USS Arizona

Discussion in 'Ship Comparison' started by wfirebaugh, Feb 21, 2024.

  1. wfirebaugh

    wfirebaugh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    El Paso Texas, USA
    I am using the booklet of general plans 1928 page 13 for the frame views and booklet of general plans 1941 using the side profile and top down views doth sets of plans are unedited besides me removing the backgrounds and rotating the pictures on a flat plan so things line up in Delft ship. From what I can find online for the length is 608 feet long the draft is 29 feet and 3 inches, but here is the odd thing, it says that the beam says (97 feet wide). In delft ship the un-belted drawings shows to be the correct with and the belted drawings shows the ship to be somewhat wider then the given number, while the length and draft are what they are supposed to be, am I missing something? Shouldn't that number be representative of the ship after the modernization with the torpedo blister being added? Of course the later drawings do line up with the beam numbers given if I look at the drawings without the blister void spaces.

    https://archive.org/details/bb39bogp1928/page/n3/mode/2up
    https://archive.org/details/bb39bogp1941/page/n1/mode/2up
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2024
  2. Iunnrais

    Iunnrais Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    242
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't know about Arizona, but back in the early 2000s when I and another guy were building a pair of Iowas, we couldn't get the plans to come out to the correct 109' beam when we had the length correct. Ended up contacting the USS Missouri museum and they told us that the actual deck to deck was 106' and the stated 109' listed everywhere included the stick out of the bilge keels. Might be something similar happening?
     
  3. wfirebaugh

    wfirebaugh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    El Paso Texas, USA
    The barbet housings are completely round, just at the 2nd deck they are slightly smaller around, but all of the decks have distance markings that are ligning up. So you think that they are just using the width of the main upper and aft decks as the measurement?
     
  4. Xanthar

    Xanthar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    The cover page from the 1941 BOGP states 106'-2 3/4" for the Extreme Breadth which makes sense and looks right. The dimensions on the same page for the "1928" Version 1 BOGP are actually from 1924 when it was originally drawn. So that 97 foot number was before the torpedo blisters were added in the 1929-30 time frame, according to Wikipedia.

    PS. It's odd that both versions of the "1928" BOGP in the archive show the torpedo blisters in some of the drawings even though they aren't mentioned in the alterations and shouldn't have been present on the ship yet. It seems like random drawings were assembled into a "book" and the date was taken from the alterations that were listed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2024
    Iunnrais likes this.
  5. wfirebaugh

    wfirebaugh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    El Paso Texas, USA
    I totally missed that measurement... For a 3D space on a zero for a centerline, the Top down view is frequently close to the 106, 2, 3/4 , I have 53.7685 so it is not far off for what it needs to be. The number cut in half should be 53.9166 and I am slightly under that number. Thank you for pointing it out to me that is the anser to my question :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2024
    Iunnrais likes this.
  6. Xanthar

    Xanthar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    @wfirebaugh that roughly 106' beam agrees with the offsets I have for USS Pennsylvania's blisters that came from NARA. The 97' number agrees with the offsets before the blisters were added to her. I emailed you copies.
     
    wfirebaugh likes this.