Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:26 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 699
During WWII, U. S. carriers had wooden flight decks. (The Brits at that time, I understand, were pioneering the use of armored flight decks.) Does anybody know what kind of wood was used? Teak?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:42 pm
Posts: 162
Douglas Fir, though later in the war portions where the planes landed were replaced with teak for durability. IIRC the boards were 3-1/8" thick. I don't recall the width of the planks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:59 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7501
Location: northern ohio
teak, while durable to the elements weathers quickly cosmetically. it grays out & is a royal pain in the butt to keep looking good.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:22 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 1525
Location: Williamsburg, VA
The USS Yorktown (CV-5) had a deck of Douglas fir... I know because my grandfather helped lay it down. :)

Can't speak for other carriers, though.

Lynn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:08 pm
Posts: 87
The USS Princeton Veterans, Inc. has a plenty of pieces of the Princeton's flight deck that comes with a letter of authenticity and a nameplate, they are 8" long by 4" wide by 1" thick. I know that members can get one for $5.00 shipping & handling. Their website is: www.ussprincetonvetsinc.org


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am
Posts: 2308
tom d. friedman wrote:
teak, while durable to the elements weathers quickly cosmetically. it grays out & is a royal pain in the butt to keep looking good.


Rinse it with diluted bleach, brings the original color back, also works for redwood. :)

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:27 am
Posts: 321
Often wondered the same thing. I've been told Douglas fir,
spruce, and teak. Perhaps it's what was available. Have
several pieces of CV-6 flight deck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:08 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7501
Location: northern ohio
what of Japanese, british, Canadian carriers?? if i'm not mistaken the flight decks of those were armored....... pop1 why u.s. carrier decks weren't armored baffles me considering our large gap in technology.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:51 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 1175
Location: Marietta, GA
tom d. friedman wrote:
what of Japanese, british, Canadian carriers?? if i'm not mistaken the flight decks of those were armored....... pop1 why u.s. carrier decks weren't armored baffles me considering our large gap in technology.


It is/was all a matter of trade-off's. The British Carriers were tough, but that deck armor came at the price of greatly reducing aircraft compliment, which meant they had fewer fighters to stop the bombers before they got the chance to attack the carrier(s).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:27 am
Posts: 321
U.S. CV decks were wood for two reasons.........

1. The wood would "give" a bit when a plane landed,
thus a slight cushioning effect.

2. It was believed a metal flight deck would make the
ship top heavy and increase the chance of a capsize.

Owen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:35 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Eastern Washington
I'd think that a metal deck (without any type of surface material) would be awfully slippery for an aircraft to land on. Deck paint like they use on ships wouldn't wear well and may not have been much better for traction.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 699
Why would it matter if the deck is slippery? Landing carrier aircraft don't use brakes and traction to stop, they use hooks and wires. Obviously if it's slippery like ice that's another matter, but I'm sure they used some kind of anti-skid coating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Eastern Washington
Stephan Wilkinson wrote:
Why would it matter if the deck is slippery?


Because I'm not a trained naval aviator.
If I'm landing a fast aircraft on a moving wet surface, with grave consequences for going over the side, I'd prefer some traction.
Eventually, you'll have to apply brakes when parking.

Maybe I'm just a wimp...and it's a good thing I wasn't a Corsair pilot in "the Big One". :)

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 699
Apparently this is only a make-believe problem, since I don't think anybody has built a wooden-deck carrier since 1945.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:23 am
Posts: 484
Location: maple ridge b.c. canada
I would think that the ease of repair and replacement would be a huge factor as well as all of the other reasons mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group