Oriskany - post Gustav report

[evensplit]

The "flight deck" that we see today was basically just a waterproofing pan. The actual deck was several layers of wood about 6 inches thick. The original decks were teak, but in later years they used a lot of fir. The original wooden flight deck was removed in Corpus Cristi in 2004.

 

[wjefferis]

I mean to dive it one of these days, but I was trying to wait until it had some growth on it. Is it getting any corals and sponges yet?

There is quite a bit of growth for only being down for two years. Here are some pictures of some of the outer sections of the "island"

inside the "Pri-Fly"

back outside around the "island"

 

[crpntr133]

Damn!! I really hope the hurricanes leave her alone. I have been one of the fortunate ones that has dove the O. I really want to go back especially since I now have doubles and have my deco card.

 

[RV]

She was placed where she is because the County wouldn't listen. She could have been placed a few miles closer and shallower and still would have met all of the requirements. We made the proposal but it fell on deaf ears because he knows a lot more than we do and we don't understand.

I've wondered why it was put that far our.. What were the requirements?

 

[mike_s]

This was always my worry when they decided to sink her in such deep water that one day she would totally list and put her out of range of rec divers. I know that they were unsure how she would go down so they played it safe and put her in deep water. I just wish it would have been in shallower water

She was placed where she is because the County wouldn't listen. She could have been placed a few miles closer and shallower and still would have met all of the requirements. We made the proposal but it fell on deaf ears because he knows a lot more than we do and we don't understand.

.

She was sunk as deep as she was based on the fact that she might flip on her side (during sinking or because of storm) and because she had to have a certain clearance as required for the permit to sink her issued by the Corp or Engineers.

The issue with it flipping on her side is the width of her flight deck and still maintaing clearance required.

I've got a post I did a couple years ago where I detailed the numbers on this.... I'll try to find it.

But I agree with you, I wish they'd sunk her in closer and in a shallower location.

I've wondered why it was put that far our.. What were the requirements?

Based on those above requirements, the current location of the wreck was the closest spot from Pensacola Pass that met the depth and bottom requirements. If you look at ocean bottom surveys of that area, it's kinda a 'tounge' that notches in right about there.

now.... I don't know how bottom features like this react to currents and wave patterns during a storm, but I bet it intensifies it. (but that's just speculation on my part).

The forward 2/3 of the flight deck only has 1/4" (+/-) thick steel plate on it, and it has apparently buckled in places. There were times when I was walking on it that it would pop and make me think I was going to fall through the rusted metal

Cool. I never would have guessed that the flight deck would have been so thin!
Is it really rusting through already?

I mean to dive it one of these days, but I was trying to wait until it had some growth on it. Is it getting any corals and sponges yet?

.

As it was pointed out the flight deck was wooden..... this was typical in carriers built in the WWII time period. They had to remove the wooden flight deck due to the contaminants that the wood had in it. (jet fuel, hydralic fluid, oil, etc).

 

[wjefferis]

I was told that if the "O" did flip on to her side that it would be a shallower dive because she is wider than she is tall, is that true? That may be the reason they sunk it in deeper water.

 

[mike_s]

I was told that if the "O" did flip on to her side that it would be a shallower dive because she is wider than she is tall, is that true? That may be the reason they sunk it in deeper water.

that was what I was trying to point out and saying one of the reasons of why she was so deep was because of that also..... (the width of her flight deck and the height it would impose if on her side).

I got the "final" width of the flight deck and calculated it based on a 45 degree tilt and came up with the depth to the sand based on that. (It might go more or less than 45 degrees depending on which side if flips too, because of difference in width (off centerline) on each side of the ship due to the offset of the flight deck angle.)


** Note I say "final width because the Oriskany was modified several times. Originally she was a "straight" flight deck. they later added the angled/offset flight deck later on when jet aircraft were used that required more landing space due to their larger size/weight and if one had to bolter/wave off after missing a wire.

This way it didn't have to clear the aircraft and crew that were on the forward deck.

 

[evensplit]

I was told that if the "O" did flip on to her side that it would be a shallower dive because she is wider than she is tall, is that true? That may be the reason they sunk it in deeper water.

That was one expanation, but the width that was used was incorrect. The actual width of the ship as she was sunk was about 10 feet less than the height (as best as I can remember).

The ship was sunk where she was because "someone" wanted the flight deck at 130' to keep divers out of the gallery decks and below. No allowance for subsidence was factored in.

She's still an awesome dive - some have said she's better now than before.

 

[algulfdiver]

My prediction is She will change more as time goes on.

 

[ReefHound]

I got the "final" width of the flight deck and calculated it based on a 45 degree tilt and came up with the depth to the sand based on that. (It might go more or less than 45 degrees depending on which side if flips too, because of difference in width (off centerline) on each side of the ship due to the offset of the flight deck angle.)

As noted, a change in the list results in changes in the depths of anything off the centerline. Given that a starboard list has been observed - 18" across the tower (using a Sensus?) - I wonder if the depth changes are due mostly to the list and perhaps the ship has subsided or "settled" very little if at all.