi & Kaga, Hiryu & Soryu, and Shokaku & Zuikaku. In the Japanese invasion of Wake Island, Japan sent Carrier Division 2. Thus Hiryu and Soryu were involved. In the South Pacific and Indian campaigns in early 1942, Carrier Divisions 1 & 3 were committed. After Doolittle air raid, Carrier Div. 2 (Shokaku & Zuikaku) was reassigned to the Japanese waters and Carrier Div. 3 (Hiryu & Soryu) joined Carrier Div. 1 (Akagi & Kaga). In the Battle of Coral Sea, the first carrier battle between Japan and USA happened. It was a battle between Carr. Div. 2 (Shokaku and Zuikaku) and the American carriers, USS Lexington and USS Yorktown. Another Japanese carrier (Shoho - a light carrier) was involved and was the first carrier sunk. Shokaku was badly damaged and Zuikaku lost too many aircrafts; thus Carr. Div. 2 could not participate in the coming Battle of Midway. In the Battle of Midway, Carr. Divs. 1 & 2 (Akagi & Kaga and Hiryu & Soryu) were committed, and all carriers were lost.
v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (11/16/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com>, lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) writes... >From: lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) >Just thinking... > >Each and every last representation of an aircraft carrier I have >ever seen shows a carrier with the control tower on the right >hand side. > >Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? > >Thanks. >-- >Robert Lynch lynch@rice.edu In a book I have of WWII hardware, they talked about the port-side islands of Japanese carriers. Apparently, putting them there created dangerous tubulence problems. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (11/16/90)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) In article <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com> lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) writes: > >Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? Akagi and Hiryu were intended to operate in formation, and the reason for the port-side island was to separate the aircraft streams. As far as I know, no other country has ever designed and built specific carriers to operate in a specific formation with specific other carriers. The plan would be Akagi and Kaga next to each other, and Hiryu and Soryu next to each other. I assume that the islands would be on the inside, since presumably you would tend to use the part of the deck and airspace away from the island more frequently. One odd thing is that the four Japanese carriers mentioned were not all that similar for "sister" ships. Hiryu was considerably larger than Soryu (presumably Soryu was built on restricted displacement due to treaties that expired or were ignored for Hiryu - I'd have to check the dates). Akagi was a converted battle cruiser, while Kaga was a converted battleship. To be honest, Akagi and Amagi were designed as sister ships, and were designated to be converted while incomplete to carriers, but Amagi was damaged in an earthquake while under construction, so battleship Kaga was substituted. Conceivably this would have been a good plan for the U.S. to adopt with the Essex and Independence classes. Nowadays, carriers generally operate in single-carrier forces, so there is no peacetime need for this system. (Actually, U.S. carriers operated in single- carrier forces well into the war, only operating in multiple-carrier groups when the sheer number of carriers made that impossible. Don't be misled by the listing, say, of Enterprise and Hornet together under Spruance at Midway, they travelled together but separated for combat.) Therefore, the port-side island is simply the mating of ship design to intended formation tactics. And why starboard islands? From what I have read, the torque of the screws in standard warship powerplants makes it easier to turn right than left, and you usually want the island on the inside of the turn. DHT
mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) (11/17/90)
From: mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) In article <1990Nov16.051445.21240@cbnews.att.com> jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) writes: > >The training carrier Wolverine had a similar problem, this time a >large crane opposite the island. in addition, of course, to her side wheels (a converted Great Lakes passenger ferry or something similar. -- Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 Under construction: mikes@sir-alan@cica.indiana.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/17/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) >The proposed carrier United States had no island, only a retractible >tower for flight operations. This was during the '50's, I believe. A side note is that this was the carrier the A-3 Skywarrior was theoretically going to fly from. Ed Heinemann wisely decided that the first supercarrier was a dandy target for peacetime budget cuts, and he'd better build his bird so it could fly from smaller carriers if he wanted to be sure of a production contract. He was right. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (11/20/90)
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.
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (11/20/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >In a book I have of WWII hardware, they talked about the port-side islands of >Japanese carriers. Apparently, putting them there created dangerous tubulence >problems. Not necessarily, but it was true for Hiryu, which had a port-side island. Her sister ship, Soryu, had a starboard-side island. But, because of the location of the horizontal smokestack on the starboard side, Soryu's island was located in front of the smokestack. When the Hiryu was commissioned a few years later, several of the senior pilots on the Soryu was transferred to the Hiryu. These pilots complained that it was more difficult to land on the Hiryu than on the Soryu. A study was made, and it was determined that there was air turbulence behind the island that stretched beyond the end of the flight deck. This wasn't the case on the Soryu; the air turbulence behind the island on the Soryu had smoothened out at the end of the flight deck. The island on the Hiryu was located in the middle, across the flight deck from the smokestacks, whereas the island on the Soryu was located about 1/3 the deck length from the bow, just ahead of the smokestack. Apparently the lesson learned from the island locations in the Hiryu and Soryu was preserved in the minds of the Japanese carrier designers, because in the future Shokaku class carriers, the islands were located way out in the front, just like in the Soryu. Interestingly, the Akagi, which had a port-side island, did not have this problem. Both Akagi and Kaga were * H U G H * carriers, and Akagi's island was in the middle. Apparently the distance from the Akagi's island to the end of the flight deck was long enough for the air turbulence to smooth out. Furthermore, Akagi's flight deck was wider than the Hiryu's.
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (11/20/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >One odd thing is that the four Japanese carriers mentioned were >not all that similar for "sister" ships. Very true for Akaga & Kaga, and also for Hiryu & Soryu. However, the Shokaku and Zuikaku were identical twins. >Hiryu was considerably larger than Soryu (presumably Soryu was built >on restricted displacement due to treaties that expired or were ignored >for Hiryu - I'd have to check the dates). After World War I, Great Britian, United States, and Japan signed the Washington Treaty of 1924. It set a 5:5:3 ratio that these countries could build naval ships. For example, for every 5 tons of shipping that Great Britian and United States built, Japan was allowed to build 3 tons. I cannot remember what the maximum tonnage limit was set for aircraft carriers; I think it was something like 135,000 tons. The British decided not to build up to the limit, and the United States did reach the limit (this explains why the Wasp was restricted to 14,500 tons). Unfortunately, Japan cheated in this game. While Akagi and Kaga were listed at 22,500 tons, Akagi was in fact a 36,800 ton carrier, and Kaga, 38,200 ton carrier. Similarly, the Soryu was listed at 10,000 tons, but in fact she was a 18,000 ton carrier. That was why, after the Battle of Midway, everyone claimed that he sank either Akagi or Kaga, while no one claimed either Hiryu or Soryu. Everyone said that he sank a LARGE carrier, not a TINY carrier. The Hiryu was built after the Washington Treaty was discarded. The Hiryu was a slighter larger carrier (19,500 tons) with more armor protection over the Soryu. >Don't be misled by the listing, say, of Enterprise and Hornet >together under Spruance at Midway, they travelled together but >separated for combat.) The United States Navy had the problem of covering the whole Pacific Ocean with so few ships in the early years of World War II. Hence, the aircraft carriers operated on their own; they were brought together if a battle was anticipated. For example, USS Lexington and USS Yorktown were sent to Coral Sea to impede the Japanese invasion, and USS Enterprise, USS Hornet, and USS Yorktown were sent to Midway Island to assist in the defense of the island.
jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) (11/22/90)
From: jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (The Mad Mathematician) In article <1990Nov17.013736.26637@cbnews.att.com> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes: >In article <1990Nov16.051445.21240@cbnews.att.com> I wrote: >> >>The training carrier Wolverine had a similar problem, this time a >>large crane opposite the island. >in addition, of course, to her side wheels (a converted Great Lakes >passenger ferry or something similar. Yes, it was a passenger ferry operating on the Great Lakes. But, no, the paddle wheels were not a problem. She and her sister ship the Sable were side-wheelers, and the added flight decks were above the tops of the wheels. In fact, in pictures of the ship the wheels are not obvious, and you have to know what you are looking for to see them. The ships were converted as interim training carriers. Their flight decks were 570' long, smaller than existing carriers, and they were slower. They also had no facilities for the aircraft, other than the flight decks, of course. There is a model of the Wolverine, converted from the Greater Buffalo, at the Naval and Serviceman's museum in Buffalo, NY. -- The Mad Mathematician jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (11/29/90)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) in article <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com>, lynch@arcadien.rice.edu (Robert Preston Lynch) says: > > Did anybody, anywhere, ever build a left-handed aircraft carrier? > > Robert Lynch lynch@rice.edu > =========================================================== > > [mod.note: Yes, the Japanese Akagi had a port-side island. This was > added during a reconstruction, the original having no island, and > apparently the port side was the only place with room to spare. The > Hiryu also had a port-side island, though her sister-ship, Soryu, > was completed first, and with the island to starboard. > Of course, some carriers, especially from WWII and previously, > had no islands at all. - Bill ] The Japanese had 2 'Left handed' carriers as noted above. But I believe that is was done intentionally with the intention of having two carrier task groups ( not known by that name at the time :-)). The intention was to run one clockwise airfield pattern and one counterclockwise to` enable both carriers to operate simultaneous operations and stay close together for protection. I do not believe the theory worked out well because the Shokaku and Zuikaku pair that was built later had conventional right islands. I believe the book AIRCRAFT CARRIERS by Polmar ( It has been a few years since I saw it) It is a very large thick book and covers carrier development up to the USS Kennedy very well. It includes information and photos on the British 'flexible deck' ( no landing gear just a well padded landing area, use a dolly for launches) and the trials using a C-130 on the Forrestal class. I also found some information on Japanese carrier operations at the US Navy Operational Archives at the Washington Navy Yard. There were several studies done just after the war on operational issues such as flight ops, damage control, and air group composition. I spent several days working on a comparison of US Japanese and British carrier theories and how it affected the ships they built for an under- graduate paper. I just wish I had the time to do that kind of stuff now :-) Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (12/04/90)
From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) In article <1990Nov21.214430.17254@cbnews.att.com> news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) writes: >>And why starboard islands? > >I'm not sure why islands were located to starboard in the first place, but I suspect that the islands were located on the starboard side originally because the standard aircraft landing pattern is to the left. Thus, not only can the pilot see the whole deck during his approach, but the "airboss" can see not only the deck, but the whole pattern of landing aircraft. -- How can you tell if Bush is lying? | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- Watch his lips... | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave