Design Bureau Guangzhou

[Guinness]

When I described the wings, I had in mind an arrangement where they'd been unbolted from the fuselage, not properly folded, but I agree that true folding wings would surely be the product of the appropriate aircraft carrier tech level, either 1918 or maybe even 1922.

[Carthaginian]

Ah... my misunderstanding- you say 'folded,' I see 'hinged.'

The Albatross is, as I look at it more, a lot like this ship in size and scope... so a 9 plane wing with a few spares (2-3) might be realistic, but not almost 20 planes.

[damocles]

Length x bean/100 sq ft deck space x 80%=

700 x 100=7000/100=70 x 80%=56 planes.

That is my operational definition for any carrier I expect using 1918-1928 planes.

D.

[Logi]

Totally impossible.
The nearest carrier I can think of is Ryujo- and she was almost twice that size with only 33% more aircraft... and had MAJOR handling problems in any kind of real weather.
You'll need to double the tonnage to get something with that kind of air wing, at least.

The Ryujo also went 29 kts and has a bunker of 10,000nm @ 14kts (compared to 26kts and 8,000nm @ 12 kts).

Not to mention the Ryujo was a flying-off deck carrier. Furthermore, the Ryujo was built with an inherently low freeboard, no doubt contributing to the handling problems in heavy weather you mentioned. (No doubt this is not exactly better, but it is still on par with other such ships  in size in handling).

Not really, Ryujo was also converted to a flying-off-deck carrier from a seaplane tender halfway through construction. This does not lead to the most optimal construction and design for a carrier.

In short- a nice idea, but entirely too much on too little.
A similar concept for the CSA is 50% bigger and only has about 16 aircraft with 4 spares in crates.

Oh, and you have the kind of AA suite that a WWII ship would have carried with none of the operational experience that generated such a loadout.

I cannot find the CSA ship so I will refrain from commenting on it.

The AA side is such.... 4 guns per side, each gun is a quadruple mount, thus 16 guns per side. The guns can not shoot over beam as they are mounted below the deck. (The deck is pretty much clear of objects in order to allow temporary storage of planes on the deck.)

These 4 guns must be manually trained and elevated, have a short engagement range, and are relatively inaccurate. Your comment would be fitting if these weapons were not spray-and-hope-to-hit weapons (in light of the lack of good directors and tracer rounds from AAW).

Besides the ships is a fleet escort and there is a distinct lack of AAW weapons in the navy, it is hoped that the robust and large AAW suite of the Yichang will provide for the rest of the taskforce.

This is the smallest 'useful' carrier I found.
The upper link is stats for the ship, the lower is US Navy photos. One especially revealing photo (80-G-236393) shows this ship- MUCH larger than yours- with 43 aircraft on her deck... and how utterly insanely the deck is packed gives you an idea of how little room there would be on your carrier. In fact, Long Island only carried 21 aircraft when in active use; this is fewer aircraft than your ship claims to be carrying on 30x3m and 7,000 TONS less!

The Long Island was a conversion and a flying-off-deck carrier (not to mention the shortened flight deck for additional AA weapons). Again, inefficient design.

So if we say 18 can be stowed in usable form, that leaves 11 or so that have to stowed below decks or elsewhere on the ship broken down. This doesn't seem too insane to me. A bigger problem may be where the relatively large number of aircraft torpedoes should go.

Actually you reminded me that I forgot to include the torpedo weights in the ship. Expect a reworked version soon.

The ship uses two hangars, if you didn't read that, thus the numbers of planes the ship can carry is roughly twice of all your calculations.



I used these rules and almost 100% of hangar capacities.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3237.0

I will produce the updated version of this seaplane tender and an alternative flying-off-deck carrier soon.

[Carthaginian]

The Ryujo also went 29 kts and has a bunker of 10,000nm @ 14kts (compared to 26kts and 8,000nm @ 12 kts).

Not to mention the Ryujo was a flying-off deck carrier. Furthermore, the Ryujo was built with an inherently low freeboard, no doubt contributing to the handling problems in heavy weather you mentioned. (No doubt this is not exactly better, but it is still on par with other such ships  in size in handling).

Not really, Ryujo was also converted to a flying-off-deck carrier from a seaplane tender halfway through construction. This does not lead to the most optimal construction and design for a carrier.

Your ship is still smaller by more than half, only a couple of knots slower, and still only half as big and is trying to cram 60% of Ryujo's air wing into a space that is DRASTICALLY INSUFFICIENT! Hell, your ship is almost ounce-for-ounce the size of the Albatross (but with a drastically narrowed beam)... AND CARRIES DOUBLE THE AIRWING!

I cannot find the CSA ship so I will refrain from commenting on it.

The AA side is such.... 4 guns per side, each gun is a quadruple mount, thus 16 guns per side. The guns can not shoot over beam as they are mounted below the deck. (The deck is pretty much clear of objects in order to allow temporary storage of planes on the deck.)

These 4 guns must be manually trained and elevated, have a short engagement range, and are relatively inaccurate. Your comment would be fitting if these weapons were not spray-and-hope-to-hit weapons (in light of the lack of good directors and tracer rounds from AAW).

Besides the ships is a fleet escort and there is a distinct lack of AAW weapons in the navy, it is hoped that the robust and large AAW suite of the Yichang will provide for the rest of the taskforce.

You cannot find the CSA ship because it has not been posted.
In fact, only one ally knows about it, and then only OoC. The stroyline will be posted before the ship is. I will say that the ship is roughly the size of a WWII escort carrier and has a rather limited air group of only 16 scout planes. It also has a VERY limited amount of weapons. I will say that it has a 250' flying-off deck, 30' elevator and a spacious handling deck aft, with the funnel exhausting to the port side.

Your ship has the equivalent of quad 40mm Bofors in numbers that only a WWII Jeep carrier might mount. As a man who knows a damn good bit about firearms, I can say on some authority that ANY AAA is actually a 'spray and pray' weapon unless it is radar guided and has proximity fused munitions.

It's not in keeping with either the times or the RRC's level of combat experience.

The Long Island was a conversion and a flying-off-deck carrier (not to mention the shortened flight deck for additional AA weapons). Again, inefficient design.

Actually you reminded me that I forgot to include the torpedo weights in the ship. Expect a reworked version soon.

The ship uses two hangars, if you didn't read that, thus the numbers of planes the ship can carry is roughly twice of all your calculations.

I used these rules and almost 100% of hangar capacities.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3237.0

I will produce the updated version of this seaplane tender and an alternative flying-off-deck carrier soon.

In the first place, our rules assume a FLATTOP carrier rather than the seaplane carrier you are producing. Your hanger capacity should be reduced to a sane level accordingly. Also, tacking on another hanger deck will play hell with all the ship's handling characteristics.

[Guinness]

When we drafted the aircraft carrier rules, I'll admit I only considered them WRT flattop "real" aircraft carriers, and not seaplane tenders. We might need to revisit their application in the latter case. On the one hand, a seaplane carrier ought to be "easier" to design. On the other hand, seaplanes take up more space than wheeled planes. Hmmmm.....

Watch this space I guess.

[Kaiser Kirk]

For the carrier, I think it's a good argument for altering the formula.
In this case the BC of 0.457 means the beam is only at max for a very short time, making the L*B/70 calc silly.
1) looking at the waterline area rather than the L*B.
2) Assigning a fixed misc. weight for each 10m of flight deck  & for elevators.
Those two factors would greatly alter the apparent utility of small carriers.
3) Alternately, it might be interesting to make the calc L*B*BC/70.
In this case #3 would reduce the airgroup allowed to 13.

The second hanger merely allows you to field more than 70% of your capacity, not expand it above (which you are not- 29 is what the L*B/70 calcs to), and seems properly built with a hurricane bow. Does seem to follow the Ship Design Guidelines.  

Not to keen on the AA. It seems that the gunners back then expected far greater hit %s than we now do, and realize that size of air groups would be small.  A dozen lumbering biplane torpedo planes doesn't take 16x40mm per side. As for fleet def, the 40mm has short range and doesn't help. I kinda hate to suggest it, but for the role intended, replacing some of the 40mm quads with single 105mms may make sense. Say 4 quads, 1 for each quarter of the compass at ship ends, and 12 x 105mm along the broadside. ? Still silly heavy.

As for the points Carthaginian is making... many are valid. For one thing that double hanger on a small hull and shallow draft makes for a great deal of "sail" area.

Looking at the BBs and ACs posted a bit ago, I think the deck armor is verging on the thin.
Right now, it's just adequate for the 18,000yard FC in service.

I don't know if anyone has the 24,000yard FC yet, but it will be entering service soon and the concept that this is a valid range band would be known to designers forecasting what their designs must face. .

Armor penetration for the OTL US 6"/53 was expected to exceed 38mm past 20,800yrds,
While penetration through a 3" deck rather depends on the caliber and shell era you wish to proof against, 4" would be safer.

The exception is the Maximum battleship...which has an inch too much deck armor I think.  7" places you as safe well past 30,000 yards, which optically is unlikely as a range.

[Guinness]

Well, the L*B/70 thing also captures the fact that in mature carriers, the flight deck was approximately the same width over the entire length of the ship. Generally speaking, this was roughly true of the hangar deck as well. So I'm not sure that figuring in BC is necessarily the best idea.

What needs doing is simming small carriers, and seeing how bad our deviation for the realistic is. Anyone feel like taking on that project? I know I'm not going to have time until my kids go to college (an exaggeration, but probably not a gross exaggeration)

[Carthaginian]

I can probably manage to get some work done on it using web sources.
Let me see what I come up with in the next few days.

[Guinness]

Ok, if you get stuck on some values, I can look some stuff up in Freidman for you, just let me know. The biggest thing is BC, which I transcribed into a post here: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=727.msg44539#msg44539

[Carthaginian]

Ok, if you get stuck on some values, I can look some stuff up in Freidman for you, just let me know. The biggest thing is BC, which I transcribed into a post here: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=727.msg44539#msg44539

It's not the most reliable place, but this site gives BC's for most ships on it.
It's been a big help to me all the way back to my start here.
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/bx53056/1668/r0.htm

[damocles]

test ship, generic amall aircraft carrier laid down 1920

Displacement:
   18,888 t light; 19,328 t standard; 22,011 t normal; 24,158 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   600.44 ft / 600.00 ft x 80.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
   183.01 m / 182.88 m x 24.38 m  x 7.62 m

Armament:
      16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
   Weight of broadside 8 lbs / 3 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.98" / 25 mm      0.98" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 4.13" / 105 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 117,573 shp / 87,710 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 16.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,829 tons

Complement:
   903 - 1,174

Cost:
   £2.925 million / $11.699 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 2,812 tons, 12.8 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 20 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,792 tons, 12.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 4,111 tons, 18.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,264 tons, 37.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,124 tons, 14.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 3,700 tons, 16.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     43,841 lbs / 19,886 Kg = 91,957.9 x 1.0 " / 25 mm shells or 3.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
   Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 17.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle
   Block coefficient: 0.642
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      0.94 ft / 0.29 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   47.15 ft / 14.37 m (44.15 ft / 13.46 m aft of break)
      - Mid (50 %):      47.15 ft / 14.37 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   47.15 ft / 14.37 m
      - Stern:      47.15 ft / 14.37 m
      - Average freeboard:   43.00 ft / 13.11 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 79.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 357.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 36,502 Square feet or 3,391 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 149 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 105 lbs/sq ft or 513 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.79
      - Longitudinal: 7.88
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Miscellaneous weights: 3,700 tons,

600 X 80=4800/100 =48 X 80% = 38.4 aircraft

Is that too many aircraft?

Yes...

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ok, if you get stuck on some values, I can look some stuff up in Freidman for you, just let me know. The biggest thing is BC, which I transcribed into a post here: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=727.msg44539#msg44539

It's not the most reliable place, but this site gives BC's for most ships on it.
It's been a big help to me all the way back to my start here.
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/bx53056/1668/r0.htm

Looking at some historic carriers over at Haze Grey & underway, there are some issues with conversions.

First, the Americans used deck parks, so their max is higher.

Second, several of the early British CVs have 20 plane groups...and that appears the design goal, not the limit. Interestingly Hermes is noted as being built on the same basis as a light cruiser, and having handling issues- which is likely the case in this 4,000ton CVMidget.

Third, looking at IJN carriers, you get two numbers for airgroup. As I recall the latter is their practice of carrying disassembled spares...and I don't know how the USN accounts for that, I just know CV-6 did have some planes carried like that but not if they were counted against the airgroup numbers. Here I went with assembled.

Fourth, as planes got larger, airgroup sizes should drop.  Sometimes you see that note in regards to the Lexingtons, that their airgroup sized declined.

However, there is a trend...and it's not towards 100% of L*B/70.
Nor is it towards * BC

   l   b   ag      max   % of max
                  
lexington   270.6   32.0   90       124    73%
ranger   234.4   33.4   86       112    77%
yorktown   253.0   32.3   100       117    86%
wasp   226.0   24.6   84       79    106%
essex   265.8   45.0   100       171    59%
furious   223.0   27.5   36       88    41%
courageous   239.7   26.6   48       91    53%
Ark royal   208.8   28.8   60       86    70%
Akagi   249.0   30.0   60       107    56%
Akagi_rec   250.4   31.3   72       112    64%
kaga   230.0   29.5   60       97    62%
Kaga_rec   247.6   32.5   81       115    70%
Soryu   227.5   26.0   63       85    75%
hiryu   227.4   27.0   64       88    73%
Shokaku   257.5   29.0   72       107    67%
Ryujo   175.4   20.7   37       52    71%

[Logi]

Your discussion is nice and all but it's cluttering up this thread.

I wish to ask one of the mods to move all these posts to a separate thread.

[Guinness]

Normally I'm all for splitting threads, but in this case yourship resulted directly in the conversation, but I'll compromise and start a new thread for a place to continue this.

See: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=4618.msg62510#msg62510