In calculating aircraft capacity under our guidelines, 96 aircraft would require a miscellaneous weight of more than 9,000 tons
Well, as I indicated after subtracting all the other requirements of miscellaneous weights, you might end up with slightly more than 2/3 of that number.
When you look at Japan's Shokaku class, it has 10,000 tons of miscellaneous weights, 8,100 of them being for 90 planes. The Hiyo is about 35% larger than the Shokaku and it carries twice the amount of miscellaneous weights (20,000 tons with 14400 tons for 120 planes). Lots of planes require lots of miscellaneous weights. I had even more planes planned for the 1948 Ishinagenjo class, but in the end decided it was too expensive and saved almost 4,000 tons by going for the same number of planes as the Shokaku and use the gained hull strength for lots of other things (though for some strange reason I ended up with almost the same amount of miscellaneous weights as I used when I had much more planes on it).
Walter, try as I might I can't get my loadings to exceed 9,000 tons
Of course you can! You control Britain! You can do almost anything! Shokaku comfortably exceeds 9,000 tons, is more than 5,000 tons lighter and is 12 years older! if Rice Paper Boat Builders can do that, then surely Mighty Britain can do that as well!
Actually when you look at the details, you can see why...
HIJMS Shokaku vs HMS Colossus
Year: 1936 vs 1948
Dimensions: 810x100x32ft, BC 0.531 vs 850x120x29.5ft, BC 0.519
normal displacement: 39,301 tons vs 44,619 tons
Main battery: 4x2 5" vs 8x2 4.5"
Secondary battery: 8x2 105mm vs none
Heavy AA: 4x8 40mm vs 8x6 + 4x2 40mm
light AA: 17x3 25mm vs none
Main belt: 8" (510x12 ft) vs 4.5" (630x16 ft)
Torpedo BH: 3" (510x32 ft) vs 2.5" (800x26 ft)
Deck: 4" vs 4"
Power: 176,635 shp vs 180,000 shp
Speed: 33 kts vs 32.56 kts
Bunker (max): 5,749 tons vs 10,510 tons
Range: 12,000 nm @ 15 kts vs 20,000 nm @ 16 kts
Miscellaneous weights: 10,000 vs 9,000 tons
Planes: 90 (8100 tons) vs ~82 (~6800 tons left)
Stability: 1.11 vs 1.27
Steadiness: 60% vs 71%
Seaboat: 1.28 vs 1.73
The colossus uses a shallower and finer hull than the Shokaku. The Colossus gains less hull strength with its length and width than Shokaku does with its depth and BC.
If I keep the 850 feet length, use a 32 ft draught and a BC of 0.531 and drop the beam to 108 feet, I will have a 44,568 ton (normal) vessel and have gained 0.10 hull strength.
If I keep the 120 feet beam, use a 32 ft draught and a BC of 0.531 and drop the length to 765 feet, I will have a 44,568 ton (normal) vessel and have gained 0.12 hull strength.
As you can see, in both cases, the ships is slightly lighter than you 44,619 tons, but gained a significant amount of hull strength. Based on that and a few more tests, hull strength gains from best to worst are: draught, BC, beam, length. Conclusion: When it comes to Spring Sharp, Draught rocks and Length sucks.
There are a few other aspects as well. Shokaku's main belt is 120 ft shorter and 4ft less tall and even though it has a TBH coverage from the bottom all the way up to the waterline, it is 290 ft shorter. Fuel also eats up a lot of hull strength. The 20,000 nm @ 16 kts range eats up 0.19 hull strength compared to a 12,000 nm @ 15 kts range. Shokaku's slightly higher l:b ratio probably helps as well when it comes to the power needed for 33 kts.
So you can definitely get more out of it, but it all depends on whether you are willing to sacrifice some other aspects of the carrier to get the additional miscellaneous weights tonnage or not.
With current sizes and bigger jets 96 seems optimum.
Actually, jets are 2/3 the number of WW2 and pre WW2 planes so with the 82 planes I calculated in the previous post, this ship can only carry 54 jets which is why I set the estimate at 54-82 instead of your 80-120. 54 is the maximum for all jets and 82 for all WW2 and older planes and any mix of them is somewhere in between.
Edit: actually with that small amount of miscellaneous weights, it is only enough for 32-48 planes...
Edit 2: does give me some ideas for my Wesworld Super Carrier (tm)