Shipbucket

The Midways were the last USN carriers to carry the flight deck as superstructure. The flight deck on all later carriers is the strength deck.

Thank you for that correction.

Hold on a minute, you actually typed in "how large is an aircraft carrier anchor" and went off a Yahoo answers page? Describing the anchors by relating them to the width of an automobile?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Yup. Then I checked the answer by finding a Nimitz class aircraft carrier anchor against a human being to see if the scale holds up.

why would that design be terrible? why would the USN lay down 6 badly designed capital ships?
I said nothing about draft The hull depth I looked at was the one below the hangar deck, I already took this into account when saying the hull lacked depth. The hull depth is slightly less then that of the lexington, if I count the hangar openings and not the level you have drawn your aircraft on (why are your openings larger then your hangar deck level?) so that might be actually an illusion.

Also, If these ships are like the real lexingtons, the hangar is actually quite narrow and not going out to the sides of the hull, so you would get very awkward 'tunnels' going towards the deck edge elevators. In addition, was the flight deck and the hangar sides not armoured against 8in projectiles on the lexingtons? (can't remember if they were) so is an deck edge elevator even preferable? This is not a case of one of them being better, note how even Midway has elevators in the middle of the flight deck as build, so just saying 'somebody did already use them' makes little sense. Then it might be the way you've drawn them, they look very small and tiny. I count nine pixels in the height, which is about 1.5 meters, fairly small for one and a half car I think? The gallery deck is, on most carriers, larger then the hangar deck. This space is also used for the girders that strengthen the flight deck. Why would it only be under the island? The decks in your superstructure are 12, 16,16,16 and 14 pixels high (apart from your pilothouse, which seems like 13) a human is about 12 pixels, while the average height of between-deck systems and deck girders can be taken as 2-3 pixels. so in your superstructure, many people would bang their head constantly. Your doors are only 1.4 meters high, and the windows in your hull are 16 or 14 pixels from each other, which is a bit on the low side (I take 17 to 19 pixels for decks most of the time)
Shipbucket style dictates weapons which can be horizontally aimed to be drawn that way, to avoid weird looking barrels IIRC. That is why I was wondering.
You do note that the weapon you scaled from is one with an open back and most of the setting of the weapon on the outside of the mounting? Yours looks nothing like that: what you have drawn looks somewhat like an oto melara 76 mm gun of 40 years later, which was completely automated. I can see no reason to have turrets shaped and sized like that in this time era, what is the story behind that?
For the catapult: I asked specially why is it there. in this time era, we have seen madder things, like catapults out of the hangar for when your flight deck was full, or multiple fly-off decks. but why would you put that catapult and crane there, when the alternative is launching from the hangar for example, or recovery at the stern? it seems to be an awful long way up to the flight deck for that aircraft to be put back on the catapult. or seaplanes adapted to using the normal catapult. There is quite a bit of a difference indeed between an unusual feature and an clearly bad one US Navy aircraft carriers use deck spotting and deck parking, and you put an rotating seaplane catapult in that space. Adding seaplane capabilities is not an bad or even an that unusual feature, but the way you did it is.
Of course you can do things different. but different can also mean wrong, and there are quite a few things I think just wrong. why are your funnels bobbly? why are your anchors stored like that? why are your superfiring guns unable to superfire on horizontal trajectories? why is that hull knuckle shaped like that, why is your bilge keel shaped like that, why are your propellers protruding underneath the keel, why is your keel not straight? why are there no rangefinders for your aft battery? I can keep going on, but you do not have to reply to me for these and the many others I might find, just make certain you understand why those are there, and why those are different on the real lexington or on other ships. Because this is not an bad drawing, but certainly not a good one either.

_________________
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 think the answer depends on what one means by badly designed capital ships. If one refers to my AU design, I'm prepared to accept the criticism, as entirely fair based on previous comments, even if I do not think so, myself for the reasons I gave. If one means that the RTL Lexingtons are well designed ships, that is another question and I am prepared to discuss why I hold the opinion that as battlecruisers, these ships were horrible designs based on what the USN should have learned from the British and their own WWI mistakes.

======================================
I said nothing about draft [/quote]

I am confused. I thought you said the hull lacked depth as in depth. If you meant internal volume, then I still do not understand. The hull clearly is beamy and quite voluminous.
The hull depth I looked at was the one below the hangar deck, I already took this into account when saying the hull lacked depth. The hull depth is slightly less then that of the lexington, if I count the hangar openings and not the level you have drawn your aircraft on (why are your openings larger then your hangar deck level?) so that might be actually an illusion.[/quote]

That requires me to break the answer up in three parts.
-- the engine spaces are squatter than in the RTL Lexington and are more distributed. Diesels versus turbines.
--the openings are larger than the hanger deck for two reasons; ventilation chimney effect and because the shutter mechanism is framed outside the lip.
--the "shading line" adds a "shadow effect". The last is just a guess.
--I supply a rough top down of the AU Lexington to give you an idea of how it is supposed to work. This includes the hanger and flight deck layouts. (See next post).

--The RTL Lexingtons had their already inadequate belt armor thinned.

Anderson, Richard M.; Baker, Arthur D. III (1977). "CV-2 Lex and CV-3 Sara". Warship International. Toledo, OH: International Naval Research Organization. XIV (4): 291–328.

According to Anderson and Baker, the waterline belt extended 9 feet above the Plimsoll mark. It was 7 and 1/2 inches tapered down to 5 inches. It ended in 7 inch bulkheads and covered the middle 530 feet of hull length. There was 2 inches of STS steel cap cover over the machinery spaces and 3/4 inch splinter protection for the gun houses. Deck armor was low near the belt, not more than 2 inches thick. Conning tower armor was 2-3 inches thick.
Then it might be the way you've drawn them, they look very small and tiny. I count nine pixels in the height, which is about 1.5 meters, fairly small for one and a half car I think? It, the gallery deck, is a vertical stacked area and is a continuation of the island straight down into the overhang starboard the hanger. Administrative spaces are not maintenance spaces or support structure. That is indicated in the hanger itself by structure detail. The decks in your superstructure are 12, 16,16,16 and 14 pixels high (apart from your pilothouse, which seems like 13) a human is about 12 pixels, while the average height of between-deck systems and deck girders can be taken as 2-3 pixels. so in your superstructure, many people would bang their head constantly. Your doors are only 1.4 meters high, and the windows in your hull are 16 or 14 pixels from each other, which is a bit on the low side (I take 17 to 19 pixels for decks most of the time)[/quote]


The decks should be a constant 16. The Island is actually a stepdown so you missed a couple of pixel lines. I decided the hatches for the pass throughs are actually supposed to be on the small side. 26" x 54" USN pattern 1890 10 dog clip unchanged from Mister McKinley's Navy. They are raised step throughs and tight squeezes.
Shipbucket style dictates weapons which can be horizontally aimed to be drawn that way, to avoid weird looking barrels IIRC. That is why I was wondering.[/quote]

Good to know that. Thanks. I just followed the history as seen and apparently I was not following the SB style.
As I explained earlier, it is a weather covering over a barbette not a true gun house. The shell feed line is also up and sideways into the kicker, not up and forward, manually hand rammed. That allows for a more compact mount on a narrow turning circle. This is the USN method of gun house design 1920s, not the Kriegsmarine method which was inefficient. For the catapult: I asked specially why is it there. In this time era, we have seen madder things, like catapults out of the hangar for when your flight deck was full, or multiple fly-off decks. but why would you put that catapult and crane there, when the alternative is launching from the hangar for example, or recovery at the stern? it seems to be an awful long way up to the flight deck for that aircraft to be put back on the catapult. or seaplanes adapted to using the normal catapult. There is quite a bit of a difference indeed between an unusual feature and an clearly bad one US Navy aircraft carriers use deck spotting and deck parking, and you put an rotating seaplane catapult in that space. Adding seaplane capabilities is not an bad or even an that unusual feature, but the way you did it is. [/quote]

The reason I put the seaplane catapult between the funnels is rather straightforward and common sense. The aircraft carrier flight land-on trap area would be permanently fouled if I put in a stern recovery station in the transom. Bow flyoff from an adapted catapult adds a complicated trolley and sling shuttle system to what should be a simple yoke and hook shuttle trolley drum cable setup.

Hardstand space on a flight deck is at a premium everywhere, so I have to choose the part of the flight deck least usable. for parking and moving planes. Due to the way the planes trap, that planes are struck below and raised to feed the catapults dictates plane movement pathways on the flight deck. So I have to arrange hardstand parks, flight deck maintenance and arming stations, and put the seaplane catapult where it will not foul the travel paths of planes to and from the hanger or from their parks. I could use a side catapult a la Yorktown, but that also fouls a side bay, which hinders an already at sea underweigh replenishment problem. It finally limits the size of the seaplane severely if I put the catapult anywhere but where it is.. Where it sits, from a plane handling point of view, makes the best and only sense.

The plane handling method, I illustrate below, is not the clumsy way the USN RTL did it in WW II. In WW II, because the elevators were mostly centerline, the deck was fouled 50% of the time with no clear pass through line for operations when the middle of the flight deck was utterly clogged with planes. This is why the USS Hornet was essentially helpless during the Doolittle Raid. She could not conduct normal operations around the B-24s that clogged her mid flight deck.

Here is the AU method: (see next post)

To finish up then.
1. Those are diesel stacks, not oil fired turbine exhausts. (Smoke scrubbers for example.) I am somewhat at a loss about terminology. Could you please help me with the term "bobbly"?
2. I need the hull volume for other things. The anchors hang two point externally to emphasize the two point hoist system.
3. The superfiring guns can fire over each other.
4. The hull knuckle is rondel not square.
5. Flat bottomed stepped up hull and a bilge keel to go with it.
6. The screws are above the main keel line. I checked this one to be sure.
7. The range finders for the aft battery are on the aft stack. One thought those were searchlights?
8. The keel line follows the hull constant area rule. The carrier hull is pear shaped like a South Dakata only more so.

I appreciate your imput. I should revisit the anchors and the keel line. Probably adjust the island up two pixels, too. But when it comes to the plane handling arrangements and internal setup, I hope that I can and have explained why it looks the way it does. Thank you very much for the help.

Based on acelanceloet's excellent recommendations;



FLUFF to follow.

hull depth = height between the keel and the strength deck. important for strength. draft and depth are separate things

bobbly: your funnels have weird shading going on, like they are not going straight up but rather like they have bubbles on them or something. that is what I meant with bobbly.

You do realise that without an angled deck, you cannot have aircraft parked amidships while recovering them, right?
In addition, the B-25 of the doolittle raid cannot be counted as normal carrier operations, as they did not even fit on the elevators or in the hangars. They had literally nowhere else to go.

_________________
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