How come the the landing area on aircraft carriers not be straight?

O yeah, why do you think its not safe?

Is this directed at me? If it is then I do think that it is just as safe as the current design. In fact I think this configuration would offer more free deck space for parking planes and for prepping them up.

The landings are all happening on one side of the ship and the remaining 2/3 of the main deck is totally unaffected, also this way the landing deck can’t cut straight thru the main deck.

O yeah I see it now, if aircraft misses or crashes its not farther out than we comfortably like.

Umm... what do you mean? I don't see how an aircraft will be anymore safe missing the wires on a diagonal deck as opposed to a parallel deck.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Umm... what do you mean? I don't see how an aircraft will be anymore safe missing the wires on a diagonal deck as opposed to a parallel deck.

Well if you look at the pic that you posted, the current configuration shows the angle of the landing that is pointing outward and away from the "main" deck. So if the aircraft crashes on the deck or miss the wires, its going to fly off outward at an angle. With the design I was thinking, its still close to the sitting aircraft that are parked, not tooo close, but close enough that it makes you nervous(I have seen pictures where many of the aircraft have parked at the edge of the deck and their tails are sticking out over the edge), but as I have mentioned that the landing area could be extended outward a few feet.

The first pic doesn't show the aircraft parked on the forward bow having their tails sticking out in front of the proposed landing area, however the other pics do show that the tails are in the way. That what makes me nervous. Of course they can just compensate by just moving the aircraft farther inward. That simple. No worries.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by deltaboy]

Based on WP23's schematic, (nice work, btw) the only remaining reservation I would have is the fore stated debris field from a deck strike on landing, and the loss of a portion of the landing distance for a whiff on the cables/go-around. Every inch of additional runway transfers into increased airpeed to avoid a stall on a go-around. I like the idea of all the extra space aft of the island.

Sorry that this may be late seing as Westpoint already made a good point concerning moving through the Panama Canal. Howevever I just thought I'd add that I'm quite sure that the Panamanian goverment does not allow nuclear material (including reactors aboard ships) to move through the canal anyhow. This means that as of January 1st, 2000 (I'm fairly certain of that, this is all from memory), it hasn't been a requirement for any nuclear powered ship to be able to move through the Panama Canal.

hey nice pic westie : BUT the first thing that springs to mind - is lifts - i want at least one lift , port AND starboard .

the second is balance , sea worthyness and COG issues - but thats really a minor issue .

also - the panama canal aside - the carriers have to fit in the dry docks @ nofolk - you cannot just make them " beamier " on a whim -

the nazis did that with tirpitz - and look where it got them - the " normandie dock " @ st nazirre was the only one that could handle it - and we all know wahat happened to that

consequently - when the RAF finally got thier first bomb hit on her - the damage was partly irreparable -

but my main critique is till the lifts , for reasons of all weather ops , damage control and survivilbility - they have lifts - on both sides for a damm good rason

plus - you can get more aicfaft up 2 lifts on oposite sides - than 3 on the same side - in most situations

ape out

One of the concpets for the CVN 21 had a landing deck off to one side though it's not completely straight.

My favourite straight landing deck design however is

Originally posted by dragon72
One of the concpets for the CVN 21 had a landing deck off to one side though it's not completely straight.

My favourite straight landing deck design however is

The first pic helps show how I want the future carrier should look like. However the pic on the bottom, it looks awesome and everything, however the way the carrier works on deck, it looks like it could take forever to launch a pair of aircraft on both sides of the carrier. First they have to get on the elevators, and they have to get out and reverse to the back to get on the cats. Thats not something anybody would support no doubt it.

#65 is the Enterprise. #70 is the Carl Vinson. I have been priveleged to work the Big E on a overhaul. Mostly catapults and jet blast doors on the Big E. #70 The USS Carl Vinson is undergoing overhaul in Newport News. A large extensive overhaul. I see her every day at work. Cant miss her for that matter..she is so big.
I dont think angled decks will disappear any time soon for the large nuclear type carriers. For the Amphibious carriers the straight decks are fine. These ships dont have catapults or arresting gear to worry about. Helos and AV8B Harriers dont need this gear. I dont think this will change when the Marines replace thier aging AV8B Harriers with the new Joint strike aircraft...their version to replace the Harrier. THe Amphib ships I believe are build down at the Pasgogula , Mississippi shipyard along with many of the cruisers. The USS Cole was also born there.
All the large Nuclear Carriers are born here in Virginia. Very few shipyards want the hassle..politically ..to handle such nuclear material on this scale needed for one of these big carriers. This is the largest private shipyard in America. Northrop Grumman Newport News.

THanks,
Orangetom

Years ago before 9/11 prompted all the new security and such, I also had the privledge of going aboard the Big E. Quite an impressive ship I must say. However the first thing that I noticed was the sheer size of the ship.

I must honestly say that from what I saw, carriers are already immense and you'd really be pushing it to add on to them with perfectly straight decks. Although the Big E seemed to fit well into it's dock, I'd hazard to guess that carriers can't get too much wider at the moment without causing a few docking problems.

I'd imagine that if the deck actually hung above the deck then it would be very difficult to board and resupply the ships. And I'm guessing that it would have to be wider on both sides simply to keep the ship from tipping over on one side under rough conditions.

As a pilot that has landed on the old stright deck with and jet and the angled deck with a prop aircraft, angle is the only way to go. Too much can and does go wrong with carrier landings and takeoffs. If you have a very big wallet for airplanes and many replacable bodies, you can implement the changes back to the very harzardus stright. War damaged aircraft don't land stright ahead, they go in any direction including over the side and into parked aircraft.
You should propose airport runways only 4 feed wider that the landing gear separation if your airplanes to operated in the maner expected from this whole thread. Look at the savings in pavement. But just in case order lots of crash trucks and ambulances.
Airplanes fly in all weather and not in a warm chair at a computer. Having flown both computers and airplanes, I can assure you, airplanes have a bad tendency of doing their own thing at times and do not go in the expected direction.