Shipbucket

Precisely (not so long ago I was myself banging on head with that rule one new member who draw or wanted to draw some mega-carrier). But then again, I'd say that probably nobody sane in real life would build that ship in the first place, so if we are to assume that it's just a not-totally-serious design exercise, then a 100-plane cap is slightly losing it's seriousness too.

Well, theoretically you could operate moreAC of a single ship, you just need more than one landing strip.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

You mean?...

Hmmm, Intriguing

_________________
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

In theory yes.
Though managing two approach lanes that close to each other is going to be interesting.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Perhaps if they have the plane land first on one deck and so on the other deck. and not in the same time.

My solution would be to split the deck in two zones. on starboard landing and take off and port landing take off and landing zone. both zone controlled by and over-watch that signals when someone can land on the port-side, and when someone can land on starboard side or take off... and so one.

Yes more officers in command, more to go wrong but that might be the only way to control it all.

Also this might also solve the problem twin deck hangar ship might have. those that control the port landing and take off, get their plane from one the deck, while the starboard take their plane from the other deck.

You've still got two planes comming in with less than 30 seconds seperation.
It'll also complicate training massively since you need to train your pilots to have two abort patterns. And they need to be trained to the point where it becomes reflex.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

What have I started...

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

the fact is also that with 2 parralel landing decks the ship has to have an extreme beam to clear the takeoff ramp on the bow. elevators is going to be an pain in the ass, and so is the hangar. the landing point will be entirely out on the edge of the deck, so the ship moves a lot more over there, and worst of all: I think the increase will not be an double airwing, but only an increase (20% max compared to an ship of the same displacement with an 'conventional' arrangement.)

30 second separation for the conventional deck, so here we get 15-20 seconds..... in which 2 aircraft need to be moved to the parking space or hangar, out of harms way, without getting in each others way. this requires planning and timing, and absolutely no room for error.

fun fact, the hangar would actually be smaller then that of an conventional deck, because there can be no deck edge elevators, the bridge has to cross it somewhere, and you need more elevators for the larger number of aircraft movements.

so, I would keep the conventional arrangement, and use the additional size for more repair and maintenance shops, more stored fuel and weapons and the ability to take slightly larger planes (aerial refueling aircraft and AEW, for example) instead of moving to an entirely different arrangement.)

that said, my own carrier design that is moving through revision after revision since I joined sb is more focussed on getting an as large as possible airwing on an size-restricted hull and deck going to extreme size is not always the answer to getting 'unconventional'

_________________
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

This always happens when someone posts a design that can't be dismissed out of hand.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.