The only criticism (or the only serious doubt ) I have to do to you, is that I think the width of your flight-deck (40 meters) is too large for this 260 meters battlecruiser-hull
I basically drew her as a scaled up Glorious while trying to stick with Canis' drawing as close as possible. http://wolfsshipyard.com/Misc/NeverWeres/royal.htm Working on those lines I tried to keep the proportions the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious.
I worked her out to weigh in at about 56,000 tons using the Glorious conversion as a guide I have never used springsharp so if anyone can do the numbers for me I would be most interested.
Thanks mates I'm pleased you liked her I think I will do a sister Invincible refitted for war service.
Great drawing! That belt has a good area of coverage, good thing too because this beast doesn't look like it can turn fast enough to avoid anything.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom
denodon wrote:Neat work indeed, I'd not heard of her original design but as a carrier she's certainly interesting. Also true to form, the RN continues the tradition with having some great names for its ships.
Just a question though, what are those big bulky biplanes you have forward of the flight deck? It looks kinda like an Avro Bison.
I must admit Indefatigable is a superb name and I think the name and Kim's brilliant badge suit the ship.
Iv'e looked at this drawing for over a week now and only just spotted you're right Denodon. That aircraft is the Bison. I inadvertently put the plan view of the Blackburn on the top. Whoops.
It's a very nice drawing. One wonders if the RN would have been able to convince itself to stick with such a small medium-caliber battery, or if Lexington-like forces within the Admiralty would result in the inclusion of a larger-caliber main battery for surface action.
Thanks mate. I can't ever see the Admiralty putting bigger guns on a carrier and personally I believe them to be right. The larger guns take up too much space and top weight that can be spent on more aircraft. Only one out of five pre war carrier, Glorious, was lost to surface action and 6" or 8" guns wouldn't have saved her from Scharnhorst.
Well, I think one can reasonably advance the argument that this carrier is so big that she cannot efficiently operate all of the aircraft that she could theoretically carry. Spending weight on a heavier gun armament would be worse than building a right-size carrier, but the hull is presumably already built. If some of the hangar space is not useful, one might consider more guns (even if we can say they would have been useless in retrospect).
As I recall, the Midways carried more F4U-scale aircraft than were really efficiently operable before the angled deck (and before larger aircraft reduced the total number carried).
Not saying your line of thinking is incorrect, just something I was pondering.
) I have to do to you, is that I think the width of your flight-deck (40 meters) is too large for this 260 meters battlecruiser-hull
I have never used springsharp so if anyone can do the numbers for me I would be most interested.
I think I will do a sister Invincible refitted for war service. 
