aircraft carrier

Tale of a Sad Photograph

By fStop Fitzgerald | 30 August 2020

Nitrate photographic negatives were among the first on a light-weight “stable” flexible base. Before them were the heavy and fragile glass plates. Needless to say, the new base greatly enhanced the photographer’s abilities by significantly reducing weight and volume as well as shipping and carriage requirements.

If you grew up with film before digital you may recall seeing the edges of film marked as “Safety Film.” This is because those films were no longer on nitrate bases, but were first on cellulose acetate (“acetate” film) and later, polyester.

The first flexible film base, cellulose nitrate (hence “nitrate” negatives) was commercially produced in 1888 by George Eastman in his Kodak camera. This unleashed a whole new world of photography for amateurs and professionals alike. It brought the camera into the home.

While this was a great technological leap forward for photography, it had some dangerous baggage. Another name for cellulose nitrate (or nitrocellulose) is gun cotton for a very good reason—it was a very powerful explosive. It first saw use as gun powder for artillery where its power of gas generation was six times that of black powder. It was later used in explosive warheads of shells and torpedoes and for blasting in mining and construction.

It saw other uses as well, some not as successful. As the supplies of ivory began drying up in 1869, the billiards industry offered a prize to whomever came up with the best replacement for ivory billiard balls. John Wesley Hyatt won with a new material he invented called camphored nitrocellulose. It was briefly popular, but the balls were extremely flammable, and sometimes exploded upon impact, which added an interesting dimension to a game of pool.

Hyatt Celluloid Billiard Ball
Smithsonian Institution/Gift of Celanese Plastic Company

In use with film, however, it was extremely dangerous, especially when used in movies. The film base was, and is, highly flammable, and it releases hazardous gases as it deteriorates. In movie theaters, when subjected to the high heat of arc light, the film would often burst into flame, which accounts for the large number of early movie theater fires.

Any photographic collection that contains flexible, transparent film negatives from the 1890 to 1950 period very likely contains at least some nitrate film. These negatives need special attention and should immediately be separated from other film.

Acetate negatives also have issues, but not as dangerous to human health as it is to image health. The chemical composition also breaks down with the image first crackling and bubbling, and then shrinking the film support. When acetate film is stored in a poor environment of high heat and humidity—or exposed to acidic vapors from other degrading film—it undergoes chemical reactions within the plastic support to form acetic acid. This acid causes the support to become acidic, brittle, buckle, and shrink. In turn, the acid spreads into the gelatin emulsion or into the air creating a harsh, acidic odor.

Thus if stored with stable polyester-based film, degrading nitrate and acetate negatives can and will impact its longevity as well. The types need to be well separated.

I have been a professional photojournalist for most of 50 years. Sadly, during my work with the U.S. Navy at the Naval History and Heritage Command I encountered some instances of nitrate and acetate film within their historic collections.

This is one such instance.

The photograph below was taken of an Aeromarine 39B during tests of using the airplane’s carrier deck landing skids as skis on light snow. It may be a unique image; I have found no similar photograph of an Aeromarine 39B using skids on snow. There is no date, but this type first entered Navy service in 1918 and was removed from its rolls in 1926. This print is contemporary with the original negative, thus it dates to the 1920s.

Below are scans of the original negative and, beneath it, a direct print.

It is obvious that this negative will never be printed again. It is quite likely that the print at the top is the only original one left of the negative. As it shows a fairly unique view from a tiny chunk of naval aviation history, it must be preserved—but not in the same folder as its negative!

This is a detail of the negative to better show its bubbling and cracking. I have highlighted a light portion of the film’s edge which gets narrower at the right. This is the “shadow” (it is light because it is a negative) of the grip on the film holder that held this side of the negative in place in the holder. There is another shadow on the other side of the film.

It is distressing to note that there are other instances of nitrate and acetate films within the collection. The nitrate negatives especially represent a very clear and present danger to not only the collection but the buildings and personnel around them.

Our photographic heritage is precious. Every instant of history that was recorded on film is on a piece of acetate, nitrate, or polyester that was present for that history, in the hands of a photographer who was witness to that history. Those slivers of film are the closest physical pieces we have of that history.

Our photographic heritage must be preserved!

Brodie System

By fStop Fitzgerald | 28 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

United Kingdom Mini Aircraft and Carriers to Match

Norman Polmar’s March-April 2014 for Historic Aircraft in the U.S. Naval Institute’s (USNI) Naval History magazine concerned the smallest of aircraft carriers and perhaps its (and the Marine Corps and Army’s) smallest aircraft.

The tiny aircraft—OY-1/2 in the Navy and Marines and L-4 in the Army—are often mistaken for the ubiquitous and similar Piper Cub. Their “carrier” was an LST.

An artist’s depiction of a U.S. Marine Corps OY-2 BuNo 03929.

In the July 1943 invasion of Sicily, LST-386 was fitted with a flight deck to launch the so-called “grasshoppers.” The runway was 12-by-216 feet and constructed timber with a metal mesh covering in just 36 hours. While also carrying her normal full load of troops and cargo, she also launched four grasshoppers.

The flight deck as installed on LST-906. Crewmembers watch as one grasshopper takes off and another waits its turn, foreground. Note the aircraft stowage and their side codes.

At Salerno in September 1943, LST-356 was fitted with a similar deck and launched five grasshoppers before a sixth hit a guardrail and crashed. The crew was rescued, but the other two planes the LST carried were not launched.

During the invasion of southern France in August 1944, three LSTs, among them LST-906, were configured as grasshopper carriers and launched more than 30 aircraft. A similar LST also operated in the Pacific with Army and Marine aircraft.

*LST-906* with a grasshopper preparing to launch from its deck.

An L-4B takes off from LST-906 during the invasion of southern France, St. Tropez, circa August–September 1944. Note the aircraft stowage. [Society of the Third Infantry Division]

An Army lieutenant, James H. Brodie, developed a system for launching and landing light aircraft from ships. While the system could be easily adapted to virtually any ship large enough to carry the airplanes, the LST was the ship of choice. For the operations, a tripod assembly was attached to the planes nose and wing with a locking hook at the apex. This was somewhat akin to that used by the Curtiss F9Cs to attach themselves to the airships Akron (ZRS-4) and Macon (ZRS-5).

The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk had a lockable hook attached above its wing to latch onto a trapeze in the bottom of the airships Akron and Macon.

Two booms were angled off the side of the ship with a reinforced cable connecting them about 40 feet clear of the water. For launching, a plane was hoisted up and connected to a trolley on the cable. The plane would run the length of the cable gaining enough speed to remain airborne and trip a release at the end freeing the plane for flight.

To “land” the plane, the pilot would fly parallel to the ship and hook onto a trapeze attached to the trolley, which had a braking system to stop the aircraft.

During training on LST-776, three Marine aircraft were lost, with no casualties, and five pilots qualified.

At Iwo Jima in February 1945, the Brodie system was activated aboard LST-776, making four launches of Marine OY-1s. No recoveries were noted. At Okinawa in April, LST-776 successfully completed 25 Army grasshopper launches and recoveries.

Mr. Polmar’s column goes into greater detail. In the end, only one graphic was used (below) but it only shows the landing aspect of the process because it was more complex. Four photographs were published, three showing a take-off from a deck and one showing LST-776.

Two photographs of LST-776. Note that the overhead oblique shows a catapult with grasshopper amidships. This was mounted only during the early training off San Diego and was removed before the LST entered combat.

United States Naval Aviation 1910-20

By fStop Fitzgerald | 28 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Doral Review Rejected by Amazon

If you have any interest at all in U.S. Naval Aviation, this is the book—in two volumes—that you should have. And I cannot stress this hard enough—IT IS FREE!

I am sick of charlatans reprinting U.S. Government publications—that you have already paid for with your tax dollars—taking the free pdfs from the government web sites and using print-on-demand to provide unsuspecting consumers with an ersatz product.

I wrote a review for the book spelling this out and it was rejected. I’ll have that review below, but this is the supporting information.

This is the hit page on Amazon for the search “United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010”:

I’ll refer to the entries, from left, as 1 through 5.

Let’s start with #2, with no image available. It is not available because this is (supposedly) the official Navy printed book. Its description says so (Publisher). Note its weight and that it is a hardcover. Both are correct for the book as published by the Navy. Note that none of the others are hardcover. The Navy NEVER PRINTED soft cover. The ONLY other OFFICIAL U.S. Government printed version is done by the Government Publishing Office (GPO).This is only available in soft cover and costs $94 for both volumes.

Under the Amazon listing for this hardcover version are just five offerings. One for a tick over $25 and the rest right around $250. I’m assuming that the higher priced versions are the actual official book. (Since those were only given to admirals and offices, wonder who is making bucks off these?) The $26.67 version peaked my interest, so I’ve ordered it, prepared to return it if it is not official. I’ll let you know what I find.

#1, 3, and 5 have reasonable prices, but as I noted they are neither hardbound nor official. Here they are in order. Note the publisher and page count of each. The original has nearly 1,300 pages.

Just so you know the source of all this information [and my upset], I was Lead Editor of Scholarly Publications at NHHC. This was my book from start to finish. I approved the book at every step from editing through production.

As far as Amazon’s other “publishers,” this is what is happening. Just like I am suggesting that you do, these parasites have downloaded the FREE pdfs from the official Navy web site at the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), the group that wrote, edited, and printed the original.

Once they have downloaded the files, they simply stick a cover on it (thus the different covers you see on the Amazon splash page) and post it for sale. When they get an order they send the pdf to their print-on-demand (POD) printer of choice and have them send you the book. You can do exactly the same thing. If you want to have one printed for yourself, you can save a lot of money by linking with your own POD printer.

What have they invested in this money-making scheme? Nothing except the time it takes to download the files, stick a cover on, and email the file to their printer. They are doing this for thousands of government publications that are in reality FREE to you, the taxpayer.

I did not discuss #4 because it is a Kindle edition. Neither the Navy nor GPO has published a Kindle version. But the process is only slightly different. In this case the “publisher” has paid (or done the work themselves) to have the pdfs converted. Once they get the Kindle file, it is readily duplicated and sent out as needed. Again, no real work or outlay on their part.

This is the background. Here is my rejected review:

There is one caveat to reprinting government publications: It is permissible provided you have written approval from the government agency that published the original and that you file for a new ISBN. No one ever contacted us about reprinting with the exception of GPO (who even have to follow the rules above). I further doubt they even know what an ISBN is.

I just remembered I never told you about the book… It is two volumes, the first written by Navy historian Mark L. Evans is a chronology of the century of Naval Aviation. It is thus the definitive Navy statement of what happened, when, and where. The second volume, by retired Navy historian Roy A. Grossnick, is titled “Statistics.” It includes virtually everything anyone would like to know about Navy air, from a complete breakdown of BuNos, to carrier and squadron deployments, to Navy aviators in space. Thus this, too, is the official Navy word on these topics.

Anyway, there you have it. The link to the FREE pages is embedded above. Please check it out if you like Navy aviation.

And so I have witnesses, this is what I ordered from Amazon for $26.67: a used, very good condition, former library book (why are they getting rid of such a substantial and current resource?). It is hardcover and printed by DON. Let’s see if it is the real thing.

Grumman F-14A Tomcat (II)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Part II

Although the majority of the work was done in Illustrator, I did use Strata 3D for some of the smaller detail work, primarily the missiles. Drawings of the AIM-7 Sparrow III that I had were not very detailed, but good enough for the scale of the aircraft.

The drawings I had of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, however, had a surfeit of detail and therefore resulted in a better model.

The same was true for the AIM-54 Phoenix.

All too often, however, details—such as a reasonable representation of the ejection seats—are forgotten. I did not have a good 3-view of the Tom’s GRU-7A seat, but starting from an outline and referencing photographs such as the two below, I was able to at least create a flat view of the seat. It is reasonably accurate (per the photos) and good enough for the work required.

Because I wanted to the Tomcat both clean and with the gear down, canopy up, and refueling probe out, I chose two different squadrons, VF-1, the first to receive the ‘Cat, and VF-84, because they sported the classiest marks around.

I worked from about 25 photographs such as these from VF-1:

The work marks looked like this:

Before resulting in this:

I used fewer than a dozen photos from VF-84. Primarily because I did not need to look for the standard marks such as national insignia and placards. Here are a few:

They resulted in this (again pretty thin because of the standard marks):

And the final drawing:

Part III will be posted soon.

Grumman F-14A Tomcat (I)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Part I

Norman Polmar’s contribution to his Historic Aircraft series in the April 2012 issue of Naval History was one of his most ambitious. It covered three pages instead of the usual two and featured two of my illustrations. Could the F-14 Tomcat deserve anything less?

It also was the perhaps the most complex project for me because there is so much information available about the Tom. There was so much to work with that the first difficult aspect of the project was selecting a base drawing to work from. In the end, it turned out to be base drawings. I ended up with 15 folders of work that included nearly 40 base drawings and hundreds of photographs.

These are a few of my reference drawings.

I think the Japanese do some of the best line work and drew primarily on Famous Aircraft of the World Volume 83 of March 1977 and Volume 89 of September 1977. The Russians also do good work. I used a couple of their books as well. I’ve never been impressed by Kinzey’s work, most of his drawings are little detailed, but I did have his F-14 In Detail & Scale, as well as all the usual offering by Squadron Signal for generic information. Danny Coremans’s Uncovering the Grumman F-14 A/B/D Tomcat is a fantastic picture book that provides a wealth of detail information. Cannot recommend it highly enough.

Because again of time, I opted for 2D. This was a lot of fun because it forced me to work with the interaction of compound curves and light. Still not a master but the end results are acceptable.

Part II to come.

USS St. Lo (CVE-63)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 24 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

The subject of my second column was a little personal. My wife’s uncle lowered himself into the Philippine Sea hand-over-hand on a line from the bow after “abandon ship” was announced. It was the second time during the war that Petty Officer Ashley Cherry had a ship sunk from under him. The first was at Pearl Harbor’s berth F-12 on 7 December 1941 aboard Raleigh (CL-7).

This is the link to the column: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/june/historic-ships-very-short-life

The little CVE should be remembered. She was lost at the Battle of Off Samar on 25 October 1944, the first major victim of a Japanese kamikaze plane during the first organized suicide mission. Few know of the destruction of St. Lo because her loss was overshadowed by that of her sister, Gambier Bay (CVE-73). She was lost the same day to Japanese cruisers, becoming the sole U.S. carrier sunk by enemy surface ships.

Within two minutes of being struck by the kamikaze, a major explosion blew *St. Lo*‘s after elevator skyward and destroyed much of the after section of the ship’s flight deck. (U.S. Naval Institute)

The Action Report of St. Lo‘s loss at the Battle Off Samar.

Profile of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

Island of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

A detail drawing of a CVE’s island. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

Sections of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

A detail drawing of a CVE’s funnel. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

*St. Lo* (CVE-63) as she appeared at the time of her sinkiing. Measure 32, Design 15A camouflage. [ [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

Starboard side drawing prepared by the Bureau of Ships for a camouflage scheme intended for aircraft carriers of the CVE-55 *Casablanca* class. [NHHC 80-G-170033]

Port side drawing prepared by the Bureau of Ships for a camouflage scheme intended for aircraft carriers of the CVE-55 *Casablanca* class. [NHHC 80-G-170034]

The Measure 32 colors were 5-P Pale Gray, 5-L Light Gray, 5-O Ocean Gray, and BK Dull Black. The decks were 20-B Deck Blue. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

This is a generic photograph of the stern mounted 5 inch/38-caliber dual-purpose mount common to most CVEs including *St. Lo*. [U.S. Naval Institute]

Aircraft assigned to the *St. Lo*. [St. Lo Association]

Not as Advertised

By fStop Fitzgerald | 10 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless, CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.

Not a Review, Just Pointing You to a FREE Book

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Battle of Midway: 3–6 June 1942

Washington Navy Yard, DC: U.S. Navy, Naval History and Heritage Command, U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence, 2017. Reprint of 1943 edition.

Coming up very shortly is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Midway. This is a really big deal, especially with the Navy, as it was virtually the first solid victory for U.S. forces over the Japanese since the war began for America the previous December 7.

My day job is writing and editing for the Navy’s Naval History and Heritage Command. One of our projects to commemorate the 75th anniversary of World War II is to republish concurrently with the events of 75 years ago a series of booklets produced by the Office of Naval Intelligence immediately after each of the battles. We have just posted the Midway booklet. You can download it—for absolutely free—from our website at: https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/midway.html

We have also put up Coral Sea, Early Carrier Raids, and Java Sea. Check those out as well.

A couple of caveats. Because these were created at the time, they have the immediacy of the war at hand. There are also errors. These were based on classified reports directly from the combatants and are little sanitized. So don’t be surprised to find that Wildcats did combat with Messerschmitts. Their value is that they take you back to those days when it was not a sure thing that the United States would come out victorious.

While you are there, go into the search field and type in Battle of Midway. You will find more primary source material about the battle than you ever suspected. Want to read transcripts of interrogations of Japanese officials from the battle? Try this link: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/battle-of-midway-interrogation-of-japanese-officials.html

And when you are done, enter your own search terms. We have dozens of FREE books available for the download. This is our home page: https://www.history.navy.mil/ Poke around. You’ll find yourself coming back.

Find Your Surprise

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Wave-Off!: A History of LSOs and Ship-Board Landings

by Robert R. “Boom” Powell

Specialty Press, $39.95

For a number of years, Specialty Press has been producing books in a seemingly standard 10 ¼-inch square, approximately 200-page format. “Boom” Powell’s Wave Off! is among them. That in itself, says nothing about the book, yet it does.

A series of books gives the reader expectations; a sense of quality, presentation, attention to detail, factualness, readability, and even likeability. That’s the truth of these books. Once you have seen two, you have a reasonable expectation of what you will get with a third. It’s a comfort.

And so it is with Wave Off!

First thing—I wasn’t disappointed. Second is the flip side of that comfort—surprise. And I was.

I am familiar with Boom’s work and background. It’s hard to poke around the Internet and not cross paths with him if your search terms include “naval aviation,” “Scooter,” and “Viggie.” So combine a known container and a known content provider and you should get what you expect. And more. That’s the surprise.

This book goes far beyond a history of LSOs—Landing Signal Officers—the seasoned pilots who stand on the port quarter of a carrier guiding—and grading—their fellows to a controlled crash onto the flight deck. The story has to start at the beginning and it does, with the pre-carrier days, when Britain and the United States first began trying to combine ships and the new fangled contraptions called aircraft.

What is so enjoyable about this author’s work is that he deftly melds the human experience with what is essentially a nuts’n’bolts story. Granted he has a lot to work with, the line between fact and sea story is often easily and readily blurred. And he is not afraid of limbs. Historians love—or hate—“firsts.” Nothing gets their attention quicker than seeing that word. Firsts are seldom black-and-white. Take first-to-fly for example. Unless you carefully insert the modifiers “engine powered” and “controlled” among a couple others, you’d be wrong. Powell enumerates a fair number of firsts in this work, but is seldom declarative. He paints the full picture, so the reader walks away with not a simple fact, but an understanding. Such is found in his description of the first LSO: “There are many stories on how the LSO came to be; some apocryphal, some embellished. The most accurate . . .”

Powell not only provides basic instruction and comprehensive illustration of American “Paddles,” but also British, Japanese, and French techniques. The Japanese used a light system, which somewhat presaged the current optical landing system first deployed on U.S. carriers in the mid-50s. Unlike a human being, the Japanese system could not provide the “stable approach” and “anticipate the ship’s movement” in heavy seas to get a safe landing.

The author delves into the minutia of paddle construction, LSO platform and training before walking the reader through the carrier battles and operations of World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam, and today’s “flashpoints.”

For me, the most significant chapter is the “Landing at Sea Revolution” in carrier operations fostered by the turbojet engine. Faster/farther required heavier aircraft. Aircraft design for higher speeds almost naturally forced higher landing speeds. Through World War II and the Korean War straight-deck carriers—think floating moving pitching rolling tombstone—handled flight ops by stringing cable barriers between landing space and parking. This even worked for the Generation One jets off Korea. But there was no safe way to make good a botched landing attempt; thus the impetus for the angled deck. Add the mirror landing system, which was now stabilized to the ship’s movements, and high-powered steam catapults, and you have the basis—with a few thousand more tons—of a supercarrier. Boom nicely packages this narrative.

I mentioned surprises. A two-page sidebar, “Let’s Add a Hook,” is one. It discusses adding hooks to what were only designed and built as land-based aircraft. It includes a fantastic full-page painting by Craig Kodera of a modified P-51D Mustang, renamed Seahorse for the Navy, on approach to Shangri-La (CV-38) during November 1944 trials.

My biggest surprise though, is the VA-46 landing chart on p. 134, which happened to be provided by a friend, retired Captain Dave Dollarhide, who also happens to be listed on the chart. What it doesn’t mention is that most likely this chart was from Forrestal’s (CVA-59) ill-fated Southeast Asia cruise to Yankee Station in July 1967.

Get this book. Find your own surprises. They are here in abundance.

“Wave-Off!” is available from Specialty Press at 1-800-895-4585 or www.specialtypress.com.

Reviewed May 2017