Britain's bergship: A 1/350 scale HMS Habakkuk "ice" aircraft carrier.

[seadude]

About a year or so ago, I saw a Youtube video made by World of Warships about the Habakkuk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BpmMcdYok
Now I'm not a fan of WoW nor do I play WoW. But what I found curious about their video was some of the details on their Habakkuk rendering. Specifically the extra island superstructures and extra smokestacks.
As I've been doing research on Project Habakkuk from time to time, I've always wondered why the vessel would only have a single island superstructure and only two smokestack funnels. Wouldn't it make more sense to have two (or more) island superstructures in case one is damaged/destroyed? I mean, you have to have some sort of backup command and control and flight operations facilities. And you may need to have extra radar masts too.
As for the smokestack funnels on original concept sketches and designs of the Habakkuk, is two going to be enough to vent all the interior fumes, gases, etc. from the ship?
Depending on what sorts and how much of refrigeration and engineering machinery, heating equipment for the crew facilities, crew's mess cooking equipment and facilities, etc. there are inside the vessel, wouldn't it make more sense to have maybe 6-8 smokestack funnels on the ship instead, 3-4 on each side and spaced evenly?
I actually thought about making my model similar to the rendering in the video. But as time went on, I plan to make my model more closely to Geoffrey Pyke's original designs as a way to honor him and his original design. That would probably be the better thing to do.

[Gondor]

I would agree about more superstructure etc but only on one side of the ship, put large items on both sides of the deck and your asking for someone to fly/crash into something as it vastly reduces the width of the flight deck as the aircraft will have to leave clearance from both wingtips rather than just one. No harm with vernts/smoke stack leaveing the other side of the ship from the superstructure if they are below deck level although smoke blowing over the deck may be an issue.

Gondor

[seadude]

I would agree about more superstructure etc but only on one side of the ship, put large items on both sides of the deck and your asking for someone to fly/crash into something as it vastly reduces the width of the flight deck as the aircraft will have to leave clearance from both wingtips rather than just one.

And this is why B-29's or other large aircraft would be a bad idea.
Another issue too would be the wind that is blown over and/or around various superstructures if more superstructures were added. If you have winds that are coming from the port or starboard sides of the ship and going over and/or around more island superstructures, funnels, etc., there could be more wind turbulence over the runway and it could have a impact on aircraft that may be trying to land or take off. Not sure I explained that correctly, but hope you guys get the gist of it.

As for other aircraft systems like elevators, catapults, arresting wires and barricades, etc., my "provisional" plans are the following:

a) Aircraft elevators: Most sketches and concepts of the Habakkuk tend to show at least 4 aircraft elevators down the middle length of the vessel. At least 2 small elevators for fighters and 2 larger elevators for medium sized bombers. For Mosquito sized bombers (with folding wings), I'm thinking an elevator about 50 ft x 50 ft square. So two of the elevators on my model will be approximately 1 3/4 inches square. I've seen concept sketches of the Habakkuk where the ship has aircraft elevators along the edge/circumference of the hull. This is another bad idea IMO. If you have an enemy fleet blasting away at the Habakkuk, you don't want to put your aircraft elevators along the hull edge where they'll get damaged/destroyed. Better to put the elevators in the center of the flight deck along the length of the vessel.

b) Aircraft catapults: There's no information anywhere if the Habakkuk would have been designed/constructed with aircraft catapults to help launch aircraft. But for my model, I most likely will add some. I think realistically, a real Habakkuk should have some. This would make sense as it is very difficult for the Habakkuk to "turn into the wind" due to it's slow speed in order to launch aircraft. I'm guessing 2-4 catapults at each end of the ship. The Habakkuk is pretty big and long, so aircraft should be able to take off and land at both ends of the ship.

c) Arresting wires and crash barricades: Again, no information available on whether a real Habakkuk would have these systems. But I plan to have them on my model if possible. Due to how long the Habakkuk is, I'm thinking such systems could be at both ends of the flight deck in case planes were to land at either end.

[Gondor]

For points a & b, both were post WWII designes anyway with all aircraft carriers duering the war haveing centreline lifts and no catapults. Catapults were used, but on non aircraft carriers to launch spotter and reconnaissance aircraft and in the case of CAM ships, fighters. With the Habakkuk you have enough deck length to not need to worry about asisted launching although I would agree with you that arrested landing is probably a good idea even if there is enough deck space to land on there will be other aircraft and crew on deck.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

For points a & b, both were post WWII designes anyway with all aircraft carriers duering the war haveing centreline lifts and no catapults.

I don't think so! All of the big RN carriers had catapults, you can clearly see them.

Just two of them as an example, Formidable and Victorious.

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment. 

[Gondor]

Happy to be proved wrong and learn something new.

Gondor

[Old Wombat]

Vickers Wellingtons!

Coastal Command variants:

Type 429 Wellington GR Mark VIII
    Mark IC conversion for Coastal Command service. Roles included reconnaissance, anti-submarine and anti-shipping attack. A Coastal Command Wellington was the first aircraft to be fitted with the anti-submarine Leigh light. A total of 307 were built at Weybridge, 58 fitted with the Leigh Light.

Type 458 Wellington GR Mark XI
    Maritime version of B Mark X with an ordinary nose turret and mast radar ASV Mark II radar instead of chin radome, no waist guns, 180 built at Weybridge and Blackpool.

Type 455 Wellington GR Mark XII
    Maritime version of B Mark X armed with torpedoes and with a chin radome housing the ASV Mark III radar, single nose machine gun, 58 built at Weybridge and Broughton in Flintshire.

Type 466 Wellington GR Mark XIII
    Maritime version of B Mark X with an ordinary nose turret and mast radar ASV Mark II instead of chin radome, no waist guns, 844 built Weybridge and Blackpool.

Type 467 Wellington GR Mark XIV
    Maritime version of B Mark X with a chin radome housing the ASV Mark III radar and RP-3 explosive rocket rails under the wings. 841 built at Weybridge, Broughton in Flintshire and Blackpool.

Experimental and conversion variants:

Type 418 Wellington DWI (Detonation Without Impact) Mark I
    Conversion of four Wellington Mark IAs to minesweeping aircraft for exploding magnetic mines. Fitted with Ford V-8 petrol engine and Mawdsley electrical generator to induce magnetic field in a 48 ft (15 m) diameter loop mounted under fuselage. They had a solid nose with a bracket supporting the loop, which was also supported under the rear fuselage and the wings, outboard of the engines. DWI was also known as "Directional Wireless Installation" – to mislead the true purpose of the loop.

Type 419 Wellington DWI Mark II
    DWI Mark I aircraft upgraded by installation of de Havilland Gipsy Six engine for increased generation power. 11 aircraft were converted to this standard. They were operated by No. 1 General Reconnaissance Unit, RAF, sweeping mines in the Thames Estuary for a short time until the Royal Navy had an equivalent capability to sweep magnetic mines. The unit was transferred to Egypt for use in the Suez Canal.[39]

[seadude]

With the Habakkuk you have enough deck length to not need to worry about asisted launching

But assisted launching (catapults) would be necessary if the Habakkuk was not able to turn into the wind to launch aircraft. As I mentioned before in a previous post, it is very difficult, but not impossible, for the Habakkuk to turn into the wind to launch aircraft due to a very slow speed of 6-7 knots and a very wide turning radius.

The Wellington? I suppose it could be used. I really don't know much of anything about British aircraft, so I'll just assume it could be used on the Habakkuk for anti-submarine duties.
Another good choice would be the US Navy/Marine Corps variants of the B-25 Mitchell bomber known as the PBJ-1C, D, H, and the J.

[PR19_Kit]

I really don't know much of anything about British aircraft, so I'll just assume it could be used on the Habakkuk for anti-submarine duties.

There's a lot of us here who do and we'd ne happy to fill in the gaps for you.................

[sandiego89]

........I've seen concept sketches of the Habakkuk where the ship has aircraft elevators along the edge/circumference of the hull. This is another bad idea IMO. If you have an enemy fleet blasting away at the Habakkuk, you don't want to put your aircraft elevators along the hull edge where they'll get damaged/destroyed. Better to put the elevators in the center of the flight deck along the length of the vessel.......

Aircraft elevators are more about efficiency, and deck edge elevators have proven to be much more efficient to flight operations.  With centerline elevators you compromise the entire "runway" while you raise and lower the elevator, and it takes precious time to position aircraft on the elevator, chock it down (or even chain it down in heavy weather), and then raise/lower the elevator, then unchock/unchain it, and move it off the elevator.  During this entire sequence the entire runway is unusable for flight operations.  It is much more efficient to keep the main flight deck open as much as posible.   Centerline elevators in the landing area are a major hindrance to recovery operations.  Centerline elevators near the bow are a hindrance to takeoff operations   

Centerline elevators are disasterous if they become damaged or broken.  They are lighter than armored fight decks.  If you loose a centerline elevator in the down position, your flight operations are over.   

As for damage from the "enemy blasting away" I would think there would be more risk from plunging fire from ships or dive bombers if the Habukkuk were attacked.  Deck edge elevators would be well above torpedo damage.  Dive bombers aim for the centerline, and plunging fire from cruisers or battleships would more likely threaten the centerline, and the thin centerline elevators.  If the Habakkuk is subject to flat trajectory fire from other ships, you have a lot more to worry about than where the elevators are positioned.     

[seadude]

........I've seen concept sketches of the Habakkuk where the ship has aircraft elevators along the edge/circumference of the hull. This is another bad idea IMO. If you have an enemy fleet blasting away at the Habakkuk, you don't want to put your aircraft elevators along the hull edge where they'll get damaged/destroyed. Better to put the elevators in the center of the flight deck along the length of the vessel.......

Aircraft elevators are more about efficiency, and deck edge elevators have proven to be much more efficient to flight operations.  With centerline elevators you compromise the entire "runway" while you raise and lower the elevator, and it takes precious time to position aircraft on the elevator, chock it down (or even chain it down in heavy weather), and then raise/lower the elevator, then unchock/unchain it, and move it off the elevator.  During this entire sequence the entire runway is unusable for flight operations.  It is much more efficient to keep the main flight deck open as much as posible.   Centerline elevators in the landing area are a major hindrance to recovery operations.  Centerline elevators near the bow are a hindrance to takeoff operations   

Centerline elevators are disasterous if they become damaged or broken.  They are lighter than armored fight decks.  If you loose a centerline elevator in the down position, your flight operations are over.   

As for damage from the "enemy blasting away" I would think there would be more risk from plunging fire from ships or dive bombers if the Habukkuk were attacked.  Deck edge elevators would be well above torpedo damage.  Dive bombers aim for the centerline, and plunging fire from cruisers or battleships would more likely threaten the centerline, and the thin centerline elevators.  If the Habakkuk is subject to flat trajectory fire from other ships, you have a lot more to worry about than where the elevators are positioned.     

All very good points..........for a regular aircraft carrier. But the Habakkuk is a different breed so to speak and not "regular".   In the below sample cross sectional blueprint, all crew quarters, workshops, storage spaces, engineering & machinery spaces, and even aircraft storage were to be in the middle interior of the Habakkuk hull. I've seen diagrams and artist concept sketches where on either side of the central crew space were upper and lower port/starboard aircraft hangars. THIS IS WRONG and will be explained much later when I get to discussing, planning, and building the main hull. Thus, aircraft elevators were to be in the center of the hull. And like I said before, there were supposedly to be 4 aircraft elevators spaced evenly along the center length of the hull. I doubt the elevators would all be in operation at the same time and affect landings and take offs of aircraft in an extreme way. I'm sure flight deck personnel would have things orchestrated in such a way to make flight operations run smoothly.
The second picture below shows an overhead view of an artists's fantasy interpretation of a Habakkuk type ship. Notice the "two" runways so to speak. The Habakkuk would definately be wide enough (and long enough) where aircraft could land or take off from either side (or either end) of the Habakkuk. They wouldn't always need to take off or land along the center right where the elevators are.
And the last pictures show my 1/700 scale Habakkuk model I made over 10 years ago. Notice how wide the flight deck is and how aircraft can take off or land, plus the locations of the aircraft elevators.
And lastly, I don't think the Habakkuk would have much to fear from being attacked from above by enemy bombers and having the flight deck and elevators damaged. The vessel actually has more to fear from enemy submarines than anything else.

[seadude]

I think before I begin talking about, planning, or even building the main hull, I should first explain why the Habakkuk could not, or should not, be a flat hollowed out iceberg.
Whenever I see some artist sketch or hear about Habakkuk someplace, there's always somebody who thinks or exclaims that it was just a regular Arctic iceberg converted into a moving aircraft carrier. The truth of the matter is, THAT WON'T WORK. Converting a regular Arctic iceberg into a movable flattop is illogical, idiotic, impractical, and totally IMPOSSIBLE. And any person who actually tries to do it would be an imbecile. Need I go on?
Geoffrey Pyke may have thought about converting regular icebergs at first. But those thoughts were him just "daydreaming" about what could be done. Those were just wild initial thoughts before any scientists, engineers, naval architects, etc. were even consulted to give give more detailed examinations of Project Habakkuk and bring Geoffrey Pyke's "floating iceberg carrier" idea back down to earth so to speak.
There's at least 2 main reasons why regular arctic icebergs can't be used.
1. Due to various environmental factors, icebergs (Regardless of size or shape.) tend to break apart. This can happen at any time and anywhere without warning.
2. Icebergs (Regardless of size or shape.) tend to flip over. Yes, they actually do! Again, due to various environmental factors, an iceberg will flip over in the water at any given time
or place without warning.
To give you an example of what I am talking about, here are three sample Youtube videos to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxy-0zpJwxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dysuQIDtdoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjTndSBHwjY

Other reasons why you can't use a regular iceberg are that at least 90% of an iceberg's mass is under the surface of the water. So even if you see a football field sized iceberg floating on the surface of the water and think that's all there is, think again. There could be 5-9x times (or more) that football field sized surface mass just under the water hidden from view.
Below are all sample pictures of icebergs. Even if an iceberg were all nice and flat and could be used to land an aircraft on it, that doesn't in any way necessarily mean it should. Even if a regular iceberg could be converted, the engineering challenges (and the expense to do it) would be enormous.
Trying to convert a regular iceberg would require a lot of scientific and engineering know how. More so than what was available during the 1940's. Back then, our knowledge of ice, icebergs, etc. was in it's infancy. To know if an iceberg could be used and work for any specific purpose, you'd have to prevent it from breaking apart, prevent it from melting, prevent it from tipping over, devise a way to move it (Icebergs can weigh hundreds of thousands or millions of tons.), etc. You'd also have to study ice itself such as how it forms, cracks,
it's crystalline structure, what it can and can't bond to, and so much more.

Anyway, that's it for now. Not sure if there'll be another update before Christmas. If not, then I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and I'll post again sometime after the holiday.

[seadude]

I hope to start getting the main hull started next year sometime after February or March after tax time. I'm waiting till after tax refund time because I may have a plastics company near me make a few sections of the hull for me. But we'll see. I'll explain more about the hull much later .
But before any work can be done on the hull, I first needed to start making some blueprints on how I may want things to look. You may not be able to see any of the pencil or pen drawn lines on the blueprint, but I highlighted certain things in a Microsoft Paint program.
The blueprint I created is only a rough guide. Please excuse my crude artistic skills.    My measurements may not be 100% accurate as I have bad eyesight. The main problem I see on any artist sketches, diagrams, etc. of the Habakkuk is that measurements and shapes are not always consistant from drawing to drawing or website to website, etc. So what I had to do was figure out an "average" to base my drawing/model on. Other people's mileage may vary. At least one of the things that is "fairly" consistant and is mentioned in a few Habakkuk references is that both "pointed ends" of the Habakkuk vessel are the same as far as shape.

The first pic below shows the measurements I made. This is only an overhead view. I still need to make a blueprint showing the side of the hull.
The second pic shows the positions of armament and a few other details.
The third pic below gives a better interpretation of where armament will get placed as I color coded everything.
The fourth and fifth pics below give an idea of how I'll make the "cutouts" along the hull edge for the 5" gun mounts. I will not be making cutouts for the 40mm gun emplacements.
The sixth pic below gives a crude art sketch by me of how the 5" guns will be positioned at both ends of the island superstructure. Because of the length of the island superstructure and where it's positioned, I am not able to make cutouts along the hull edge for the 5" gun mounts. So I had to devise a "step pattern" instead at either end of the superstructure. It may look weird now, but I think I can make it work once I get going on building the island superstructure.

[jcf]

I can see the big elevators for the large aircraft being on the centreline, but I think that the smaller 
elevators could be staggered outboard to either side.

[Captain Canada]

Bigger is better lol. Looking forward to more of this. Be interesting to see what the plastics company can do for you, if you go that route.