This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure how it could be said that features of the class found their way into postwar American carrier designs. Certainly, the supercarriers have the flight deck as part of the hull; however, that grew out of the design requirements for carriers on such a heavy tonnage - literally more than double the tonnage of any war-era carrier. It had nothing to do with Illustrious. Iceberg3k 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Where was the class built? Is it true that some British carriers were built in the US due to German raids?
However, the hangar could be made larger and thus more aircraft could be carried, but the differences in aircraft capacity between these carriers and their USN counterparts is mostly due to the USN's operational doctrine, which allowed for a permanent deck park of aircraft to augment their hangar capacity.
You can do this when the ship is likely to be operating in the relatively mild (most of the time anyway) weather of the Pacific. It's not so practicable when operating in the North Atlantic in winter, when severe gales blow most of the time and the seas are often described as 'mountainous'. This is also why the US 'open' type of carrier construction is also much less usable. British carriers (and all RN vessels) were designed to cope-with, and to fight-in, these sort of seas, the sort that many navies would have difficulty staying afloat in. At least one foreign-built escort carrier broke up in such seas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.176 ( talk)
Please discuss your edits here. Enterprise's hangar was irregular shaped, but not all the area of the hangar was available for parking aircraft, because the elevators and workshops took up much of the hangar floor space, whereas Illustrious hangar had the elevators arranged at either end where they did not reduce hangar floor space. In any event, if you could present a detailed explanation of your analysis, we can work to incorporate it into the article, after appropriate discussion and referencing. Damwiki1 ( talk) 10:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a number of problems with the recent edit regarding USS Enterprise (CV6). The edit is improperly cited. The cite is for a date when Enterprise was in dry dock being rebuilt with new blisters and by definition carried no aircraft, this fact alone renders the cited source as inaccurate and unreliable. This is an article about the Illustrious class carriers. Comparisons with other carriers are not relevant except in some specific cases, such as the advantages and disadvantages of the armour scheme of the Illustrious class and this is already covered in the article. The article clearly states that the armoured flight deck reduced the size of hangar and the dimensions given also show that the flight deck was also shortened, compared to non armoured flight deck carriers. I am going to revert the edit again as it is inappropriate for this article, aside from the fact that the cited source is clearly inaccurate. Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illustrious-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really true, but it is need to take into consideration 2 facts: - 3 lifts was part of hangar for Yorktown class decreasing her usable area - 2 lifts of Illustrious class was outside the area of hangar
Thus comparison should be done differently if we want compare usable space of hangar (apples with apples).
a) either decreasing Yorktown hangars by 3 lifts
- Yorktown: 28062 (546*63 - 3*48*44)
- Illustrious: 28272 (456*62)
b) adding 2 lifts of Illustrious to hangar space
- Yorktown: 34398 (546*63)
- Illustrious: 30252 (456*62+2*45*22)
note: all dimension in feet squared
As lift are not used to storage place of the aircrafts, method a) should be used.
Or at least in comparison should be noted that it is done with Yorktown lifts are counted however Illustrious are not counted as there are outside the hangar space.
85.207.12.140 (
talk) 08:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)d
So conclusions are that usable hangar space are +- same as it depends on way how it is compared and the difference of available aircrafts ship can carry comes from: a) USN using large permanent deck parks, RN only later in war (from 1943) b) large deck of Yorktown as effect of large dimensions of the ship
Is it correct to say The Illustrious class comprised four vessels: HM Ships Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious and Indomitable while also saying all three took part in the large actions of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945???
Tupelo the typo fixer ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure how it could be said that features of the class found their way into postwar American carrier designs. Certainly, the supercarriers have the flight deck as part of the hull; however, that grew out of the design requirements for carriers on such a heavy tonnage - literally more than double the tonnage of any war-era carrier. It had nothing to do with Illustrious. Iceberg3k 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Where was the class built? Is it true that some British carriers were built in the US due to German raids?
However, the hangar could be made larger and thus more aircraft could be carried, but the differences in aircraft capacity between these carriers and their USN counterparts is mostly due to the USN's operational doctrine, which allowed for a permanent deck park of aircraft to augment their hangar capacity.
You can do this when the ship is likely to be operating in the relatively mild (most of the time anyway) weather of the Pacific. It's not so practicable when operating in the North Atlantic in winter, when severe gales blow most of the time and the seas are often described as 'mountainous'. This is also why the US 'open' type of carrier construction is also much less usable. British carriers (and all RN vessels) were designed to cope-with, and to fight-in, these sort of seas, the sort that many navies would have difficulty staying afloat in. At least one foreign-built escort carrier broke up in such seas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.176 ( talk)
Please discuss your edits here. Enterprise's hangar was irregular shaped, but not all the area of the hangar was available for parking aircraft, because the elevators and workshops took up much of the hangar floor space, whereas Illustrious hangar had the elevators arranged at either end where they did not reduce hangar floor space. In any event, if you could present a detailed explanation of your analysis, we can work to incorporate it into the article, after appropriate discussion and referencing. Damwiki1 ( talk) 10:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a number of problems with the recent edit regarding USS Enterprise (CV6). The edit is improperly cited. The cite is for a date when Enterprise was in dry dock being rebuilt with new blisters and by definition carried no aircraft, this fact alone renders the cited source as inaccurate and unreliable. This is an article about the Illustrious class carriers. Comparisons with other carriers are not relevant except in some specific cases, such as the advantages and disadvantages of the armour scheme of the Illustrious class and this is already covered in the article. The article clearly states that the armoured flight deck reduced the size of hangar and the dimensions given also show that the flight deck was also shortened, compared to non armoured flight deck carriers. I am going to revert the edit again as it is inappropriate for this article, aside from the fact that the cited source is clearly inaccurate. Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illustrious-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really true, but it is need to take into consideration 2 facts: - 3 lifts was part of hangar for Yorktown class decreasing her usable area - 2 lifts of Illustrious class was outside the area of hangar
Thus comparison should be done differently if we want compare usable space of hangar (apples with apples).
a) either decreasing Yorktown hangars by 3 lifts
- Yorktown: 28062 (546*63 - 3*48*44)
- Illustrious: 28272 (456*62)
b) adding 2 lifts of Illustrious to hangar space
- Yorktown: 34398 (546*63)
- Illustrious: 30252 (456*62+2*45*22)
note: all dimension in feet squared
As lift are not used to storage place of the aircrafts, method a) should be used.
Or at least in comparison should be noted that it is done with Yorktown lifts are counted however Illustrious are not counted as there are outside the hangar space.
85.207.12.140 (
talk) 08:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)d
So conclusions are that usable hangar space are +- same as it depends on way how it is compared and the difference of available aircrafts ship can carry comes from: a) USN using large permanent deck parks, RN only later in war (from 1943) b) large deck of Yorktown as effect of large dimensions of the ship
Is it correct to say The Illustrious class comprised four vessels: HM Ships Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious and Indomitable while also saying all three took part in the large actions of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945???
Tupelo the typo fixer ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)