Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Lexington - Guide 046 - Aircraft Carriers (Human Voice)" video.

  1.  @robertf3479  yes, the volume of gas was a major issue. The Lexingtons could have easily been designed like the Kaga, with huge ducts along the sides of the hanger. The USN also looked at having the forward end of the hangers open for additional aircraft launching, as was done in the original layout of Kaga. Aviators were pressing for the Lexintons to have no obstructions at all on the flight deck, no island, no funnel. Ranger tried to address the gas issue by placing the boilers aft of the turbines so the gas could be vented near the aft end of the ship without long ducts. Given the minimal experience with carriers at the time, it is pure luck that they turned out as well as they did, rather than looking exactly like Kaga's original configuration. iirc, the original 1916 design for the Lexintons had 24 boilers, located on 2 decks, with 7 funnels.
    12
  2. Indeed, iirc, the second torpedo incident shorted out the electrical control system for the engines, leaving the Sara dead in the water. But the turbo-electric system looked good on paper because it allowed tighter compartmentalization.
    9
  3.  @robertf3479  Langley also had folding funnels on the port side of the flight deck. Jupiter's boiler and engine rooms were located well aft, so the funnel location was an easy adaptation. Ranger replicated that funnel location, but had more funnels because of the greater boiler capacity. That approach was not an option on the Lexingtons because the boiler room location had already been set closer to midships, same as Kaga. The options with the more midships boiler room location were an island with a funnel, which the aviators opposed, or entirely flush decked, with the stack gas trunked aft. and directed away from the flight deck. Furious had the stack gas trunked aft and exiting from grills on the aft corners of the flight deck, which was a particularly bad location and the ducting inside the hanger turned the after part of the hanger into an oven from heat soak. Argus had a similar setup, but, less powerful engines, so less hot gas to vent. As I said, it was luck that the Lexingtons turned out as well as they did. With the US' lack of experience with carriers, they could easily have used the same solutions as Kaga. Unlike the Japanese, Italians and Brits, the USN, for whatever reason, did not do major reconstructions on it's older ships in the 30s, so, if the Lexingtons had been built like the Kaga, they would have entered WWII with the same configuration, while Kaga had been rebuilt with a small island, full length flight deck and a downward curving funnel midships in place of the long ducts.
    6
  4.  @EliteF22  Yes, the midships elevator, in particular, was so small it was nearly useless by 44. Elevator size was a function of her age. When built, the designers had to guess how large aircraft would get during her lifetime. That elevator could have been enlarged, but, for whatever reason, the USN did not go in for major rebuilds of it's older ships in the 30s.
    6
  5. As I commented on the Wasp post, the Lexingtons were horribly inefficient carriers, with hangers 200 feet shorter than a Yorktown's on more than 50% greater tonnage than a Yorktown, an issue compounded by the Washington Treaty's tonnage limits. The Friedman book indicates that the pro-air faction in the Navy appears to have had their eyes on the battle cruisers for conversion to carriers before the BCs were even laid down. By 1920, the pro-air faction had decided that a carrier "must" be 35,000 tons, with 180,000hp, a recipe that the Lexingtons fit perfectly. I would not be surprised if the "cost savings" numbers were manipulated to justify giving the pro-air faction what it wanted. Interestingly, once the pro-air faction had been placated by the Lexingtons, Navy thinking turned 180 degrees, with the concern that having a few large carriers would result in the sinking of only one ship severely crippling carrier strength, so then the decision was made to use the remaining carrier tonnage on 5 ships the size of the Ranger. Of course, the push for the Lexingtons could have been partly motivated by the ridiculous inadequacy of the Langley, a topic to be taken up when the video on that ship is presented.
    2
  6. I just read about the Lexingtons. I think it was an air control position, but I don't recall for sure. It was removed later in the ship's life. If you look at a picture from the right angle, you can see that structure on the funnel is quite a bit higher than the bridge, so the view is only obstructed by the mast and gun director. My best guess why they didn't put it above the bridge on the island is if it was narrow enough for the brass on the bridge to see up, the air control position would not be able to see around the funnel. Dandy pic of the air control here. The caption says it's the Sara, but the horizontal stripe on the funnel says it's the Lex. http://historylink101.com/n/bw/aircraft_carriers/slides/IMG_4570_s2a.html
    1