Shipbucket

Hi K,

A further suggestion, if that's ok. If you move the forward deck-edge elevator as far forward as you possibly could, from what I can it'd aid getting aircraft out of the way of aircraft on approach. If you're keeping the bridge structure that will largely protect them from being rammed by an aircraft that loses control on landing and you could possibly use the length of deck between the bridge structure and the lift itself to queue aircraft to return to the hangar while keeping out of the flight path of aircraft landing or taking off.

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Sorry Ad, I only put the deck edge elevators on at the last moment. They should be evenly spread forward and aft to facilitate the take off and landing events. To do that properly will mean moving the superstructure further aft. I will do a deck edge drawing of its own to see if it helps or hinders.

Those are not deck edge lifts. Those are inboard center-line lift.

Those as you drew them are not exactly deck edge lifts to me. Those appear to be inboard center-line lifts as I see them. I know that it is a confused terminology thing when applied. Let me explain why I see that way. When I read someone write deck edge lift, that means to me the edge of the flight deck perimeter along the outside of the hull. That's strictly on me for not making sure I understood what you meant by deck edge lift. I still want to try to convince you to look at the possible different solution of moving those lifts as drawn to the outside perimeter of the flight deck. Can I quote again my reasons why?
That means to me a manmade hole in the flight deck that interferes with cross feed operations is an idea that I urge you to reconsider.
Why put the lifts at the outside perimeter, you might ask?

This solution allows the lifts and the bays into which they open to act as cargo transfer aids as well as plane elevators. The advantages so conferred translate into a ventilated open hanger that disallows confinement of conflagrations and explosions as well as easy cross transfer from carrier to escort and supply ship.

I also urge you to reconsider that island arrangement. It does nothing for navigation and air group control as positioned and could be actually a fly on hazard for planes trying to land on a cross wind deck.
My bad. I should pay better attention.

Can I suggest something about canard aircraft anyway? The USN really believes in nose point and single thrust line. That for them means firm 2-d unified tail control. Those are pusher propeller driven 1-d nose control and 1-d tail control aircraft of the pre fly by wire era as I think you drew them. Canards do not work too well under those established limited conditions. Nose wander sets in and it cycles and augments in precession. Dutch roll it is called and it is a pilot killer.

What roll would a first-rate battleship like the Cuzco serve in? Also, that 6" bow chaser gun doesn't look powerful enough to handle an attack from forward. The ship could be assaulted by another with forward-firing guns and have only 1 light gun to reply with. Just some suggestions because I don't like center-battery turret ships very much.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

-With 6 inches of tower armor, that giant superstructure could be very vulnerable in a gunnery action. Overall good job though, I like the secondary and anti-aircraft artillery placement. Looks like a fast ship and a potentially good candidate for carrier/convoy escort as well as a good line-of-battle ship.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

I love the idea of a catamaran carrier! Good concentration of Anti-aircraft artillery around the flight deck and tower. Looks very fortified. Would like to see some propulsion specifications. I feel like it would do with a diesel-electric power system or steam-electric power system.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Tobius regarding the CV, do all of your points about how a CV works not really apply to much newer CVs ? pre angled deck designs worked very differently (ie waving off bolter's or they go into crash barrier) I'm really not sure they can be compared especially when we are talking about a design that would have been started in the late 30s!

That is in my pilot house. WW II carrier operations, especially on the small CVE's were extremely concerned about roller skaters and bolters. They called the roller skaters runaways then, and the bolters, plow-ins because there were no clear runs in a land on for a WW II or pre WW II American carrier at all. The planes landed on were either struck below using the aft centerline elevators to clear the trap (land on) or they were manually pushed forward clear of the trap and bunched up near the fly-off to keep the rear flight deck clear.

With the coming of jets, there was no longer any choice. You had to create a clear path for the bolter. The jets were too large, powerful and massive to be safely caught by a crash net. In fact by late WW II most of the piston engined attack planes and fighters were almost too powerful to be stopped by the existing catch nets. Sometimes flight deck tractors or sacrificial planes were parked mid-deck to catch a plow-in. It was assumed that the plane that plowed in would explode and the aircrew would be killed in that case. The doctrine was to put the fire out, spray off the spilled gasoline from the wreckage and oil to de-slick the deck and push the wrecked planes and other debris over the side.

Hold the funerals later during the down time. This was and is a dangerous business. I think many people have seen that video of a Hellcat plowing into an island on a WW II carrier and snapping in two? That pilot who survived was lucky.

Yeah, I know what I am talking about. You cannot stick obstructions on a flight deck unless you expect them to be hit by landing planes, even when you design it absolutely correct to the best practices of the time.