Hi All,
May I ask a DUMB question?
Carley Floats? Were they ever made from balsa? A few people, including one man who I really trusted when it came to things like this and things about PTs,have told me they were?
I’ve just learned that they weren’t? Which is right? Balsa or kapok and canvas?
People,
I must apologize to all who buys or have bought my Revell book … Apparently, my information about Carley Floats was incorrect.
EJ Foeth was kind enough to direct me to a report written after the loss of HMAS SYDNEY and it says that these floats were made from copper tubing, cork and canvas …
I apologize for my error.
Garth
It would seem that some were constructed with kapok in lieu of cork. I also remember an interview in an episode of the World at War where the subject of kapok came up as it was listed as a strategic material. No one in the Bureau knew what it was used for but that it was going to be unavailable for a while. Substitution of materials must have been common practice. Since kapok was going to be unavailable from the Far East, maybe balsa, since one of its sources is South America, could have been substituted for cork and kapok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carley_liferaft
Here is a basic diagram of a round Carley float cross section:
And, after further delving into the subject, I found some evidence that some Carley floats were made with balsa. Scroll down to the third left hand side page in this link:
http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/Parliamentary%20Submissions/PINQ/SUBS/010/PINQ.SUBS.010.0049.pdf
It would seem that it depended on the manufacturer of the float as to what material they were made of. There was a war on. [:)]
From good ol’ Wikipedia:
Also, in 1943 the US developed a balsa wood liferaft that would not sink, irrespective of the number of holes (from enemy fire) in it. These balsa liferafts were designed to hold five to ten men on a platform suspended on the inside or fifteen to twenty-five hanging lines placed on the outsides. They were inexpensive, and during the war thousands were stored in any space possible on US warships and merchant ships. These liferafts were intended only for use during a short term before lifeboats or another ship in the convoy or group could bring them aboard. When the USS Indianapolis, a cruiser operating alone, was sunk in 1945, none of its larger lifeboats were launched, and the survivors had to rely on balsa liferafts automatically released as the ship sank; many of the crew perished, but the balsa liferafts saved others; ultimately 316 of 1,196 crew survived
So, I would say that US made Carley floats were, more than likely, built with balsa wood. You were probably correct in the first place, Garth.
Lee
Subfixer,
Is there ANY official documentation for something like “maybe balsa, since one of its sources is South America, could have been substituted for cork and kapok”?
Wait a minute … I was right?
Yep!
Thank you Lee. Lee … contact me at ask@ptboatworld.com, please?
Nope. All you’ve done is make an unsupported inferential leap. A Carley Float is a life raft, but not all life rafts are Carley Floats. The quote states that a balsa life raft was developed. It does not use the term Carley Float nor does it talk about the development being a modification of an existing life raft.
OK … Mr. Ross,
Are you saying that the life rafts (as you refer to them as) that one sees on, oh I don’t know - PT-596 or 565 are not Carley Floats? They appear to be similar in both appearance and function, and by function, I mean how the “flooring” drops down.
Mr. Ross? Alex Johnson often referred to them as Carley Floats, are you saying he was wrong?
Well, I would say that the floats you see on US vessels in WWII were not “Carley Floats” because they were of different construction. But if “Carley Float” may used as a generic term for these rafts, then maybe that it is OK to call them that. I refer to carbonated soft drinks as “Cokes” even though I know that they aren’t all Cokes. But I doubt that the US Navy utilized a multitude of genuine Carley Floats as their construction seems a lot more complicated than a balsa raft wrapped in canvas. Especially when a genuine Carley float would be more susceptible to failure from puncture damage.
I think that the original problem was that Garth thought he was mistaken when he wrote that PT boats had balsa rafts, when indeed he was correct except for calling them Carley Floats. What is with the purists in the world? They are all rafts, just call them all rafts already. I wonder just what the US Navy’s official designation of them was. If it is Carley Float, then what? Is the US Navy wrong? It wouldn’t be the first time, but if they want to call them Carley Floats, who is going to stop them? A patent lawyer?
Lee
How do we post photos here?
No, I stated in a book that PTs carried Carley Floats and apparently - Mr. Ross seems to feel I erred when I stated that.
I was told that they did. Right now, I don’t know what to think or say. I know what I was told. I’ve got to say, the two rafts looked alike and both of their floorings did drop down … so wouldn’t it be logical and correct to think that they were one and the same?
I know I’ll catch fire for that statement …
Use the Use rich formatting function below the response box.
Maybe they could be called Modified or Simplified Carley Floats.
Would this be considered a Carley Float or a balsa float?
Mr. Ross would not accept those designations Lee.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
would not copper have a more important use then being used as part of a life raft? wasn’t copper considered a strategic material during the war?
Lee I believe the term would really be floater baskets as that is what they really are. And the USCG Cape Class patrol boats did cary Carley floats. And in the 1940s carley floats were really the only Life Rafts available for shipboard use other than the life boats.