Shipbucket

Whilst out of the remit of the AU I do wonder how she'd fair as a seaplane carrier of kept around a la Langley.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

The problem is I cant see how to get aircraft from the front to back ? (cranes are slow and hard)

Why not fit a ramp like OTL ship ?

(And 2x4' is a bit light so early on IMO)

Without the 3 LLC what do you think would happen ? would they convert 3 of the Hawkins class ? and the replace them with something better later on (IE majestic's in your time line ?)

Ahhh, thank you JSB, I had not seen that overhead before, with the ramp around the superstructure. I will give that some thought. Furious had a similar arrangement. Way I have it at the moment the two big cranes do reach round and pick up the aircraft and deposit them on the opposite deck. I could fit more weaponry aboard but it is a trials ship and the end result of the ship is still in doubt, whether it goes back to a cruiser, stays as a CV type, or goes to a seaplane carrier as per BB's suggestion, or just gets scrapped. Money for that sort of work may be scarce. In this AU the Hawkins are 4 twin 7.5", no singles to be fitted as shown on that plan. Though I may be able to find 3-4x5.5" to fit on aft deck (1or2) and 2 in the front of the bridge structure, one on each broadside.

Of the 3 LLC, only Furious is originally involved in the CV trials. The C&G remain as LLC through to 1924-25 when they are converted to CV's, completing around 27-28. That is the same time scale I work on for the Majestic conversions, Goliath and Bulwark, they also start conversion work 1924-25 and complete 27-28. The F,G&C carry a total of about 130 aircraft between them, my 2 Goliaths 140.

Nice work though the side and top drawings don't quite match up in spots, staircase and the aft most boat

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Thanks for that Rodondo - I have re-lined up the aft end. Though I did copy that end off Hood's Furious, better have a look and see if that aft end matches up as well on Furious.

That's a cute little conversion which might have had some merit at the time (as long as no-one is stupid enough to attempt a landing!! )

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Would it be that bad ?

They had a 193x57 feet (58.8x17.4 m) landing deck but they are fast (30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) and with wind and WW1 aircraft speeds would it have bee that bad ?

Sopwith Camel (one of the types used) only had a stall speed of 48 mph (77 km/h) so you are talking about a 13mph (21km/h) approach speed or less with any wind to steam into.

By WW2 its very different but by then you would have raised the superstructure if still using them (and 605ft length is better than many CVEs).

Added AA conversions of the 'G' class cruisers to page one with backstory.

Those are nice! And useful to boot!

One comment on Vindictives flying on deck. RL Furious is 285 feet of useable landing length, I managed to get my Vindictive to 230 feet of deck length.

With no Furious in this AU I have had to enlarge all the areas on Vindictive to compensate. Let the Vindictive be "The" trials ship rather than the secondary role it took in real life. The only way to make it work is to accelerate either the conversion of Eagle or Argus so that they can be used for the through deck trials. I have seen a view of Eagle somewhere with only one funnel and partially completed, it may be for this AU that Eagle is used in the trials in an uncompleted state to 'prove' the theory.

Has anyone got/done a drawing of Eagle at that 'one funnel' stage? Otherwise I will have to alter the 1923 version in the archives.