First Aircraft Carrier Challenge

Well, now that the challenge is over, I can go ahead and post my detailed comments on the entries.

As with prior challenges, there's a lot of overlap between what I'm about to say. So rather than just reading your personal section, I recommend you read through others' too, because you may find stuff that applies to your ship but that I decided not to duplicate.

IJN Ōsumi (Ultraking101)
My first reaction was: "A sub-10,000-ton treaty loophole carrier! That's an idea I've been playing with too!"
My second reaction was: "Okay, but she looks awfully small for just shy of 10,000 tonnes."
So I plugged her dimensions into Springsharp, measuring draft and LWL from the image and estimating waterline beam at 50ft. For the required displacement of 9,567 tonnes standard, you'd need a block coefficient of 0.793, about as blocky as an oil tanker. With a more reasonable .500, you're looking at about 6,000 tonnes standard. This may be a useful comment for others as well.
Besides this, she looks good overall. I think the arresting gear could get more detailing, and maybe nets amidships as well to separate landing and taking-off aircraft, but respectable work overall.

MNS Ørn (CF-18)
It's harder to comment on aviation facilities with a side view only, so I'll fixate on deck heights instead. Deck heights within the hull appear to be 16px inclusive of both lines, which is on the short end but still doable, except that I'd leave extra space under the flight deck for its supports and structure. The quarterdeck also seems to cut off between two decks. Decks on the island are another matter: it seems the first two are 16px inclusive, again reasonable, then the third is 13px inclusive, or 4.5 feet if you're standing on the floor and hunching your head to avoid hitting the pipes and structure of the deck above you. Go measure how high 4.5 feet is, and imagine a 5'5" sailor trying to run through that space hunched over. The spotting tower is even worse, at 11px inclusive, and while it might be doable with an open-topped level above and an enclosed one below, that isn't what your window placement implies. I'm also not sure what the transition from tripod to monopod implies, or what the triangles jutting out are supposed to represent, as there are no lines running up or down from them.

Leonardo Da Vinci (Karle94)
[in unison] "Da Vinki??"

My first thought is that I'm rather skeptical about the backstory of not merely a battleship conversion--not merely a conversion of a battleship that suffered a magazine explosion--but conversion of a battleship that suffered a magazine explosion and capsized in 11m of water (and presumably had a major hull breach in order to do this) and remained underwater corroding for 5 years and was towed around upside-down after being refloated. It's one thing to raise a torpedoed ship like California that settled in muddy soil at a slight list, but this is something else. At that point I'd expect very serious structural damage to the hull, calling to mind the way Amagi was written off as a carrier conversion after the Great Kanto Earthquake. But there's no scoring item for backstory, so... Instead I'll ask about the superstructure.

What was the rationale for keeping the bridge under the flight deck? It's one thing to do this in order to keep the deck clear and unobstructed; but in addition to two funnels and two tripod masts, you have two masts forward (non-folding) and eight 102mm AA guns on deck-height platforms flanking the flight deck, at a height that will clip off the wingtips of landing aircraft. Adding even a wraparound control post over the forward searchlight would greatly improve navigation at no cost to deck space, beyond costs already imposed. Moreover, not all bridges-below-flight-deck are made equal: between (literally) the structure under the flight deck, the three antiquated QF guns on either side, the anchor handling gear forward, the rising bow, and the lack of bridge wings, you're looking at extremely restricted visibility. Well, really, you're not looking at anything except other parts of your own ship.

ES Atropus (Armoured Man)
I'm not going to rehash the whole hull plating debate, because that ship has sailed (on a roll, aren't I). But I will say that at 100% zoom and on a regular monitor, the combination of dark lines and light rivets look more like artifacting than deliberate detailing. The use of lighter shading on the doors only adds to the effect. I also question the use of double-wide net supports, and their spacing so close together.

Though I appreciate the AU commitment of using a fictional dating system, it does make it difficult to judge whether given features are anachronistic. Is this equivalent to 1923 in our timeline? In that case, the transverse arresting gear system is very advanced for the time, not only in concept but in execution. Or is it equivalent to 1935? In that case, it's fine, though the air wing would be a little dated.

At least the bridge has excellent visibility despite being under the flight deck. And the detailing of parts in the hangar and open-sided superstructure areas is very nice.

ARN Kanade (TNGShM)
Similar comment about AU timelines. If this is meant to represent 1918, then it's realistically flawed; any later, and it should be clear that a centreline superstructure is unwise. 2cm (20mm) AA autocannons, meanwhile, are wayy ahead of their time for 1918 or even 1935. The crane looks like a late-war IJN crane.

This is also a case where a top view could prove helpful. It sounds like the Yachiho class were designed to be very fast cruisers with a light cruiser hullform, and their beam of 18m is sleeker than the Myoko class. Consider, though, the forward superstructure. We can see that the hangar is narrower than the hull at deck level, because there's a walkway around it. Considerably narrower, in fact, because there's space for someone to rotate and operate a 20mm autocannon. The sides of the hangar are slab-sided, and the flight deck does not overhang this structure, so we aren't getting added width that way. And the central superstructure has wings on either side with rangefinders, so it's projecting out. Between all this, how much space is there, actually, to lower an attack aircraft onto where the crane is resting, accounting for its wingspan and a certain margin of error? There might actually be none at all, bridge+rangefinder+20mm rotating footprint could easily eat up 18m of beam all by itself.

Angol (RAIDer1_1)
Another case for the value of a top view, at least as a halfscale design sketch. Many features arranged around the deck--the rangefinder forward, the boats, the base of the funnel--suggest that the hangar walls are substantially offset inward from the sides of the hull. The starboard side crane also implies that the flight deck is narrower than the hull at the strength deck. The bridge is, at a glance, well-positioned, but the hull should be quite narrow there for a battlecruiser hull, which also raises questions about the boat deck forward. The stern should also be pointed for a battlecruiser of that era, so vertical supports from there imply a very narrow flight deck.

Check your deck heights too, especially within the hull (a break in deck heights will create structural problems) and the island.

In the service of "informed greebling," here's a list of essential but missing components you can add to decorate the side view. This is non-exhaustive, and let's not get into semantic debates over the precisely preferred term, the point is if you want to be able to tie your ship up at a pier you have to include the equipment for doing so.
- Chocks/hawseholes/loops you run the ropes through
- Bollards/bitts/things you tie the ropes around
- Spooled ropes
- Firefighting hoses
- Anchor chains
- Capstans
- Mushroom vents
- Stbd nav light
- Stowed gangway
- Hangar ventilation

RLMS Kitsune (VC)
This is an amazing entry in both design and drawing quality, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally refer to it for guidance with mine. Honestly speechless the longer I look at it. Good drawing of flight deck supports, excellent placement of the below-deck bridge, detailing strikes a balance of complex but not garish. Top view and side view inform one another, design choices are logical for the era, and I can't find an irrational deck height on the whole ship.

Still, obligatory nitpicks, because that's how I am:
[*]Not sure how I feel about the planking in various colors. Is this against the style? What do other people think?
[*]While I massively appreciate a fellow longitudinal arresting gear appreciator, you could probably afford to draw the pulleys for keeping them taut and the supports (there are various designs) for raising them above the flight deck.
[*]Some of your boats should be visible on the top view, possibly some aft equipment too.

AD-1 Aeroplane (corp)
Aesthetically, this entry feels very washed-out overall, especially on the side view. The shading gaps are very small, and on this topic, the hull shading lines are rather odd--it's not clear what shading rule this is supposed to follow, unless it's some kind of camo pattern?

Design-wise, the arresting gear is likely anachronistic for 1926, especially with the writeup stressing that Shintari wasn't particularly ahead of the game in carrier development. The anchor appears to be pointing the wrong way. The deck heights are hard to gauge, the only clearly objectionable area is the quarterdeck which seems to imply a 13px inclusive deck forward. All other design flaws feel natural for the era, to my eyes.

HMS Amphritite (Rodondo)
This entry also feels washed-out, as if it's been run through a slight sepia filter. I don't think I agree with the particular way of depicting plating used here, either. I can sympathize with wanting to break up the slab-like sides, but the alternating light and dark high-contrast lines give it an almost corrugated look.

Design-wise, same critiques w.r.t. arresting gear, by 1918 the Royal Navy had settled on simpler longitudinal arresting gear and you certainly have the deck space to make it work. Save the transverse wires for a future refit. I'd also expect to see more boats for a ship this size, unless they're in the lower hangar and get rolled out onto the quarterdeck somehow.

Otherwise, very nice work.

Archangel Michael (APDAF)
I am actually quite interested to hear the backstory, if only because your hull is 834 feet long overall, longer than the Amagi and Kii classes. That's one hell of a battleship hull to have "left over."

Transverse catapults were done at various points, but were they done in 1925? And what are those AA guns on the hull platforms? Typical flak armament in 1925 is four 3" HA guns; this ship appears to be carrying a lot more than that, both in quantity and in caliber.

The hangar sides feel both cluttered and bare at the same time. You might consider thinking about how the AA platform supports interact with the walkways below them, where other doors into the hangar might be, what the deck heights should be, and so on.

ORS Exsplorar (_Zustt_)
I rated this one above-average in drawing quality, and it does have some nifty design features. Bar the same comments about multicolored planking, the top view is very nicely executed, and it's clear that the top and side views inform one another, mutually dictating things like AA platform placement. I do like the bridge arrangement, with a wheelhouse under the flight deck and seemingly another demi-island on the "shoulder" looking ahead.

Beyond that, I start to see more issues. First, the transverse arresting gear is very anachronistic on this ship. Remember that as recently as 1911, the first landing aboard a flight deck (USS Pennsylvania) was conducted using arresting gear that consisted of ropes tied between sandbags. By 1914, your choices are simple longitudinal arresting gear, or nothing. The short flight deck and single elevator will also hamper operations, and the net won't so much separate landing and takeoff operations as prevent landing aircraft from passing all the way over the A turret. Speaking of which, the elevator seems very narrow, unless you've already mastered folding wings by this time? In any case, top views of the aircraft (including with wings folded, if necessary) would help.

The speed of 24.5 knots is troublingly low, and while I could understand this if it were a conversion of a pre-dreadnought battlecruiser (heavy armored cruiser) hull, the description seems to imply that these were new-build designs... in which case, surely you'd want to at least keep pace with contemporary battlecruisers? Actually, come to think of it, is this implying that Ocissana's newest battlecruiser class in 1914 was similar to this, with 2x2 205mm guns and a top speed of 24.5 knots? A low top speed is one thing if you expect your carrier to operate like an auxiliary ship out of the enemy's reach, but if you think a surface clash is likely enough to sacrifice flight deck and hangar length for gun turrets fore and aft, surely you'd prioritize enough speed to match the latest battlecruisers in running and maneuvering?

Karl Marx (Maxwell John)
Overall, a lot of the same issues I've pointed out in prior entries combine together for this one. The flight deck is considerably narrower than the weather deck; there doesn't seem to be any attention to deck heights within the hangar area; the gun platforms leave very narrow firing arcs, especially for what I assume are the anti-air guns; the top speed would seriously hinder her usefulness. Aesthetically, there's also a big gap in detail between the hull and island, which appear to be (credited) from Karle94's work, and the hangar sides, which appear to be the original additions.

Because this seems to be a beginner design, I would recommend that you look through the other higher-scoring entries for ideas on how to improve your work.

RN Gaspare Eusebio Duca di Vancamento (B. von Teapot)
This is an odd ship for me to comment on because it's ostensibly based on a real never-were. Still, I can raise a lot of issues about the interpretation and execution of the vague never-were plans. The barbettes look far too narrow for quadruple 9" turrets; maybe even cramped for twin 9" turrets. The floatplane ramp aft is unreasonably steep at its forward end, and I don't see any substantial crane or winch or hoist to assist in pulling a seaplane up that slope, nor any way of transferring a seaplane from there onto the flight deck or into the hangar. The cutout even seems to bite into the aft armor belt and the steering gear compartment below it. I understand these are all originally issues with the sketch as designed, but perhaps there's creative space to add in necessary details (cranes, doors) that aren't shown on the sketch?

Hangmo Il-ho (Soode)
Self-comment time: What made this design good? Well, ultimately quality is in the eye of the beholder; for example, I had expected VC to get a close second, not 5th. So maybe people picked up on things that I didn't pay much attention to, or didn't notice things that I did pay attention to. Still, here are some positive qualities for others to look at, I guess.

First, the arresting gear. Transverse cables with pulleys at the ends are what everyone thinks about when they picture maritime arresting gear, but they didn't really mature until the late 1920s. USS Langley, for example, was built with longitudinal arresting gear and received her transverse system in a 1929 refit. Until then, longitudinal arresting gear was the preferred option: hooks on the forward axle or bar would snag the wires, to slow down the plane by means of friction, prevent it from bouncing back up again, and also prevent it from careening off to either side. I also depicted a pulley system to keep the wires taut more easily. This system is less effective than a mature transverse arresting gear system, but it has the advantage of being much less complex, and more technologically mature for the era. It's also a neat bit of aviation history to illustrate.

Second, the structure. With the help of archive photos, modeling sites, and--yes--WOWS 3D models, I paid careful attention to the structure of the latticework under USS Langley's flight deck and tried to emulate it here. This was easier because I used layering to separate out the various platforms, nets, and equipment, allowing me to scoot components up or down, fore or aft, without having to redraw extensively each time. Note also the expansion joints, clearest on the top view but also on the side view, and the way the forward-most supports are shaded (canted out) because the hull gets narrower there. In halfscale drafts, I had separate top-view layers for the hangar deck and the flight deck, to check that the supports linked between them correctly; I also had a layer in between where I arranged aircraft silhouettes, to confirm that I could fit 12 attack aircraft and 12 fighters.

Third, the doctrine. I won't re-explain it, but in my post I go into some depth to explain not only what tradeoffs were taken, but also why they were taken, how Menghe justified them, and in some cases, how they turned out in the end. This is a good place to think about that careful balance of making things "realistically bad."

Shipbucket

Who is online