Aircraft Carriers

[Rheged]

Of course, the first USN carrier, USS Langley, was named after a person

Why not name them after the  THREE Wright brothers    Everyone knows about  Orville and Wilbur, but  Charles (the third one, or so it is alleged) is still stuck in the stack at Heathrow, waiting for  a landing slot. He's been there for quite a while now.

[dragon]

Perhaps the USN figured that Moffet had already been honoured in that they named a large airfield after him?

And it's difficult to miss with those three GINORMOUS airship sheds plonked either side of the runway. 

I flew o'head Moffet Field some years back, in a Reno Air MD-90 en route to Reno from Okland, and even though I knew the sheds were there I was amazed at quite how huge they were. And I've been to Cardington too........

You don't understand how large they really are until you actually go inside one of those beasts.  Every so often the MYTHBUSTERS actually perform their experiments inside one of those structures (that way you can see their actual size, even though your eyes will not allow you to believe what you see).  I got a chance to go inside those hangars during an Airshow at Moffett some time ago.  There is another set of Hangars with the same size in Tustin CA (near John Wayne Airport). 

[PR19_Kit]

You don't understand how large they really are until you actually go inside one of those beasts.  Every so often the MYTHBUSTERS actually perform their experiments inside one of those structures (that way you can see their actual size, even though your eyes will not allow you to believe what you see).  I got a chance to go inside those hangars during an Airshow at Moffett some time ago.  There is another set of Hangars with the same size in Tustin CA (near John Wayne Airport). 

As I recall Convair flew the first XFY-1 Pogo inside Hangar No. 1 at Moffet, that's the one with the round ends, isn't it? Skeets Coleman said the best thing about moving the flight tests outside was he could hear himself think. 

[dy031101]

Did I ask before about how people think of this kind of configuration for converted civilian ships?

I know next to nothing of naval archetecture, so it all looks simple to me- a flight deck on top of superstructure.

From what I heard of other topics, however, I suspect that "top heavy" might be part of people's response?

[PR19_Kit]

Did I ask before about how people think of this kind of configuration for converted civilian ships?

The first real aircraft carriers were built exactly like that, the Argus and the Langley. If it works........... 

[rickshaw]

Did I ask before about how people think of this kind of configuration for converted civilian ships?

I know next to nothing of naval archetecture, so it all looks simple to me- a flight deck on top of superstructure.

From what I heard of other topics, however, I suspect that "top heavy" might be part of people's response?

HMS ARGUS also shared that configuration.   It isn't particularly top heavy, if the flight deck is of light-weight construction.  However, the advantages of having a completely flat flight deck are outweighed it seems by the disadvantages of having a bridge that is either permanently below the flight deck or has a complex way of raising it (as ARGUS did).   The flat flight deck also has problems with aircraft handling and direction and deck parks.  There are reasons why the modern configuration of an "island" superstructure were adopted as the more normal way of configuring an aircraft carrier other than just giving the pilots somewhere to park their starboard wings. 

[Thorvic]

The flat flight deck also has problems with aircraft handling and direction and deck parks.  There are reasons why the modern configuration of an "island" superstructure were adopted as the more normal way of configuring an aircraft carrier other than just giving the pilots somewhere to park their starboard wings. 

Most of that is actually due to trunking the the exhaust gasses through a single funnel and away from the flight deck together with with allowing a suitable tall structure to mount Radar. The original drawings for USS Forrestal actually mirrored USS United States with a conventional axial deck with outward canting catapults, funnels distributed down the sides of the ship and a retractable Island. Thank goodness we came up with the angled deck and super carrier as we know it was born 

[dy031101]

It isn't particularly top heavy, if the flight deck is of light-weight construction.

I wonder how light a Harrier-capable (or Yak-38-capable, for that matter) deck could be......

However, the advantages of having a completely flat flight deck are outweighed it seems by the disadvantages of having a bridge that is either permanently below the flight deck or has a complex way of raising it (as ARGUS did).

Could it be alleviated somewhat by having an island dedicated for air operation control despite still having ship navigation bridge forward and  below the flight deck?

[rickshaw]

It isn't particularly top heavy, if the flight deck is of light-weight construction.

I wonder how light a Harrier-capable (or Yak-38-capable, for that matter) deck could be......

Lightness is a relative term at best in these circumstances.  If it is a non-structural deck (most carrier flight decks after WWII aren't, they form an important part of the ship's structure) it can be made of timber (as most USN carrier decks were).  Nowadays you'd use something like Fairey Light Bridging components.

However, the advantages of having a completely flat flight deck are outweighed it seems by the disadvantages of having a bridge that is either permanently below the flight deck or has a complex way of raising it (as ARGUS did).

Could it be alleviated somewhat by having an island dedicated for air operation control despite still having ship navigation bridge forward and  below the flight deck?

You need all round vision when manoeuvring a ship.  Putting the bridge below flight deck level immediately places you at a disadvantage when working with other ships or entering/leaving harbour.

[PR19_Kit]

What's this 'Fairey Light Bridging' stuff you mention please? I've not heard of it before.

[rickshaw]

What's this 'Fairey Light Bridging' stuff you mention please? I've not heard of it before.

Fairey Engineering developed in the late 1960s/early 1970s a military bridging system.  It was considered "light" in comparison with the previous standard Bailey Bridging system.  Fairey's equipment had many components made of Aluminium, whereas the Bailey system had been largely made from steel and timber.  The result was a bridging system which could be assembled more easily onsite by teams of Royal Engineers by hand (if necessary).   In the late 1970s, the Fairey bridging system was adapted for various tasks.  The first ski jump for Harriers, installed at Farnborough was built from it and various aircraft loading ramps and so on were also manufactured from its standardised component range, which they could carry in their holds (the military version of the BAe-146 in particular utilised this method).  Their Medium Girder Bridge has been widely adopted around the world by various military military forces such as the British Army, the US Army, the Australian Army and so on.  It was considered an extremely innovative system, with a large range of standardised parts which could be utilised to construct bridges tailored to many roles.

[Thorvic]

If i'am not mistaken the USN supercarriers actually have an auxilary conning postion at the bows between the catapults !!!, There used to be port holes for a fwd view but for the situational awareness i suppose they relied on a series of lookouts around the walk ways. Must have been interesting when they tested the procedure especially during flight ops  !!.

The new CVF is quite interesting with its twin Islands where the ship is controlled by the fwd island with the best view of the ships direction and the Flight ops in the aft Island with the ideal view over the flight deck

[Rheged]

What's this 'Fairey Light Bridging' stuff you mention please? I've not heard of it before.

I rather like the idea of "FAIRY LIGHT"  material. Would it be used to provide approach lighting for the temporary flight deck?

More mundanely, thank  you   Rickshaw for a very clear explanation, I am most obliged

[PR19_Kit]

I've not come across that lightweight bridge system anywhere before, but I do know quite a lot about the (presumably) heavier version called the Logistic Support Bridge. That's made by Mabey Bridge right here in downtown Lydney Glos. and I can see the roof of their plant from my front room! Indeed, when I worked they were my closest customer as we supplied a 3 channel bridge testing rig to them some 8 yrs ago and I still look after the darn thing now.

Maybey are descended from the makers of the original Bailey bridge itself, and the very first test piece of Bailey Bridge ever made still exists and forms the barrier between their car park and their office walk way!

[rickshaw]

Kit, we are even.  I hadn't heard of the Maybey system before you mentioned it, either.   I remember reading various Jane's publications throughout the 1980s and 1990s and there appeared to be basically nothing you couldn't build out of the Fairey system.  Ski-jumps, flight decks, landing pads, loading ramps, bridges (obviously) and ferries and so on.  I once had to help build a bridge with Fairey components as a "team building exercise".  Thats why I suggest "lightweight" is a relative term.  Everything seemed to weigh a bloody ton and a half!