Reply to thread

Message

In terms of the flight deck layout, note both lifts present have been moved forward relative to CV-7 (akin to the positions of the eventual CV-9 Essex class). The one “eliminated” in this design was the rudimentary side lift. CV-7 was the first Carrier with a side lift and she was only entering service in April 1940, so the jury would still be out on their efficacy. In CV-7 it was fitted in the same place as the hangar deck catapult, which I note is still present in this design.

The machinery layout is interesting showing a move to a full unitised arrangement. CV-7 had her 6 boilers sandwiched between the two engine rooms. But on 120,000shp it would have meant 4 shafts not 2 so reducing internal space in the lower hull.

Drawings of CV-7 here for comparison
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cv7.pdf[/URL]

And her loss report
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/U.S.S.%20WASP%20(CV-7),%20TORPEDO%20DAMAGE%20-%20South%20Pacific,%20September%2015,%201942%20(LOST%20IN%20ACTION).pdf[/URL]

Basic problem with such a small ship is the inability to provide any depth of protection forward in a narrow hull against torpedo hits around the avgas tanks.

<blockquote data-quote="EwenS" data-source="post: 536765" data-attributes="member: 4253">In terms of the flight deck layout, note both lifts present have been moved forward relative to CV-7 (akin to the positions of the eventual CV-9 Essex class). The one “eliminated” in this design was the rudimentary&nbsp; side lift. CV-7 was the first Carrier with a side lift and she was only entering service in April 1940, so the jury would still be out on their efficacy. In CV-7 it was fitted in the same place as the hangar deck catapult, which I note is still present in this design.The machinery layout is interesting showing a move to a full unitised arrangement. CV-7 had her 6 boilers sandwiched between the two engine rooms. But on 120,000shp it would have meant 4 shafts not 2 so reducing internal space in the lower hull.Drawings of CV-7 here for comparison[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cv7.pdf[/URL]And her loss report[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/U.S.S.%20WASP%20(CV-7),%20TORPEDO%20DAMAGE%20-%20South%20Pacific,%20September%2015,%201942%20(LOST%20IN%20ACTION).pdf[/URL]Basic problem with such a small ship is the inability to provide any depth of protection forward in a narrow hull against torpedo hits around the avgas tanks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EwenS, post: 536765, member: 4253"] In terms of the flight deck layout, note both lifts present have been moved forward relative to CV-7 (akin to the positions of the eventual CV-9 Essex class). The one “eliminated” in this design was the rudimentary side lift. CV-7 was the first Carrier with a side lift and she was only entering service in April 1940, so the jury would still be out on their efficacy. In CV-7 it was fitted in the same place as the hangar deck catapult, which I note is still present in this design. The machinery layout is interesting showing a move to a full unitised arrangement. CV-7 had her 6 boilers sandwiched between the two engine rooms. But on 120,000shp it would have meant 4 shafts not 2 so reducing internal space in the lower hull. Drawings of CV-7 here for comparison [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cv7.pdf[/URL] And her loss report [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/U.S.S.%20WASP%20(CV-7),%20TORPEDO%20DAMAGE%20-%20South%20Pacific,%20September%2015,%201942%20(LOST%20IN%20ACTION).pdf[/URL] Basic problem with such a small ship is the inability to provide any depth of protection forward in a narrow hull against torpedo hits around the avgas tanks. [/QUOTE]

Verification