Hover Carrier

[Fuzzy_Modem]

Here's what I'm wondering now. Does your aircraft VTOL systems come based off the same tech as this carrier's hover system? Just miniaturized?

Yeah. It's anti-gravity rather than downward thrust.

[Terralthra]

So, your aircraft have two propulsion systems: antigravity for altitude control, and something else for horizontal velocity and attitude control?

Or does it have multiple antigravity units that it manipulates to generate speed?

[Fuzzy_Modem]

The anti-gravity generator renders the vessel weightless, with traditional propulsion proving trust and maneuvering.

[Terralthra]

Ok. So, do these VTOL craft have wings at all? Why?

[Sea Skimmer]

Most of my aircraft have vtol capability, but not all.

Then you need an angled deck to not suck for sustained air operation, or else two parallel decks if you have space. Also for the love of god you need a clear path from aft! Landing speeds bow on would be very, very high!

If you have all VTOL then an angled deck is pointless, as the optimal point for a VTOL landing is dead at the center of the flight deck, because its the center of motion (moves least) making landings very easy. Takeoff runs might or might not matter, they do for stuff like the Harrier and F-35, but that need not be the case for a future sci fi aircraft that could just have much greater thrust then its MTOW.

[Gaidin]

Ok. So, do these VTOL craft have wings at all? Why?

Take off doesn't exactly take care of flight. Especially if the VTOL system fails midflight for whatever reason. The wings are a convenient failsafe in mid-atmosphere that are pretty easy to put on there when you've got jets anyway.

[Terralthra]

Wings are hardly "convenient" if you don't need them. They're structurally a massive pain in the ass.

[Gaidin]

Wings are hardly "convenient" if you don't need them. They're structurally a massive pain in the ass.

Until you need them. What happen VTOL fails for unforeseen reasons and you don't have wings? The plane falls. No matter what. Or. You have the wings as designed and the propulsion system ramps up some to compensate and the plane can return to the carrier and make an emergency landing. It's not like the wings are another completely redundant and useless power system. The things actually have a use should something unforeseen, or even foreseeable in combat, happen.

[Fuzzy_Modem]

Ok. So, do these VTOL craft have wings at all? Why?

Yes, for stability while in forward motion, and in the case below the wings serve as heat sinks for mounted weapons, and extend maneuvering thrusters away from the body for greater effect.

[Terralthra]

Wings are hardly "convenient" if you don't need them. They're structurally a massive pain in the ass.

Until you need them. What happen VTOL fails for unforeseen reasons and you don't have wings? The plane falls. No matter what. Or. You have the wings as designed and the propulsion system ramps up some to compensate and the plane can return to the carrier and make an emergency landing. It's not like the wings are another completely redundant and useless power system. The things actually have a use should something unforeseen, or even foreseeable in combat, happen.

The carrier doesn't have wings. If AG is not a 100% reliable technology, the whole thing will sooner or later crater on the ground if it gets engaged in combat (or "something unforeseen" happens). Also, based on the images Fuzzy just posted, there is precisely zero chance those wings will provide adequate lift in case of AG failure.

[Gaidin]

Wasn't talking about the carrier.

[Terralthra]

I'm aware. I was pointing out that if AG is unreliable enough that the individual aircraft require wings to prevent them from crashing if the AG fails or is damaged, then the carrier is itself a massive risk of the same happening, only to a much larger investment of resources, way more people, and a huge crater underneath it.

[Beowulf]

If you have an airborne aircraft carrier, there's nothing stopping you from launching by dropping them out a hole in the bottom. Admittedly, you need enough clear space below to be able to gain enough speed for your aircraft to be able to maneuver (for those aircraft that don't have VTOL). Landing strip should have no obstructions from the rear, but you should have a tower so as to be able to direct movement of aircraft on deck (unless you have sufficiently sophisticated sensors that you can do it without direct vision).

Wings may be useful as aerodynamic lift can reduce your load on the AG, and depending on your setting, reduce the power requirements of the AG.

[Lagmonster]

The major advantage to either the VTOL mass or dropping them from the bottom, I'd assume, would be the ability to get a lot of ships into the air at once, rather than one or two at a time. Depending on the roles and capabilities of the craft themselves, I can imagine where the ability to get all your planes airborne *right now* might be an advantage in combat.

[Gaidin]

I'm aware. I was pointing out that if AG is unreliable enough that the individual aircraft require wings to prevent them from crashing if the AG fails or is damaged, then the carrier is itself a massive risk of the same happening, only to a much larger investment of resources, way more people, and a huge crater underneath it.

The much larger carrier would also have a lot more options for how much weight it can carry in armor, redundancies and safeties for power and backups, and god knows what else. The fighter can only pack so much into a tight space because it needs a very specific size and frame for speed and maneuverability.

[gigabytelord]

I was thinking that if it's even necessary to have a runway why not go with a dual angled deck. If it's the symmetry you don't want to screw up then two angled decks going on either side of the center island would fix that problem. You could even have a slight incline at aft ends of the runways which raised the deck level over the engines as well as adding lift to aircraft as they take off. It's an aircraft carrier that floats in the air and maintains it's altitude and speed using anti-grav tech.
Because of these things there is no reason for the aircraft to take off from the front as they do on modern super-carriers.

Also I should note that even though VTOL takeoff and landing is convenient it's also really slow. A well trained flight deck crew can launch and receive easily twice as many aircraft as purely VTOL base flight system. Of course I'm thinking of current Vertical takeoff tech. What is being employed in this setting seems to be considerably more advanced so perhaps this isn't an issue.

[Terralthra]

Do you mean two angled landing decks, in a V-shape?

[Fuzzy_Modem]

Do you mean two angled landing decks, in a V-shape?

I rather dig that idea.

[gigabytelord]

Do you mean two angled landing decks, in a V-shape?

I do, one would be the launch deck and the other would be receiving. This would actually give the carrier the ability to do something that modern carriers already can. Launch and receive at the same time.

Oh and another thing I was thinking about. It was stated that some of the craft are VTOL and some aren't. Splitting the deck into two and angling them into a V would open a extra space in between the two decks. That space could be used as a VTOL launch pad and it would be sitting right in front of what I'm guessing is a Bridge/Primary Flight Control island which as far as safety is concerned is going to be the best damned place to stick it.

NINJA EDIT: And one more thing, just ask any flightdeck crewman operating on any carrier anywhere in the world if they would like more operating space on the flightdeck and you'll get a resounding "YES PLEASE!"

[Gaidin]

I'm kind of wondering, what's the scale of the fighters relative to the carrier?

[Terralthra]

If you're seriously considering two angled landing decks in a V, it means you have missed the point of the angled landing deck in the first place. If craft landing on one deck misses the arrest and has to do a touch and go, it ascends directly into the flight path of any aircraft doing the same from the other deck. Conversely, if the two decks touch at the near end, instead of the far end, aircraft have to descend across one another's flight paths. The structure of your landing and launching decks should be designed such that each deck is as independent as possible from any of the others.

Asymmetry is practically a requirement for this criterion to be fulfilled.

[gigabytelord]

I'm thinking that's what the rectangles are for. Small aircraft (Fighters/bombers) are parked in the small rectangles, and the larger ones are for transport craft, heavy bombers, attack helo equivalents. So on and so forth.

[Fuzzy_Modem]

I'm kind of wondering, what's the scale of the fighters relative to the carrier?

That's rather up in the air, and will likely come down to the scale of the windows on my re-texture and the integration of a higher quality elevator model, and the size of the aircraft in relation to the elevator as evidenced in a the cockpit scene with the elevator rising sequence rear-projected, which we've already filmed.

The current (very low quality) aircraft and elevator models can be seen here: http://crossovercomic.com/media/extras/ ... e.0009.jpg

[gigabytelord]

To clarify (which I am terrible at), one deck would be launching from the aft, port (or starboard) side. while the other would be receiving from the aft, starboard (or port) side top of the V meaning the flight paths don't intersect. This then means that technically only one of the decks, the receiver, would reach to the bottom of the V at the stem (or bow) of the ship. This would be the necessary incase of a bolter.

Hopefully that clears things up abit?

Also all of this would mean that the launch deck wouldn't need to be as long as the receiver deck, maybe only half the length.

NINJA!

[Gaidin]

Would the idea of launch tubes work in atmosphere or was that a one time thing in season 3 of BSG for a reason?