Search results for query: Implacable

...that it was not worth upgrading Illustrious and Formidable, the first four ships may have been dropped from the program, and the Implacables upgraded instead. The newer larger Implacables would have provided longer life and greater capability but also dropping four ships would have made...

What would be the effect of when designing the Implacables, an Audacious size hull was used from the start - does that delay their completion

Agreed, but what I was suggesting is the upgrade order be reversed and it start with one of the Implacables instead of one of the Illustrious, possibly because it was realised that Illustrious and Furious were in a poor material state. From my reading the Illustrious were selected because there...

...Victorious as reconstructed: 775 x 145ft 9in (236.2 x 44.42m) Indomitable: 750 x 95ft (228.6 x 29m); 745ft (227m) usable length in 1943 Implacable: 760 x 102ft (231.6 x 31.1m) So the Implacable's 20ft additional additional waterline length only allowed 10ft additional flight deck length...

One of the factors that caused the Implacables to be ruled out of modernisation was degree to which they were substantially different from Victorious. The 4 shaft and plant arrangement took up much more of the hull volume and this made the changes to how the modernisation could be implemented...

Now the fun part, at least for me is.. IF they had built my version of the Implacable's.. do they sell one to India in the 80's?

While the resulting ships would be larger and somewhat more capable, I don't think picking the Implacables instead of Victorious really solves any of the problems of the postwar Royal Navy. All of the scope creep that hit Victorious applies to the Implacables. Yes, even the steam plant - while...

Except I doubt that rebuilding the Implacables generates anything better than Victorious. They are just not that much bigger dimensionally and have even bigger problems to overcome in the reconstruction.

Gloster Meteor F.3 (N) EE337 aboard HMS Implacable, on the 16 June 1948.

I've been hearing this since I joined this site. Is there anything in the historical record that documents this?

...combat load due to the Cats being too short, and not being able to be extended due to the placement of the forward elevator (she did launch one lightly loaded which had come from an American carrier if i remember correctly) I doubt the layout would have been any better on an Implacable rebuild.

No by '52 that was ditched and the New Carrier was begun.

So what we want is for the Colossus to be Majestics, the Majestics to be Centaurs and the Implacables to be Audacious.....with Y300 type machinery and A/C electrics all round. :)

...respects like speed and tonnage, but dimensionally nearer Victorious. Victorious -710ft on waterline. 28.6k tons full load. 30,5 knots Implacable - 730ft on waterline. 32.1k tons full load. 32.5 knots Essex - 820ft on waterline. 36.4k tons full load. 33knots The whole premise of the...

...the hangar. Can still only pack them 3 abreast. Might gain one row. The difference came with the extra half Hangar in Indomitable and the Implacables Indomitable upper 416×62 Lower 208×62 Hangar capacity was 45 based on Albacore sized aircraft . Implacable Upper 456×62 Lower 208x62 Hangar...

Found what I wrote about the hangar & hull depth of the Implacables & Indomitable on another site over 2 years ago. I hope that it still makes sense. It did, to me at least, at the time!!! Indomitable was the subject of an 8 month delay in her construction as her armour had to come from...

The extended Illustrious family of six carriers was a rebuilt "death trap". For a start, the six ships were not homogenous but rather 3+1+2, each with different rebuilt. Mostly because of the armored hangars, the kiss-of-death : with their impact over the whole ship and their different heights -...

Like I wrote earlier on. When something feels too good to be true it usually is.

...plan (no names, no packdrill). The lifts can be seen in their lowered positions beneath the 4.5in sponsons. Sadly without an higher-rez Implacable/Indefatigable plan its not easy to settle the matter. I tried overlaying a lower-rez Implacable over this, I lined up the bow/double-bottom...

It's perhaps worth noting that Victorious' original hangar size was 456 x 62ft. The Implacables' upper hangar was merely 2ft longer at 458ft. So there is no additional wriggle room to move the forward centreline lift any further aft without ending up with a smaller hangar than 360ft (Victorious...