Shipbucket

Hi Krakatoa,

Looking better, I think, but I have a couple of queries:
If we're proceeding as with the displayed Ark Royal picture, with the stress-bearing structure inboard of the hull plates to permit the boat galleries and the like - I'm assuming here that the entire vertical height of the bridge structure is counted as superstructure, mounted on the side of the Diego Dias hull girder - wouldn't the elevators come in to approximately the light yellow tramlines to ensure that they'd mount directly onto the hull girder too?

Also, will we see a later refit with later hull reinforcement as the Type 21 frigates required?

Getting quite interested to see how this turns out!

Regards,
Adam

EDIT: I think that the introduction is purely a function of size rather than date - note, for instance, the armoured doors on Iowa class ships:


The USN knew how to build structures that would have to take enormous amounts of stress even then.

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

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

While I'll leave the design discussions to those more qualified than me here, may I just point out some problems in the drawing itself, since they are directly related to more superficial design issues.
I've already mentioned the inconsistent shading and outline of the various overhangs, but these are pure style issues which can be left for later on.
OTOH, the new (and old) sponsons do not meet the overhangs (particularly the lift housings) correcty, except aft of the island. Such overlaps should be the rule, not the exception, based on the plan view.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

I have had another go at cleaning up the drawing to meet my publics demands. I am enjoying this (I think). Understanding the concepts is not the problem - displaying them on drawings is.



Ace, I can understand the difference between the main deck and flight deck, stress decks. How you indicate the difference in a drawing is what I am struggling to do. What I have tried to do with the drawings latest version is to show that the hull is one smooth entity from waterline to flight deck. From what I understand, that is your strength box. The two hull sides and flight deck. Whereas the other way the hull to the main deck level and the main deck itself are the strength box. The hangar and flight deck are then superstructure built above the strength deck.

One thing in that NavWeaps article that showed our problem:
"By the way, there is a construction trick that allows the Forrestal and later carriers to have their flight decks as strength decks and deck edge lifts without compromising hull strength. That trick is still highly classified."

Maybe if we knew the trick we could draw it better.

Citizen Lambda - hopefully I have got all the colours and shading matching.

Adam - The Ark Royal structure shows that the hull wall does not have to be (also) the hangar wall. The hangar can be mounted internally of the hull wall. The elevator mounting points do not have to be any further inside the hull wall as entry from the hangar to elevator would be a part of the corridor.

I think I have to get this 1944 version finished before I move on to the late 50's/60's upgrades.

I do not think those hangar openings are rounded enough. look at the extremety at the forrestal! you could do with a shape like this, but only at considerable reinforcing (300% weight increase of this particular section, or something like that). you also forgot the boat bays, which are also intrusions in your strength box.

that trick was however done by the russians, indians and everyone else with postwar carriers. the trick may be classified, but there are methods to build this ship even without that one trick.

your assumption of how to show the strength deck level is correct.

I think you are getting close to the end result here, apart from the above right now I can think of nothing else.

_________________
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

I changed the square hangars to a 'short' rounded edge as a 'halfway' measure. My thought was to increase the rounded edges during the later 60's refit. Also at that stage to redesign the lift supports to the more common US practice. Maybe it is the rounded edges that are the 'secret' and is discovered by the Algarvians in these ships. The first ship in the series would be the worst affected and may require the most work or even early retirement.

I am not sure whether I can cheat what is done to the Forrestal's by 10-15 years. Although there are precedents around in other fleet units, there are only 2-3 designs with deck edge lifts to follow. They are all US until the Malta type. Those three or four designs are all square.

While this is an AU and I have the ability to do whatever is required, I still want some balance between huge and dumb.

Edit:
Thinking about the 'emergency' drop oared whalers, I cant see any reason to actually keep them. Removing them would remove another hull intrusion. (Done)

In the late 60's your ship would already be ready for scrapping with the halfway measure. There is really no way an larger then forrestal carrier could be build with those halfway measures, so either this ship is impossible or you have to use forrestal style construction. Alternatively, you could go for centerline elevators. Now that would be an proper halfway method, but with their own disadvantages.

_________________
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

Wow, that really is a monster carrier

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress

Version 77 with full circular hangar entrances.