WesWorld

Gentlemen:

It seems many aircraft carriers carried spare machines, dis-assembled, to replace operational losses. It seems reasonable to assume that this might also be the case in Wesworld.

I'd like to propose a new rule:

Dis-assembled aircraft can be embarked on a ship at twice the capacity of assembled aircraft. The ship will not be capable of operating more planes at one time than its original capacity, but it can make good its losses from the "spares" at a rate of one per six hours.

Example: CV Urumi, with a capacity of 40 aircraft, could embark 32 assembled aircraft and (8*2 = ) 16 dis-assembled aircraft.

Thoughts?

Isn´t 2 a little bit high as factor? Why did you choose 2?

But the dis-assembled aircraft will still weigh the same as an assembled aircraft.

I don't think so. If you were to lose a plane, that spare plane will be put together and take the position of the lost plane and will also use the fuel, ammunition, tools and maintenance crew that was originally assigned for the plane that was lost. I think that one such plane may be 50-70% the weight that is assigned to a 'normal' plane (but a minimum of 25 tons).
Of course that is how I see it.

Quoted

I think that one such plane may be 50-70% the weight that is assigned to a 'normal' plane (but a minimum of 25 tons).

Er...25t is the minimum for one "regular" plane...so a "spare" should take up ~ 12-15t.

A "spares" rule makes sense to me... perhaps it should be 1 spare = 13 tons?

Well then the question is how much does the plane weigh without fuel or anything that they don't put on the craft before shipping it in a crate, then add a ton or two for spare parts and tools, then you have the weight of your spare, disassembled aircraft. Right? Most of the extra weight of the 25 tons is for fuel, ammunition, spare parts, crews, and equipment to handle the aircraft, correct?

(The ton or two for tools might be for all the aircraft together)

I chose a factor of 2:1 arbitarily - I reckoned that two aircraft with wings removed would take up about as much space as one with wings on.

As for the weight, bear in mind there isn't additional fuel and ammo for it - we're only talking about the airframe and the space used to contan it. If it becomes necessary to re-assemble the aircraft, it uses the fuel and ammo that was going to be used by the aircraft it's replacing.

As for figuring out the tonnage required - you build your ship with capacity for X number of (assembled) airplanes, and can then swap the assembled airplanes for 2X unassembled airplanes.

If y'all think that's excessive, perhaps we can dig around and see what kind of capacity carriers had during transport runs.

Well if a carrier is ferrying planes in a transport role she can certainly carry more than her operational number, but at the cost of being able to acctually launch them.

She would essentially be a aircraft carrying cargo ship, with extra room on the flight deck to carry her cargo. If she got caught by a surface ship she certainly would either be at the mercy of that ship or would have to rely on her escorts to defend her.

Quoted

It was estimated that a month’s intensive flying in semi-wartime conditions would lead to a loss rate of 20% crashed or damaged beyond repair, and 10% needing major repair. Even the major maintenance work could not be carried out within the hangars of an operational carrier without interfering with flying operations. Carrier operations required a large supply of replacement aircraft, and either a chain of support depots or bases near to the fighting, or an aircraft maintenance ship (or both).

[SIZE=1]From, WTRE by Harry Flashman[/SIZE]

Thus I think that we do need spare aircraft. A ratio of 2:1 suits me fine. i'm having great fun at the moment trying to fit aircraft into a carrier without resorting to a deck park...

That's a helpful quote, and food for thought as well.

I've had a heck of a time figuring hanger assignments. It's fine if you're just operating fighters, but once you start adding in the larger bombers, things get crowded quickly. I'm almost to the point of just saying, "The guy in charge of this stuff on the ship would know far better than me how to do this" and leaving it at that.

Quoted

I've had a heck of a time figuring hanger assignments. It's fine if you're just operating fighters, but once you start adding in the larger bombers, things get crowded quickly. I'm almost to the point of just saying, "The guy in charge of this stuff on the ship would know far better than me how to do this" and leaving it at that.

Two tier hangars and folded wings seems to fit nicely. I've managed to get 60 planes below decks for a 16,000t design. Theres also quite a lot of room left over for maintenance etc.

That's pretty much the scenario I'm looking at for my later carriers. Urumi's more difficult because there's just one hanger deck, but at least she's going to be heavy on fighters.

I've never managed to produce a carrier with more than 60-65 aircraft on that displacement without sacrificing too much speed or protection. Anybody done any better?

Quoted

I've never managed to produce a carrier with more than 60-65 aircraft on that displacement without sacrificing too much speed or protection. Anybody done any better?

I'm up 30+knts with 70mm main belt, 20mm upper belt 5m high covering all the lower hangar and 50mm deck armour. All on 16,000t with 60 a/c. She keeps on getting bigger though...

Is that with or without torpedo bulkheads?

Thats with a 25mm bulkhead because the beam is over 25m.

She's grown to 18,500t now, to accomodate more armour.


Back to disassembled planes.

I prepose; square root of misc. weight for maximum combat airgroup. For spare planes, 25t per plane on top of this.

For an airgroup of 60 planes. 60*60=3600t 20% of 60 = 12 planes. 25*12=300t

Total misc. weight = 3900t for 60 combat airplanes + 12 spare aircraft.

Sound ok?

Hmmmm seems fair to me, allthough I would think this early in the Carriers evolution, spares would be a luxury and they would be supplied by either their base of operation or replenishment fleet. Maintenance carriers souldn't be too far off also.

Which brings up how one should sim stacked hangers on a carrier like what was standard practice for the Japanese Navy. Two decks of hangers with elevators leading from the bottom to the top and probably one that is for the upper hanger only.

I think it would be a great way to stick more planes on a hull if you are limited by the dimemtions of your drydocks.

Quoted

Which brings up how one should sim stacked hangers on a carrier like what was standard practice for the Japanese Navy. Two decks of hangers with elevators leading from the bottom to the top and probably one that is for the upper hanger only.

Just do it as normal. The guide for simming carriers is fairly vague. Maybe add some more misc. weight if you see fit?

I'd just ensure my carrier's stability rating is a few points above 1.0 and leave it at that. As far as I know, the miscellaneous weight's all above the waterline somewhere...