Flattops and Flyboys: The Carrier War in the Pacific 1942-44

Reader mode

jayel

sloreck said:
I always wondered about this unique bit of design. While, in theory, it reduces the potential for exhaust reducing visibility over the flight deck and/or turbulence there, how does this design affect the efficiency of both exhaust and downdraft for the engines.
Click to expand...
not to mention cross wind over the deck
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

I have long been bemused by the American solution with the Independence-class carriers - direct the exhaust upward, but cantilever it away from the deck.

Of course, those were rather hastily improvised conversions.

Aft_view_of_USS_Princeton_%28CV-23%29_underway_on_28_March_1943_%2819-N-42904%29.jpg
 
Last edited:

kessock

I believe a lot of the design solution was a concern about the corrosive effect of the exhaust on personnel and equipment but this is something I read 30 years ago.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

AmericaninBeijing said:
Christ, what the heck does an Admiral Kuznetsov burn?! Cow dung??
Click to expand...

It's easier to cut the US Navy and the IJN of that era some slack, since no one had really figured out how to best minimize exhaust smoke over a carrier deck yet in the 20's and 30's.

In 2016, you'd think the Russians could have learned something from that century of experience.

Of course, whatever they're burning, I'm wondering if even a 40 story funnel would suffice.
 

Some new guy

Athelstane said:
In 2016, you'd think the Russians could have learned something from that century of experience.

Of course, whatever they're burning, I'm wondering if even a 40 story funnel would suffice.
Click to expand...
wait you mean that they aren't trying to create a smoke screen to hide from filthy capitalists.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

kessock said:
I believe a lot of the design solution was a concern about the corrosive effect of the exhaust on personnel and equipment but this is something I read 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

With surface ships it wasn't quite the same problem. Stick a tall enough funnel or funnels amidships, and you can keep most of the smoke off the decks (and crew) most of the time.

Once navies started building carriers, solutions weren't so obvious. Smoke might reduce visibility for firing directors, but it could absolutely obstruct flight operations. And where do you put the funnel, anyway? Carriers require some fancy and intricate trunking for exhaust thanks to the need to keep space free for the hangar and flight decks. The Japanese seem to have tried the most creative solutions - look at the weird things they tried on Akagi and Kaga - but I find it instructive that by the 40's, they ended up adopting similar solutions to the USN and RN, as you can see on the Taiho: put a big island starboard amidships and trunk the funnel through that. (I gather that while their side trunking usually kept smoke off the flight deck, it wasn't always so helpful on the open hangar deck.) Also it helped that no matter how desperate the IJN's fuel oil problem became they never ended up burning peat moss or potatoes or whatever the hell it is that the Kuznetsov is using these days.

The Independence-class is interesting because you'll notice that they trunk four funnels on the starboard side, but the Cleveland class cruisers (which they're converted from) only have two funnels. As I understand it, the original carrier conversion design did not have an island at all; a small island was added late in the process. But the trunking from the power plant was already designed, so running it all through the island wasn't an option. They were in a tearing hurry to get these flattops deployed, since that was the only virtue, besides speed, they possessed - quick availability.
 
NHBL

NHBL

The smoke in that picture of the CVL is blowing across the deck, but if she's conducting flight operations, the smoke will go dead astern, since the ship will be sailing into the wind.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

NHBL said:
The smoke in that picture of the CVL is blowing across the deck, but if she's conducting flight operations, the smoke will go dead astern, since the ship will be sailing into the wind.
Click to expand...

Right. She's clearly not going fast enough to conduct flight operations.

(The photo is of USS Princeton, just getting underway in the Delaware River, heading out to sea after commissioning in 1943.)
 

The Sandman

Banned
Is there more naval activity at Darwin ITTL? The OTL raid was devastating, but IIRC it also didn't hit much of anything of military consequence.
 

Archibald

Banned
Athelstane said:
Undoubtedly they comforted themselves with the thought, "Well, at least it's not a Russian carrier."

111714279_Russian-Admiral_Kuznetsov-Dover-NEWS-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqIUD7FIZYZVCRioTuXLO_o99IhJEBWsOOhfLoEtUSHro.jpg
Click to expand...

LMFAO

Seems Russia harnessed the power of (kamatchaka) volcanoes for their carrier. That thing looks like it carries a Pinatubo or Mount St Helens on its boilers.

 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top