Shipbucket

As the uploading thread is not for discussion, I'll give my toughts about this drawing in here.

The ship certainly looks unfinished. I understand the idea of prepesenting it as close as possiple to the available source materials but we must remember that most of references itself of "never-where" and "almoust-where" designs are artist impressions. So why not continue the route and instead of making only an shipbucket rendition of the existing artist impression make a own shipbucket style artist impression of the design. In this case meaning "inventing" and imaging possiple details missing from the existing sources?

To my eyes the crude contrast of over-detailed radars (over-detailed in the sense that you couldn't be able to spot the details if looking the ship from the distance which the SB scale tries to prepesent the ships) in this bleak and undetailed hull and superstructure is too high and makes the desicion of leaving the ship deliberately without detailing bit questionable.

Regarding it being ready enough to be uploaded in the next uploading session I wont comment for now. I want you Ace consider the issue yourself and what ever solution you may end up, eventually just admit it to the uploading session and I will make my decision.

Golly

I'll take an look then. note that not much will be added in any case, mostly liferafts and maybe 4-5 openings for mooring. fact is that to keep an hull like this seaworthy, she will have less openings and equipment visible then an nimitz class for example. I will gladly listen to advice from people knowing more of carriers then I, because I have no idea where to put the mooring holes and liferafts (just copying the older carrier drawings is not an option, I need to know why, that was exactly why I omitted them.... but ok)

The hull itself carries little details. My advice is focusing on the overhangs and the superstructure. Think stuff like portholes, doors, racks, walkways and so on...

WIP of an redailing. mast and flight deck still needs to be done, other then that mostly done.

Looking much better already.

Few comments "Ace", for some additionnals details

- mast: as said, the mast is not yet done. also, an fact is that the mast shown on the source material should be followed. same for the funnel.
- refueling system: the ship is refueled by positions aft and near the boat area, following the source material. she would not have had UNREP masts herself.
- note that the artist impressions are often not exactly like the real concept, and most likely 'spied' on the older designs. if better source material, like lineart, is available, then this should be followed. I suppose you know that.
- these open bays are exactly what I say that will NOT be on her. why not? because this ship has, compared with the nimitz and other supercarrier classes, an relatively short and stubby hull, with very small sponsons, and will most likely be quite wet because of that. these bays would, because of that, be more wet and dangerous then useful, while they pose an thread to the ships strenght girder.
- mooring system: that is not an mooring system. look at the carriers of the same period and see what those are. it might be that those 'parts' are used for mooring, but they look as what I have drawn, not as what you suggest
- the liferafts are not placed on that position EVER on USN ships, and I think it would be an bad idea to do so as well.

acelanceloet wrote:mast: as said, the mast is not yet done. also, an fact is that the mast shown on the source material should be followed. same for the funnel.

Whatever you say, your mast seems "strange" and is not similar to the U.S mast of this era (mid 1970’s/mid 1980’s)…
Your "Mast" must be improved, and look same the U.S 1970's/1980's Mast...

acelanceloet wrote:refueling system: the ship is refueled by positions aft and near the boat area, following the source material. she would not have had UNREP masts herself.

Too easy an answer ...
The problem is that on your drawing, this system is not VISIBLE. Very difficult to believe that a 60 000 tons ship, with 2000 to 5000 tons of fuel and thousands of tons of ammunition/food/ect... has no "VISIBLE" refueling/replenishment system. Your current refueling system is not visible...

acelanceloet wrote:note that the artist impressions are often not exactly like the real concept, and most likely 'spied' on the older designs. if better source material, like lineart, is available, then this should be followed. I suppose you know that.

I know
The big problem is that you have these drawings as a "blind sources" (sometimes even when these drawings sources themselves are false or incomplete !). Though those drawings sources are not perfectly precise/accurate, we must add to your drawing SOME ANALYSIS & THINKING !!!

acelanceloet wrote:these open bays are exactly what I say that will NOT be on her. why not? because this ship has, compared with the nimitz and other supercarrier classes, an relatively short and stubby hull, with very small sponsons, and will most likely be quite wet because of that. these bays would, because of that, be more wet and dangerous then useful, while they pose an thread to the ships strenght girder.

Completely wrong
Many smaller U.S. ships (LHA, LHD, LSD, LPD, Large cargo/fuel/submarines tenders & so....) but still "big", have these "open-bay". Because on large vessels, keep these open bay is very usefull (for harbor-movements/mooring & ship-safety (ideal position for light 7,62 & 12,7mm machines guns...)).
In any case the existence of these "sided open-bay" could threaten the strength of the ship (just see the future British 60 000 tons aircraft carriers to see that they too have sponsons and open-bay on the sides).
All true sailors will tell you the same thing !!!

acelanceloet wrote:mooring system: that is not an mooring system. look at the carriers of the same period and see what those are. it might be that those 'parts' are used for mooring, but they look as what I have drawn, not as what you suggest.

OK, here
you do what you want, a very small detail

acelanceloet wrote:the liferafts are not placed on that position EVER on USN ships, and I think it would be an bad idea to do so as well.

In this aera, this sponson is the closest to the water. Difficult to imagine that there is no life-rafts (as Liferafts are still "scattered" along the hull, ideally near water, for "quicker action").


My goal is not to criticize you, but to add a MAXimum of (realistic ) details on this ship

- it needs improvement, straigthening, etc.... but I will not redraw her based on other ships or anything like that. but I said you that before, unfinished
- take the burke shipbucket drawing. can you see where it is refueled? you most likely know that that is being done on the forecastle, just in front of the structure. a few pipes and some connection points are linked here. nothing more then that is needed....... and by the fact that that point is mostly hidden by the boats, or is underneath the stern overhang, and by that would make it invisible.
- I disagree. those ships you name have an different hull shape. while different in size, the hull of this ship will be closer to that of an spruance then to an LPD. also, the british carriers have way larger sponsons. the only ship which I could name as similar is the LCC
these ships have openings in the sponsons, but these are mostly for boat handling, anything what is larger is comparable with the size of the opening in the stern of CVV.
note also, that while, when needed, these openings can be made, they must be strengthened, weakening the 'strength per position' of the ship, not that this is impossible to build: all can be build.
- of course I will
- yeah, place liferafts near the CIWS. very good idea. -.-
liferafts are always placed on the positions I have them now. not just next to weapon systems, as you can understand I suppose.

so, that's it. I will keep this one until I start on the top and the 'other side' views, if there is an upload session in the meantime this one goes up
you guys content now? haha