Do Aircraft carriers have any Aero design onsiderations?

[freebeard]

Both runways on this carrier have 1/4-round, leading-edge fairings, as you'd see on the bottom of an open-test-section wind tunnel nozzle at the test-section's entrance, which prevents vena-contracta entry loss formation and the attendant turbulence formation.

There's the answer to OP's question.

Your diverters and air dams on cars must use vena contracta to limit the air going into the underbody.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

There's the answer to OP's question.

Your diverters and air dams on cars must use vena contracta to limit the air going into the underbody.

If you revisit the original video for 'Spirit', you'll see the effect with the smoke flow.
On centerline, the flow detaches to about 3" below the airdam, before it reattaches downstream onto the belly pan.
Spirit generates front downforce, and the airdam is the likely culprit.
It would have been the same for 'Spindletop' CRX, and the '64, ' screaming yellow zonkers ', Karmann-Ghia.

[j-c-c]

This pic is a good example of what I was referring to in reply #20 here that likely did not have any deck aero concerns

[freebeard]

Are they still built that way?

Maybe seaworthiness is a concern?

[j-c-c]

No, which was my possible contention, the early carriers were because they were mostly converted battleships/cruisers for manufacturing speed and convenience and likely cost.

[freebeard]

It's hard to respond to a 'possible contention'.

I looked at www.slashgear.com/1620347/what-happened-uss-langley-first-us-aircraft-carrier/ and cimsec.org/the-50-year-dilemma-in-aircraft-carrier-design-and-the-future-of-american-naval-aviation/ because I want to be helpful, but it's getting hard to care.

I think the catapult moots the effect of a Turbulent Boundary Layer.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It's hard to respond to a 'possible contention'.

I looked at www.slashgear.com/1620347/what-happened-uss-langley-first-us-aircraft-carrier/ and cimsec.org/the-50-year-dilemma-in-aircraft-carrier-design-and-the-future-of-american-naval-aviation/ because I want to be helpful, but it's getting hard to care.

I think the catapult moots the effect of a Turbulent Boundary Layer.

I suspect it does. or the planes might be crashing into the water.

[freebeard]

I remember a story about a hot-shot pilot who said "Watch me" and tried to hook a sharp right turn right off the flight deck. The whole thing went sideways.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by j-c-c

This pic is a good example of what I was referring to in reply #20 here that likely did not have any deck aero concerns

This carrier also has the rounded leading edge, however, it has a vertical 'fence', which would be considered a parasitic excrescence ( unless it retracts during launch operations ), whereas the USS Kittyhawk has no fence, using catch webbing instead, should someone fall over the edge of the deck.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by Daniel Miller

I know that they are slightly inclined to support the takeoff of the planes, mostly to get tailwind support. I don't know if there is a reason to go fast. This doesn't mean they are slow, of course, but the priority is to ensure that the planes can take off and land easily.

In all my comments shared here, I have intentionally neglected comments regarding any carrier aero design considerations towards landings, as I don't think much of a case can be made to support that consideration aero design wise. To repeat, my concern here was what was happening aero wise in the location and at the moment an aircraft actually lifts off that is affected by the bow air currents shaped by the above water design of the carrier at and forward of that lift off area. I admit this specific concern has not landed well it seems in this discussion. I also have no idea how a tailwind in reality is any part of this discussion nor is it a factor, as it is never sought on carriers, but I maybe wrong.