by maurice de saxe » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:57 pm
Here are a few notes about how and why B�arn appears nonconformist. B�arn had a double hangar � two levels � but, unlike British and Japanese carriers (where double hangars increased the size of the embarked air group), the function of the two levels was intended to be separated: the upper level was for stowage of operational aircraft and the lower level for maintenance. The upper level (designed to accommodate up to 60 aircraft) was intended to separate embarked aircraft by function: the forward section was for fighters, the central section for torpedo and bombing machines, and the after section for observation and spotting aircraft. The elevators were sized to match (probably not a very good idea!). Each elevator served both levels. To facilitate more continuous operations, rather than using the platform of the elevators as an essential part of the flight deck, the wells were covered by hinged covers that, necessarily, were vertical whenever an elevator was raised to flight deck level (so that they did not obstruct egress from the elevators). The concept was that elevators could move between levels without disrupting flight deck operations. The elevators could strike down aircraft to the upper hangar, or damaged machines to the lower maintenance hangar, and their movement would not prevent continuing operations on the flight deck because the hinged covers would maintain its continuity.
There is quite a bit more information in Francis Dousset: Les Porte-Avions Fran�ais and a book on the ship itself that I cannot locate at the moment in my library (too many titles!).
Maurice
Here are a few notes about how and why B�arn appears nonconformist. B�arn had a double hangar � two levels � but, unlike British and Japanese carriers (where double hangars increased the size of the embarked air group), the function of the two levels was intended to be separated: the upper level was for stowage of operational aircraft and the lower level for maintenance. The upper level (designed to accommodate up to 60 aircraft) was intended to separate embarked aircraft by function: the forward section was for fighters, the central section for torpedo and bombing machines, and the after section for observation and spotting aircraft. The elevators were sized to match (probably not a very good idea!). Each elevator served both levels. To facilitate more continuous operations, rather than using the platform of the elevators as an essential part of the flight deck, the wells were covered by hinged covers that, necessarily, were vertical whenever an elevator was raised to flight deck level (so that they did not obstruct egress from the elevators). The concept was that elevators could move between levels without disrupting flight deck operations. The elevators could strike down aircraft to the upper hangar, or damaged machines to the lower maintenance hangar, and their movement would not prevent continuing operations on the flight deck because the hinged covers would maintain its continuity.
There is quite a bit more information in Francis Dousset: Les Porte-Avions Fran�ais and a book on the ship itself that I cannot locate at the moment in my library (too many titles!).
Maurice