One day I was looking at a magazine which showed symbols used by aircraft carrier planes during WWII. For example, planes belonging to the Yorktown CV-10 had a Y, the Hornet an H.
When I came up to the USS Enterprise CV-6 it had an arrowhead identical to that of Star Trek's. In TOS the arrowhead was unique to the Enterprise. I find it more than a coincidence that two ships with the same name would also have the same symbol.
I never heard of this connection, but thought maybe someone else had. I wrote this question to The Magazine, but they only answer the really easy stuff.
Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :
Well, maybe Roddenberry took it from the carrier when he designed TOS. He did serve on the Enterprise in WWII, which is why he chose that name (at least that's what I've been told).
Explaining it in the universe: When 1701 came along, all ships had the unique symbol thing goin on and April or whoever chose the arrowhead from CV-6. For ENT and Friendship One, the early/pre Starfleet chose it because it represented both Naval tradition and space exploration/future/etc.
But as for the reality of whether it's a coincidence or not? I have no idea.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
I thought Gene Roddenberry was a bomber pilot. They didn't launch bombers from aircraft carriers, AFAIK. Too short of a runway.
Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :
Christ, even with Pearl Harbor people still don't know who the hell Col. Jimmy Doolittle was.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Jimmy Doolittle launched a group of B-25 mitchel bombers on a bombing raid on Tokyo. off the U.S.S hornet. the deck obviously wasn't too short then eh? i guess you people have been spending more time in sci-fi land than in your grade 11 history class.
also nearly, if not all of doolittles planes ran out of fuel and crashed. i believe in either china or russia. i can't remember.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
USAF has flown U-2s and even C-130s from carrier decks (and the Dutch at one point seriously considered selling Fokker 100 jets to the USN for COD planes), yet this is hardly standard practice or even a frequent occurrence. For Roddenberry to have flown something counting as "bomber" and owned by the USAAF instead of the Navy, he'd practically have to have been in the Doolittle raid himself!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
as for mr. too short of runway, warplanes of that era could be considered S.t.o.ls now adays, as they could take off from a carrier deck unassisted. witch is also a whole lot smaller than today's Nimitz class. sorry if i sound like a history channel guy but i like history, specially world war 2.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
Actually, Doolittle barely managed to avoid hitting the water... his B-25 dropped like a rock after he cleared the "runway", due to its large payload. It was that downward plunge which gave the plane enough speed to stay airborne. Unassisted takeoff (they throttled the engines up to full emergency power while holding the brakes, IIRC) perhaps, but not a pretty one.
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't know if Roddenbury serverd aboard the Enterprise or not, but I remember hearing that the original name of Star Trek's ship was to be the Yorktown before they decided on Enterprise. At least that's what I remember hearing.
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
i guess Enterprize sounded cooler at the time.
i do remember reading about Doolittle having to max the engines to take off. i also remember that to save weight, he had the rear guns removed and replaced with painted broomsticks. he also had most of the regular bomb load replaced with extra fuel.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Actually, the name was changed to pay homage to the (fairly) new world's first nuclear carrier.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Ah. I would like to remind you, however, that the USS Hornet was approximately 79 feet longer oa, 113 feet longer runway-wise, than the USS Enterprise, (if I'm reading Jane's correctly). Does not 80-100 feet make a rather large difference in terms of takeoff space? Especially with an unassisted bomber?
And, yes, I know they could be considered S.T.O.L.'s nowadays, but back then is not nowadays. With the technology to be had then, a fully laden bomber might have been able to lift off precariously from an aircraft carrier, but it would have been very very close. Every foot would have counted.
P.S. I never saw Pearl Harbor.
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Whoops! Major mistake on my part. The USS Hornet of 1941 was of the same class as the USS Enterprise. The USS Hornet of 1943 (Ex-USS Kearsarge) was of the newer, longer, Essex-class. Sorry everyone!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
First of all, as far as I know, Roddenberry was an Air Force man...well, Army Air Force at the time, I suppose. And he had considered Yorktown as a name for his ship, but decided on Enterprise because he thought it sounded better, and not, as far as I know, to tie into the real ship of the same name.
That is, as far as I know.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Quite so. He was a co-pilot on B-17s and B-25s, flying off of South Pacific island airstrips. He was never in the Navy and it shows in his original rank structure for "The Cage" (remember Spock as being a "1st Lieutenant"?).
--Jonah
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
Roddenberry did not serve on the enterprise. I wrote a biography on him in 8th grade.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
This debate still doesn't solve the mystery as to wether the 'delta' symbol was on the original Enterprise sea-ship - or maybe it was painted on there after 1966-1969... as a tribute to the star-ship Enterprise!?!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
No I don't think so Andrew. But you're right, while the question of whether or not a bomber could take off from a carrier has been debated the original question remains.
BTW: I've noticed I've been having to click links twice, first it starts to load the next page, stops, then I have to click it again to finish. Anyone get this?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I know this doesn't have to do with the original question, but...
Roddenberry probably selected the name Enterprise instead of Yorktown because Enterprise was in fact the most decerated and most famous American ship in all of World War II.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
decorated.
I've noticed that sometimes the 'reply' page takes so long to load that it just loads the background and stops... saying 'Document: Done'.
Andrew
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
That was a typo on my part...
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Another thing about the name Enterprise versus Yorktown is that it probably has more international appeal for non-American viewers. Though, I doubt they thought of that at the time.
[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by spyone (Member # 351) on :
Folks, as an avid fan of the computer game Midway Campaign, I can tell you this about the planes used by our carriers in WWII: They fell into 4 broad catagories. 1) spotter planes, like the PBY. 2) fighter planes, assigned either to defend the fleet from air attack or to escort other planes. 3) Dive bombers 4) Torpedo bombers
Plenty of Navy guys were bomber pilots. It just wasn't the kind of plane that the Army Air Corps called a "bomber", and which we now call a "strategic bomber" to differentiate from a "fighter/bomber" or "strike fighter".
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Most Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers were the same size as regular fighters, they just carried either the single bomb or two or a torpedo.
Posted by Anduril (Member # 654) on :
The US navy had a number of bombers that could operate off of carriers. Doolittles bombers were land based and take off was iffy at best. Landing was out of the question. The naval bombers were smaller with payloads geared toward ships not land targets.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
A computer game can't tell you everything about a particular era in time. there will always be mistakes, or little tidbits taken out. i may not be an expert on WW2, but I do try to learn all i can.
