IJN's Akagi & Hiryu

[Abbeywood.]

Both of these Japanese 'carriers were built the 'wrong way round' with the navigation and command bridges situated on the port side.
I believe that this was to enable them to operate in tandem with carriers' of conventional build, so as to enable the air-fleets to be launched and assembled quicker. Whether this ever proved successful, or not, I have no knowledge.
I have never seen any clear and reasonably close-up views of either of these ships and wonder if anybody has such photos to 'thumbnail'.
Also, did they have special crews, as it would probably have created some problems if a crew trained on a conventional designed carrier was to be transfered to a ship where everything was on the opposite side
Although the lay-out of the below decks and machinery spaces would have required little alteration, navigation may have caused difficulties for the un-retrained deck officers

[John Odom]

The Japanese drive on the left. My experience with Japanese is that they more readily adapt to the left-right thing that totally flusters me.

[ObiWanRussell]

Both of these Japanese 'carriers were built the 'wrong way round' with the navigation and command bridges situated on the port side.
I believe that this was to enable them to operate in tandem with carriers' of conventional build, so as to enable the air-fleets to be launched and assembled quicker. Whether this ever proved successful, or not, I have no knowledge.
I have never seen any clear and reasonably close-up views of either of these ships and wonder if anybody has such photos to 'thumbnail'.
Also, did they have special crews, as it would probably have created some problems if a crew trained on a conventional designed carrier was to be transfered to a ship where everything was on the opposite side
Although the lay-out of the below decks and machinery spaces would have required little alteration, navigation may have caused difficulties for the un-retrained deck officers

Both these carriers were built with the idea that they would be operated in pairs with conventional carriers (Kaga and Soryu) and sail line abreast, with their respective air groups orbiting in opposite directions. By the time they were complete it did not take long to realise the flaw in the idea, as most pilots and all plane cockpits are right handed. This means that when landing on a carrier and being given the 'wave off' order, a pilot holding the stick with his right hand will veer off to port when he pulls back on the stick. This was the reason why starboard side islands were selected after WW1. Both Akagi and Hiryu proved to have a much higher landing accident rate than their conventional sisters and the experiment was not repeated.

Japan drives on the left to this day (steering wheels on the right as in the UK and Australia for example) because in the 20s the Japanese car manufacturing industry imported all their manufacturing plant from Britain, which was set up for right hand drive cars, and as at the time the Japanese society was obsessed with emulating the British Empire (and had been for some decades) driving on the left was a no brainer.

BTW, the British have been driving on the left for centuries before the car was invented, coach drivers preferred to pass other road users with their right hand free to wield a pitol or a sword just in case...;)

[Don Boyer]

As constructed and later re-constructed, the Akagi's below decks fittings and engineering plants were no different than the other Imperial Navy carriers, with the exhaust vented to starboard. Only the flight deck and bridge operations were affected by the port side island, duplicated only in the later and smaller Hiryu. The flight decks of both carriers were widened slightly to port and the hulls were modified underneath the island to handle the increased weight. (See "Kaigun" by Evans and Peattie, USNI Press, 1997, for details on both.)

I know one of my books on the Japanese navy had a section discussing the port side island rationale and how it panned out in actual operations, but for the life of me can't find it. Suffice to say I do remember that any advantages that were thought to accrue from the arrangement didn't really amount to much, and all it did was complicate air operations for air groups approaching and landing on the carriers. The arrangement was never repeated and the two carriers so outfitted didn't last long enough for any real conclusions to be drawn concerning actual combat operations.

[Graham Barnes]

Hello,

The portside siting was experimental, and the Japanese soon recognized its flaws: "unwanted turbulence complicating the take-off and landing operations." However, as originally designed the SORYU class were to be identical twins. Following the Fourth Fleet Incident (Sept. 1935) & other accidents BuNavAv ordered alterations to HIRYU. This means that stability was an important issue on their minds at that time.
Thus HIRYU's slightly larger displacement, raised focsle, and thicker steel utilized on her outer bottom and decks to provide additional hull strength...Also the island on HIRYU was located to port amidships and one deck higher, as opposed to to that of SORYU which was to starboard & closer to the bow. The alteration to HIRYU's island was due to worries about the proximity of the island on SORYU to the bow that was felt might cause problems to a/c during take-offs...and also the presumed stabilizing that came from having HIRYU's exhaust funnels to stbd & island to port.

There were many other differences between these sisters as well as similarities. One major difference being their rudder arrangements.

Many of these details are to be found in Haruo Takahashi's article, "Main Differences Between SORYU and HIRYU" (date N/A)

HTH