Shipbucket

Hi K,

Fair point, but unless we're assuming GD's Stalinist dictatorship, surely the structural strength issue is going to rear it's head good and early in the design process (to be fair, it would under a Stalinist dictatorship, too, but it'd be made to proceed anyway, I'd guess, in the same manner as that 7-axle loco they built) - even in the 1940s the maths behind things like structural strength were, if not as accurate as today's standards, computed at a gross level accurately enough to highlight such a major problem as this?

Regards,
Adam

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

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

Hi Krakatoa

i just lookt at one of my booksof war ships from 1900 -1978 to the HMS Ark Royal and it say,s the flighteck was narrow , becorce unlike the US and Japanese carriers the flightdeck was the strenght deck.

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

I think others answered this for me already, but there is no way you are getting an ship much over midway size without making the flight deck the strength deck. adding expansion joints in the deck will thus not be what you have to do for your 1200 foot carrier: you will have to restructure everything below flight deck level. as said: "Starting with the Forrestal class, the size of the carriers meant that stress requirements forced the abandonment of the external hangar and hangar deck as strength deck concepts". this has nothing to do with the year, you simply have no choice. using the midway class style construction, the ship would most likely flex over it's limits the moment it leaves the harbour, and even with hindsight we have, we can say that designers would be smart enough to prevent that. that much knowledge would be there, otherwise the liners of the era would have similar issues.

note that the gallery deck under the flight deck was IIRC also the space where the briefing rooms and ready rooms were positioned.

I have done a quick read, the reason for the british having the flight decks as strength deck was the fact that that resulted in an armoured flight deck in an as light as possible hull. note that while the british carriers were a failure in wartime operations, the USN started building armoured flight deck carriers postwar. the midway was the first, but there it was late in the design this was added.

all this said, after you have fixed the design, I really hope for an angled deck conversion with modern fire control and aircraft. 1950 or something like that seems likely

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Thank you all for your comments and help.

I did do an expanded unarmoured 'improved' Ark Royal for the Fisherless RN, so between the two drawings I might be able to get a workable mega carrier - using the flightdeck as strength deck.

Funnily enough - this is what I would want my 35-40,000 ton carrier to look like. Have to have a think on how to change it a bit to not post the same thing twice.

Hi Krakatoa,

One thing I might suggest for your revised carrier is something that was referenced off another thread (one of David Latuch's very first threads, I believe) - use of sponsons wherever possible to minimize intrusions into the hull girder. Aircraft, obviously, are going to have to have access ways cut into the hull, but perhaps some of the boats could be handled in a sponson? Similarly, keeping whatever UNREP gear your carrier has in a sponson would offer the benefit of keeping any refuelling mishaps on the outside of the ship proper rather than the inside.

Regards,
Adam

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

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

Thanks Adam,

The UK carriers actually had the hangars inboard of the hull. I will post a pic of Ark Royal to show this. This gave a little bit of distance to enable them not to have to hang everything off the hull side and make it a bit easier to balance and mount.



The UK did have ventilation systems to blow through the hangar, and as far as I know did do their refuelling in hangar, before sending the aircraft up to the flightdeck. I do not know when on deck refuelling came in but I would assume post-war. I am sure somebody will know.

Captain Diego Dias Class Aircraft Carrier - Take Two:

After much discussion, I think I have got the ship in a bit better condition than the original offering.

Thanks to everyone who helped to reshape this ship from pig to unicorn (I hope).

closer, but not entirely.
- openings in the structure under the strength deck have to be kept as small as possible and have rounded edges to avoid concentrations of stress. even then, the area's around these openings has thicker steel used then the surrounding structure. for example: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/wit ... ?s=594x594 right now, this goes wrong or not good enough for almost any opening in the hull.
- I am somewhat worried about the structural thickness of the flight deck and top hangar deck. I think the deck, and the supporting structure under it, would be far thicker then what is shown here. that said, I am used to the american carriers, where the supporting structure fills the entire gallery deck (which is fitted between hangar deck and main deck)
- the stern looks like it does not share much in the strength of the ship. that is no problem, because all the high concentrations of stress are forward of it, but the point where she stops being part of the structure is not entirely clear for me. in addition, the point where she does this should be gradual and additionally reinforced, as to avoid concentrations of stress.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Thanks Ace, but the pic you have posted is a definite post-war introduction.

The Midway class had the square hangar openings right through their careers, the pic below is of the Midway as a Museum ship. Also the Malta class was designed with the square openings.

We are back to the 20/20 hindsight things again. I do not mind if the ship(s) fail in some ways. I am not looking for perfect, some things may be able to be fixed in a late 50's rebuild to angle deck others may not. While the stress problems may be occurring, the fixes for those problems would only become clear with use. Those fixes would only make it to the next generation carriers like Forrestal.

with all due respect. I apologise for the all caps here.....
THAT IS BECAUSE THE MIDWAY CLASS HAD THE HANGAR AND FLIGHT DECK AS PART OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, AND NOT AS THE STRENGTH DECK. THE SAME GOES FOR THE MALTA CLASS
your engineers would not make mistakes causing your ships flightdeck to buckle and curve the moment she hit the water from the slibway. note the rounded edges in the picture you linked under the elevator, which intruded into the hull itself.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin