[Garth]

Have not seen this one before:

http://images.google...25466da0a79960c

Not sure when it would have been taken, as there appear to be no guns (5", 1.1" Chicago Piano, .50cal) mounted yet ... maybe around the time of her builders trials but before commissioning?

Of real interest to me is that she carries the reversed identification letters "HNT" on her bow, seen on pictures of other pre-war carriers (except Wasp - but I now assume she had them and a picture of such just hasn't surfaced yet) that could land aircraft over the bow.

[DKTanker]

Garth, on Sat 23 Jan 2010 1807, said:

Of real interest to me is that she carries the reversed identification letters "HNT" on her bow, seen on pictures of other pre-war carriers (except Wasp - but I now assume she had them and a picture of such just hasn't surfaced yet) that could land aircraft over the bow.

One of the pictures, taken from the bow, is reversed.

[Bob B]

Garth, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 0007, said:

....Of real interest to me is that she carries the reversed identification letters "HNT" on her bow, seen on pictures of other pre-war carriers (except Wasp - but I now assume she had them and a picture of such just hasn't surfaced yet) that could land aircraft over the bow.

Here is a picture of the Yorktown recovering an Avenger over the bow while steaming full astern:


http://www.warship.org/last.htm

[AlexW]

Garth, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 0007, said:

Have not seen this one before:

http://images.google...25466da0a79960c

Interesting photos. It's a shame that some dimwit has uploaded them under the title "Battleship Hornet" though!

[rmgill]

B)-->

Here is a picture of the Yorktown recovering an Avenger over the bow while steaming full astern:
http://www.warship.org/last.htm[/quote]

Why is this even necessary? :huh:

[shep854]

rmgill, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 1332, said:

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob B @ Sun 24 Jan 2010 1201) </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here is a picture of the Yorktown recovering an Avenger over the bow while steaming full astern:
http://www.warship.org/last.htm

Why is this even necessary? :huh:

While never used in combat, AFAIK, someone thought that the ability to recover aircraft over the bow if the aft end of the flight deck was damaged would be useful. It appears to be a "neat idea that didn't work out."

[Garth]

shep854, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 1617, said:

While never used in combat, AFAIK, someone thought that the ability to recover aircraft over the bow if the aft end of the flight deck was damaged would be useful. It appears to be a "neat idea that didn't work out."

Yup. Along those same lines there was the hangar-deck catapult fitted to the Yorktowns and the first several Essexes.

--Garth

[Bob B]

shep854, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 2117, said:

While never used in combat, AFAIK, someone thought that the ability to recover aircraft over the bow if the aft end of the flight deck was damaged would be useful. It appears to be a "neat idea that didn't work out."

It would also allow the ship to launch and recover aircraft without re-spotting the entire air group from the rear to the front of the flight deck. See the photo on the above link.

[DougRichards]

B)-->

It would also allow the ship to launch and recover aircraft without re-spotting the entire air group from the rear to the front of the flight deck. See the photo on the above link.[/quote]

Several early British and Japanese carriers had 'flying off' decks located under the main flight deck.

The Akagi in 1928 had three decks capable of launching aircraft, as did the Kaga. The HMS Furious had one flying off deck, in Chesnau's Aircraft Carriers the decks are referred to as a flying off deck and a landing on deck. Not a bad idea if you had aircraft capable of flying off a short deck, conceptually similar to aan angled deck where aircraft can be launched at one angle whilst recovered at another.

[shep854]

B)-->

It would also allow the ship to launch and recover aircraft without re-spotting the entire air group from the rear to the front of the flight deck. See the photo on the above link.[/quote]

As a normal practice, respotting aircraft is much more practical. For one thing, imagine trying to turn closely-packed aircraft around. Simpler to just push them back down the flight deck.

Also, imagine the ship-handling headaches (for a whole task group) if the carriers periodically sailed backwards. :blink:

[Bob B]

It is kind of odd that the requirement lasted through several classes of carriers if it was never used. The photo was taken in July, 1943. I wonder how long they continued to practice over the bow landings?

[Jeff]

B)-->

It is kind of odd that the requirement lasted through several classes of carriers if it was never used. The photo was taken in July, 1943. I wonder how long they continued to practice over the bow landings?[/quote]
She was supposedly running exercises off PH in late July so I gather this was part of her working up training before heading to the front. She was the 2nd of the Essex class so I guess they were still practicing the capability. I agree, it would be interesting to know how far down the list of Essex class carriers they got before they quit training for this.

[shep854]

I had never read of over-the-bow recoveries until I happened across that photo, years ago. When I saw it, I kept trying to make it some sort of optical illusion. OTB ops were probably much easier with lighter, slower pre-war aircraft.

The capability was probably retained out of pure bureaucratic inertia. The activity was probably regarded as a royal PITA by the personnel involved; they could likely think of lots more useful things to do.

[Doug Kibbey]

shep854, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 2117, said:

While never used in combat, AFAIK, someone thought that the ability to recover aircraft over the bow if the aft end of the flight deck was damaged would be useful. It appears to be a "neat idea that didn't work out."

This is one of those tidbits of information that I'd never even heard of and an example of what's remarkable about TN.

[Bob B]

My Dad was on the Yorktown for most of the war and I have his copy of her WW2 cruise book, Into The Wind. It has all sorts of interesting photos that were taken on the ship including the famous "Flaming Kate" photo, the broken in two Hellcat, the Jill that never drops it torpedo as it flies over the deck, and one of a blimp landing on the deck. It did not have the one of the over the bow landing.

The photo I use for my avatar, is the Yorktown's athwartships hangar deck catapult launching an Avenger, is also in the book. From what I understand the only operational combat use of this feature was by Yorktown at Kwajalein in December, 1943. I remember my Dad saying that when a TBF was catapulted it could only carry bombs because a torpedo would slide in its mount when the plane was launched. :o

Most of the rest of the book is like a school year book, except that it happens to to have a lot of good photo's of USN airplanes, sinking Japanese ships, and Betty Bombers under fire.

This post has been edited by Bob B: 25 January 2010 - 1844 PM

[Josh]

Garth, on Sun 24 Jan 2010 2124, said:

Yup. Along those same lines there was the hangar-deck catapult fitted to the Yorktowns and the first several Essexes.

--Garth

One could also throw in the pair of Nip carriers that had their funnels on opposite sides as part of some idea to opperate in a task force more efficientlly. A lof of stuff was being tried and there were no computer models.