Midway museum - San Diego

[mah]

Had a convention flier hit my desk with things to do when not in
sessions. Listed the usual SD destinations in shopping, Balboa Park
(and its aviation museum), Sea World.

One new item was the Midway carrier museum. Where is it moored and what
has it to offer?

Yes, I know I could do a web search but some folks in the groups
probably were involved in some way.

Thanks in advance.

MAH

[J.McEachen]

I was there two weeks ago. She is tied up just east of the cruise ship
berths, a Victory ship is also there and some harbor tour boats (I am
from CT but it appears to be in the NE part of the harbor, my SD nephew
drove, there is parking on the pier next to Midway as well as a block
away.) The walking tour with headsets starts in the hangar bay, goes
forward to the forecastle, back through the hangar bay, down to the mess
decks, an enlisted berthing space, one main machinery room, sick bay,
senior officers wardroom, chief's mess, back up to the hangar bay with a
gift shop and cafe on the fantail, up to the flight deck with many a/c,
small group tours to the island and bridge. Well worth the trip. I kept
comparing her to my Forrestal, not fair as the Midways started out as
converted BB hulls. At this stage in life, anything Navy or Naval Air
gets the adrenalin pumping and the memories flowing.
J.McEachen

mah wrote:
> Had a convention flier hit my desk with things to do when not in
> sessions. Listed the usual SD destinations in shopping, Balboa Park
> (and its aviation museum), Sea World.
>
> One new item was the Midway carrier museum. Where is it moored and what
> has it to offer?
>
> Yes, I know I could do a web search but some folks in the groups
> probably were involved in some way.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> MAH

[Ian MacLure]

mah > wrote in :

> Had a convention flier hit my desk with things to do when not in
> sessions. Listed the usual SD destinations in shopping, Balboa Park
> (and its aviation museum), Sea World.
>
> One new item was the Midway carrier museum. Where is it moored and what
> has it to offer?
>
> Yes, I know I could do a web search but some folks in the groups
> probably were involved in some way.

Its down at the foot of Broadway.
Very hard to miss being as the area is flat and its the
only aircraft carrier on that side of the harbo(u)r.

IBM

[John[_8_]]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:39:10 -0500, mah > wrote:

>One new item was the Midway carrier museum. Where is it moored and what
>has it to offer?

If you are going to be at the convention center, it is to your left as
you come out - towards the airport. About a mile, I would guess.
Basically right downtown. If you leave the airport on Harbor Drive
(going south, or left from the airport) it is about 2 miles, give or
take a bit.

There is also the ship (the "Rose" I believe) that was used in the
filming of "Master and Commander" you can tour. Pretty good tour - you
learn a lot about how the ship was modified and how things got done to
fool the camera.

On either side of the "Rose" is a ferry and a clipper both open for
tours. Worth the money all around.

Couple of excellent resturants there as well.

If you can get to Balboa Park (where the zoo is) there is also an
excellent aviation museum up there.

John Alger USN(ret)
1972-1997 // 1310,1320
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:45:21 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
wrote:

>comparing her to my Forrestal, not fair as the Midways started out as
>converted BB hulls.

They did not!

The US Navy never convered a battleship to a carrier. Ever.

[William Hughes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:45:21 GMT, in rec.aviation.military
"J.McEachen" > wrote:

> I kept
>comparing her to my Forrestal, not fair as the Midways started out as
>converted BB hulls.

Uhh... which battleships, exactly?

(Warning: trick question)

--
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas:
The Carrier Project: http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm

[ChuckW]

Correct, but the Midway class did use the Montana class hull design as
a starting point.


Chuck W
www.atomicturtle.net

Sharc, NAR Section 613
www.flysharc.org

Sharc, we fly rockets so you don't have to!

[[email protected]]

ChuckW wrote:
> Correct, but the Midway class did use the Montana class hull design as
> a starting point.
>
>
sNIP

Sorry, buty no.

While the Montanas were of the same generation as the Midways but had a
standard displacment of 60,500 tons while the Midway's was 45,0000 and
had a substantially differnt hull design. What was derived from the
battleship design was the machinery, the 212,000 SHP powerplant being
almost identical to the Iowas. The Momtanas had 172,000 SHP plants. See
Friedman's definitive works, "US Battleships" & "US Airvraft Carriers"

[J.McEachen]

Well, there is an exhibit on the hangar deck that states this. Next trip
I'll photograph it and send it to you. "Montana" rings a bell with me.
The post below stating "design" rings a bell, but the shape sure isn't
like Forrestal. While this exhibit on the hull origins looks factual, I
did bite my tongue when the bridge guide called the "blisters"
counterweights welded to the hull below the waterline to counterbalance
the weight topside.

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:45:21 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
> wrote:
>
>>comparing her to my Forrestal, not fair as the Midways started out as
>>converted BB hulls.
>
>
> They did not!
>
> The US Navy never convered a battleship to a carrier. Ever.

[J.McEachen]

Well, I wasn't entirely wrong. I wish you had "corrected" me with facts
instead of merely sending an uninformative broadside. Have you joined
the Navy yet, or still wishing while watching Salem?

> The product of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company,
> she was the lead ship of three 45,000-ton Midway class CVBs, followed
> by USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, CVB-42 and USS Coral Sea, CVB-43. Two
> additional ships were canceled. Midway's keel was laid on October 27,
> 1943. The Midway class hull arrangement was modeled on the canceled
> Montana class battleships and was a new, much larger design intended
> to correct certain problems in the Essex class design. They had
> armored flight decks, requiring a much larger hull and lower
> freeboard, to reduce top weight. They also carried a very heavy AA
> battery of 5/54 weapons. The armor requirement was originally meant
> to counter 8" cruiser gunfire, but by the time the ships were laid
> down the focus had shifted to defending against aircraft attack.



Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:45:21 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
> wrote:
>
>> comparing her to my Forrestal, not fair as the Midways started out
>> as converted BB hulls.
>
> They did not! The US Navy never convered a battleship to a carrier.
> Ever.

[Peter Stickney[_1_]]

John wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:39:10 -0500, mah > wrote:
>
>>One new item was the Midway carrier museum. Where is it moored and what
>>has it to offer?
>
> If you are going to be at the convention center, it is to your left as
> you come out - towards the airport. About a mile, I would guess.
> Basically right downtown. If you leave the airport on Harbor Drive
> (going south, or left from the airport) it is about 2 miles, give or
> take a bit.
>
> There is also the ship (the "Rose" I believe) that was used in the
> filming of "Master and Commander" you can tour. Pretty good tour - you
> learn a lot about how the ship was modified and how things got done to
> fool the camera.
>
> On either side of the "Rose" is a ferry and a clipper both open for
> tours. Worth the money all around.
>
> Couple of excellent resturants there as well.

And it's an easy stroll/jog/ride from the hotel district downtown.

> If you can get to Balboa Park (where the zoo is) there is also an
> excellent aviation museum up there.

Absolutely. I unconditionally recommend it. I was there a bit earlier, I've
been lax about putting up a Trip Report.
Actually, all of Balboa Park is worth seeing. San Diego is a delightful
Tourist City - It's a great place to visit, something for everybody, and
compact enough that you only need to spend minutes traveling to/from
wherever you'd like to go.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Dave[_6_]]

"J.McEachen" > wrote in news:Nh7Yg.14755$6S3.9318
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Well, there is an exhibit on the hangar deck that states this. Next trip
> I'll photograph it and send it to you. "Montana" rings a bell with me.
> The post below stating "design" rings a bell, but the shape sure isn't
> like Forrestal. While this exhibit on the hull origins looks factual, I
> did bite my tongue when the bridge guide called the "blisters"
> counterweights welded to the hull below the waterline to counterbalance
> the weight topside.

Well, counterweight might not be the best term, but they were definitely
intended to increase available displacement and make it less top heavy. When
I was aboard from '80 to '83, we did an extensive weighing evolution because
the ship was overweight and top heavy. Several measures were taken at that
time to reduce the topside weight, but they were only a small help.

Here's a link to a good description of the mod, with many pictures.
http://midwaysailor.com/midwayeisra86/

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN (Ret)
CV-41 1980-1983

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:36:34 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
wrote:

>Well, I wasn't entirely wrong. I wish you had "corrected" me with facts
>instead of merely sending an uninformative broadside.

I did. Fact: The US Navy never convered a battleship to a carrier.

Another fact: the website you quoted (whatever it is) has borrowed
most of its text from my website.

> Have you joined
>the Navy yet, or still wishing while watching Salem?

Perfectly happy with a career in naval ship design, thank you.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:23:25 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
wrote:

>Well, there is an exhibit on the hangar deck that states this. Next trip
>I'll photograph it and send it to you. "Montana" rings a bell with me.

Been there, seen that, got the photograph.

The fact is the MIDWAY hull design shared nothing with the MONTANAs.
Period.

[William Hughes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:23:56 GMT, in rec.aviation.military Andrew C.
Toppan <actoppan@nospam> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:36:34 GMT, "J.McEachen" >
>wrote:
>
>>Well, I wasn't entirely wrong. I wish you had "corrected" me with facts
>>instead of merely sending an uninformative broadside.
>
>I did. Fact: The US Navy never convered a battleship to a carrier.

U.S. Navy conversions to aircraft carriers:

1 collier (USS Langley)
2 battlecruisers (Lexington-class fleet carriers)(converted while
building)
9 light cruisers (Independence-class light carriers)(converted while
building)
4 oilers (Sangamon-class escort carriers)
30-odd merchant hulls (USS Long Island, Bogue-class escort carriers,
HMS Archer, Avenger-class and Attacker-class escort carriers)

No battleships...

>Another fact: the website you quoted (whatever it is) has borrowed
>most of its text from my website.

I found that the Wikipedia entry on Taffy 3 was almost word-for-word
from my site. I pointed it out and the WikiGods killed the article.

--
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas:
The Carrier Project: http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm

[[email protected]]

William Hughes wrote:> U.S. Navy conversions to aircraft carriers:
>
> 1 collier (USS Langley)
> 2 battlecruisers (Lexington-class fleet carriers)(converted while
> building)
> 9 light cruisers (Independence-class light carriers)(converted while
> building)

SNIP

Sorry, but no

I don't have my refverences handfy, but only the first several vessels
were laid down as CL's. The remainider, like my dad's ship the San
Jacinto (CVL-30), were built on hulls of modified CL design, but laid
down as carriers by New York Ship


> 4 oilers (Sangamon-class escort carriers)
> 30-odd merchant hulls (USS Long Island, Bogue-class escort carriers,
> HMS Archer, Avenger-class and Attacker-class escort carriers)

SNIP

Actually no.

Same deal as the Independence class

Lomg Island & HMS Archer, converted

Charger/HMS Attacker class, converted

Bogue Class/HMS AvengerClass, some converted, some laid down as
carriers using C3 hull design

Prince William/HMS Ruler Class- laid down as carriers using C3 hull
design

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On 17 Oct 2006 16:58:06 -0700, "
> wrote:

>I don't have my refverences handfy, but only the first several vessels
>were laid down as CL's. The remainider, like my dad's ship the San
>Jacinto (CVL-30), were built on hulls of modified CL design, but laid
>down as carriers by New York Ship

There was no difference between those "converted" and those "built on
CL hulls". ALL of them had been ordered as CLs and had CL
designations.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_light.htm