Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.
Even with the drawing as it is, there's really no way of knowing if such a carrier would be possible. No one tried it yet. Perhaps the strain on the side hulls would just be too great. Who knows what sort of structure and how much reinforcement it'd be needed to support such a deck on such hullform.
BTW, planeman, good call on narrowing the foredeck. There's more problems, of course... with perhaps not enough deck space for handling many planes at once. The positions of the weapons elevators are perhaps not ideal... As i said, hangar may prove to be too large for such a small ship...
If i may suggest, for your carrier, use as many elevators (carrying two planes) as there are catapults. It takes less time for a catapult to launch two planes than it takes an elevator to make one round...
Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.
Even with the drawing as it is, there's really no way of knowing if such a carrier would be possible. No one tried it yet. Perhaps the strain on the side hulls would just be too great. Who knows what sort of structure and how much reinforcement it'd be needed to support such a deck on such hullform.
BTW, planeman, good call on narrowing the foredeck. There's more problems, of course... with perhaps not enough deck space for handling many planes at once. The positions of the weapons elevators are perhaps not ideal... As i said, hangar may prove to be too large for such a small ship...
If i may suggest, for your carrier, use as many elevators (carrying two planes) as there are catapults. It takes less time for a catapult to launch two planes than it takes an elevator to make one round...
