RE: Super Carrier (was: Transport capacities)

I think that if I were doing it I would put them belly to belly. 
This then gives the landing platform much more head room.
The only drawback that I see is that the landing platform is
asymmetrical.
Having the angled side opposite on the ships may make it look funny.
Were you going to do two Inflexibles, an Inflexible and an Arc Royal or
two
Arc Royals? If two Arc Royals, I would probably only mount one boom.

When I rang it in the my FTSR Type 3 Ship Designer, I ended up with the
following:
Abyss class Uber Carrier 
Brian Bell 
Tech: Human (FB) 
Govt: NAC 
Mass: 400 
Cost: 1380 (1596) 
Clas: Uber Carrier (CVU) 
Hull: Weak 
Strm: None 
FTL: Std. 
MD: 4 
Armr: 24 
Damg: 80; 20/20/20/20 
Crew: 20 
Sens: Std. 
Systems
 2 x Screen
 4 x FCS
 8 x PDS
 4 x Class-2 beam (All)
 4 x Class-1 beam (All)
 12 x Fighter Bay 
Notes: 

The ship ended up witht the same mass/cost as two Arc Royals. I would
think
that the flexiblity of two ships (including the quicker launch/recovery
time) would be better than one Uber-Carrier.

-----
Brian Bell
brian_bell@dscc.dla.mil
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	    
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan M Gill [SMTP:monty@arcadia.turner.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 4:15 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: Transport capacities
> 
[snip]

> I'm currently contemplating a super carrier form for Full Thrust. 
> Essentially two hull sections arranged en-echelon, both with launch
decks 
> a fore and engine sections to the rear. 
> 
[snip]