Design Bureau Guangzhou

[Logi]

Of course the speed can be lowered by then the question is... What do do with the extra weight.

Of course I am willing to have the Engine be military standard and the rest of the ship be mercantile standard and pay for the Engine separately.

In effect it would be a carrier with basically pretty much wood and whatnot, the most expensive part being the engine.

Also, please do not forget that ship class would most likely consist of only two ships. There are experimental aircraft carriers for the purpose of convincing conservative minds about the use of an aircraft carrier whilst keeping the cost low.

[P3D]

IMNSHO, all aircraft-related equipment should be classified as armament, so a 4000t merchant standard ship should be able to have about 80t worth of aviation equipment, which (by the rules) allows about three aircrafts.

Originally the main purpose of the "merchant standard" was to allow the simming of transports/liners with high misc. weights.

[Logi]

I don't see how to simulate the extremely cheap building and materials of the experiment carriers IRL then.

I do plan to pay for the aircrafts separately, FYI.

[damocles]

I don't know if 26 knots is exactly 'merchant standard.'
Surely a carrier like this would fall more under the 'Tender Rule Clause' intended to prevent 'cheap warships.'

Seriously, the Mods need to rule on this issue before someone starts laying down the keel on a 20,000t fleet carrier built to MS.

I have to agree with that. The US President Class ocean liners and C-class fleet oilers were designed as "tenders" to either transport, fleet oiler or slow fleet aircraft carrier standards.

The same is true for the 1930s Japanese "ocean liners" that became two of their 25-26 knot mainstay (Hiyo class) fleet carriers after the Midway Massacre. The other four started life as seaplane tenders. The Umryos that supplemented those were true warships built as simplified Hiryus 

Something like the Sangamon was not a Long Island.   

So tender rules required here? I have to agree with that.

[Logi]

Ah right, I re-read the tender rules and do agree this would fall under it.

[Ithekro]

A notation on speed...you probably still will want it to be sure that even on a windless day you can get your planes in the air by steaming at flank speed.

Though biplanes can get more lift out of those surfaces, they still need a certain amount of speed to get lift, otherwise they get to kiss the sea...followed shortly by the bow of the carrier.

[Sachmle]

otherwise they get to kiss the sea...followed shortly by the bow of the carrier.

You skipped the part where after the plane kisses the sea the pilot kisses his ass goodbye, then the plane kisses the bow of the carrier.

[damocles]

A notation on speed...you probably still will want it to be sure that even on a windless day you can get your planes in the air by steaming at flank speed.

Though biplanes can get more lift out of those surfaces, they still need a certain amount of speed to get lift, otherwise they get to kiss the sea...followed shortly by the bow of the carrier.

Maybe at least 20 knots? I know the Langley was straining to get 15 knots on her best days and that the Jennys had a devil of a time getting aloft.

A converted collier was not the best idea for a test carrier.

[Logi]

 ??? What are you guys talking about? All my designs for the carrier went 26 kts.

[ledeper]

I have a big issue with these carrier designs,namely that they can be build using Merchant Standard.Carriers are warships,laid down and constructed as such.I view the use of Merchant Standard as an attempt to undermine/circumvent the rules.
I can accept Merchant Standard when it comes to AMCs or "Q"ships.

[Walter]

I have a big issue with these carrier designs,namely that they can be build using Merchant Standard.Carriers are warships,laid down and constructed as such.I view the use of Merchant Standard as an attempt to undermine/circumvent the rules.

You're forgetting one important thing in the ship building rules that covers this:

Moderators have may require a ship to be built to normal military standards if they believe that the intent of a design is to produce a cheap warship.

So in case of a carrier, it would almost certainly mean full cost for the ship.

[Sachmle]

I have a big issue with these carrier designs,namely that they can be build using Merchant Standard.Carriers are warships,laid down and constructed as such.I view the use of Merchant Standard as an attempt to undermine/circumvent the rules.
I can accept Merchant Standard when it comes to AMCs or "Q"ships.

Actually quite a few RL carriers were either converted merchants or ships that were laid down to merchant standard and reordered while under construction to be CVs. Look at all the CVEs.

[damocles]

I have a big issue with these carrier designs,namely that they can be build using Merchant Standard.Carriers are warships,laid down and constructed as such.I view the use of Merchant Standard as an attempt to undermine/circumvent the rules.
I can accept Merchant Standard when it comes to AMCs or "Q"ships.

Actually quite a few RL carriers were either converted merchants or ships that were laid down to merchant standard and reordered while under construction to be CVs. Look at all the CVEs.

Most of the CVE conversions were the so called  "Kaiser Koffins" that were very expensive conversions, many that used military standard catapults, arrestor systems, and elevators mounted in an expensive  flight deck that topped a standard merchant hull.



As an exercise in "cheapness", they were quick to make but not very "cheap".  

[Carthaginian]

As an exercise in "cheapness", they were quick to make but not very "cheap". 

LOL... put the unit cost against even an Independence class and you'll see that they were, indeed, VERY cheap to build.

'Cheap' is a relative term when it comes to warships.

[The Rock Doctor]

The rules may not explicitly state it, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a tender and certainly not a civvie-standard boat.