Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Thats what you call a glute clincher!
Also illustrative of my "airplane abuse", it ain't good for em, thats for sure!
1) We have a carrier PLAN CV thread..post your thoughts on the PLAN CV there.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/plan-carrier-operations-news-videos-photos-ii-6173.html
2) Stop asking so many NOOB questions in threads. Tell us what YOU think. If you have a legitimate question use the FAQ thread.
[h=3]Military FAQ thread[/h]
Apparently the forum rules have past you by. You need to get on that bus right now..please read before you post again..
[h=3]FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read![/h]
bd popeye super moderator
Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Nears Completion
Snippet from the article below...
"The final hull section of aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth has arrived at Babcock’s Rosyth dockyard.
The 11,300 tonne aft section of hull, known as Lower Block 04 (LB04), made its way under the Forth Bridges shortly before 11am on Remembrance Sunday.
It left BAE Systems’ yard on the Clyde last Sunday (November 4). The section has traveled all the way around the south coast to reach the Fife assembly site, a journey of more than 1,200 miles."
There's a photo in the article, again, I still can't post links so remove the spaces to find the article.
h ttp://gcaptain.com/aircraft-carrier-queen-elizabeth/
Snippet from the article below...
"The final hull section of aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth has arrived at Babcock’s Rosyth dockyard.
The 11,300 tonne aft section of hull, known as Lower Block 04 (LB04), made its way under the Forth Bridges shortly before 11am on Remembrance Sunday.
It left BAE Systems’ yard on the Clyde last Sunday (November 4). The section has traveled all the way around the south coast to reach the Fife assembly site, a journey of more than 1,200 miles."
There's a photo in the article, again, I still can't post links so remove the spaces to find the article.
h ttp://gcaptain.com/aircraft-carrier-queen-elizabeth/
After the use of wooden flight decks was discontinued it would have been madness for any designer not to use the flight deck as strength deck. A lower deck would be much lower and would have to be much stronger to be able to carry the bending forces on the hull. The special trick must concern the structure supporting the cut outs for the deck edge lifts. But why would it be unthinkable for non-US designers to find the same trick or even a better one to achieve the necessary strength as a similar weight?
Pointblank
Senior Member
It was not the discontinuation of wood in the flight deck that caused a switch to using the flight deck as the strength deck (wood usage in the flight deck was discontinued due to the increasing size of carrier aircraft, and the introduction of jet aircraft to the carrier air wing), it was the growing size of aircraft carriers, which caused problems with structural strength and stability.
USN carrier design practice pre-WWII and during was to design a carrier with an external hangar, that is, the hangar is located outside the ship's girder while the the RN practice was to design a carrier with an internal hangar; that is, the hangar is contained within the ship's girder. In short, USN practice was to make the flight deck part of the superstructure, while RN practice was to make the flight deck a part of the hull.
However, with the introduction of the Forrestal class carriers, the size of the carriers meant that stress requirements forced the abandonment of the external hangar and hangar deck as strength deck concepts. A shallow hull of that size is a design impracticality. In the Forrestal and after, the flight deck is the strength deck.
An external hangar offers large side openings so that aircraft can be warmed up on the hangar deck, loading and unloading aircraft is made easier, underway replenishment becomes easier and safer and, most importantly, flight deck damage and hangar deck fires are outside the main hull and therefore of less structural consequence. Deck edge lifts are also very easy to install as a result due to the already existing large openings along the side, and there are no major structural issues with placing lifts or holes in the side that would affect structural strength.
An internal hangar is contained within the ship's girder and is enveloped by the ship's hull. It is easier to protect, has better access to machinery shops and maintenance facilities and offers much better protection for the aircraft against bad weather. Deck edge lifts are difficult to install, of questionable value and have serious structural implications.
In structural terms, having an external hangar means that the upper strength deck is the hangar deck. This then means that the hull girder is shallower and thus more highly stressed. The best way to offset this is to thicken up the hangar deck so protection (armor) here grows naturally out of the design concept. If the flight deck is to be armored, that armor has to be in addition to the hangar deck protection.
It is not often realized that Midway started life as a parallel design to Essex, intended to explore the effect of that extra protection on the Essex design. On 27,000 tons, it was found that deck protection had a disastrous effect on airgroup capacity (as few as 60 aircraft rated capacity at a time when Essex was rated at 110). This bought protection against 250 pound bombs. After 1940, the Midway design went its own way, becoming a quite different program to the Essex class. Note though, that the hangar deck remained the strength deck.
The advantage of the internal hangar was that, by using the flight deck as strength deck, the British carriers had a much deeper hull girder, so the designers could use substantially lighter hull structural members, giving them a larger carrier for a given displacement. The big problem was that, since the flight deck was the strength deck, holes (lifts, etc.) had to be kept to a minimum, so the internal hangar concept immediately translated into fewer and smaller lifts - compromising the ability to launch and recover aircraft.
- Status