RE: Super Carrier (was: Transport capacities)

On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Bell, Brian K wrote:

> 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.

I was thinking that a tierd affect would work for the launch decks. If I

did two ark Royals, I'd definately do one Broomstick on it. Though a 
second smaller cruiser sized broom stick on the other side would be a 
real idea (smaller aux bridge, used for aircraft control and launching).

I've got one on my Arc Royal instead of the weapons battery spatula. 

I'm not sure how I'd do things, further than that.

> 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 

I was thinking Collosus Class would be fitting. 

> 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.

That is true, perhaps I should just go for a pair of Ark Royals to slap 
the NSL around on fleet maneuvers. 

Ryan
NAC/OU player with no ESU or FSE players to beat up on. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------