Do Aircraft carriers have any Aero design onsiderations?

[j-c-c]

This is maybe pertinent but not part of my original consideration:

" Unfortunately, Royal Navy rejected his idea. The first full-deck aircraft carrier, HMS Argus, was completed in 1918 without a superstructure. As Royal Navy’s experience with Furious, which, in her original carrier configuration, had an immense superstructure in the centre of the flight deck, showed that turbulence was a significant problem for landing aircraft."
https://themaritimepost.com/2021/10/...tarboard-side/

[freebeard]

Pertinent to "Do Aircraft carriers have any Aero design onsiderations[sic]?" but not what's happening upwind.

The other significant factor was they had the funnels sticking out the side.That didn't last.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by j-c-c

This is maybe pertinent but not part of my original consideration:

" Unfortunately, Royal Navy rejected his idea. The first full-deck aircraft carrier, HMS Argus, was completed in 1918 without a superstructure. As Royal Navy’s experience with Furious, which, in her original carrier configuration, had an immense superstructure in the centre of the flight deck, showed that turbulence was a significant problem for landing aircraft."
https://themaritimepost.com/2021/10/...tarboard-side/

In 1918 we'd be looking at very 'light', cloth-covered, tail-dragger, bi-wing aircraft, of rather low stall speed , which are hard enough to master 'on land.' And it's easy to imagine the challenge to landing, on the sea, and all wind variables that could be thrown at a pilot.
Add a hundred years though, and I doubt whether or not the presence of a superstructure's 'aerodynamics' could even be felt by a pilot. The 'momentum' of carrier-ready aircraft of modern-day mass and inertias would render them oblivious to a gust that could wreck an aircraft of 1918.
The 'fuel' alone, on a 1970's NAVY F-4 Phantom, would out weigh the 'total' weight of eleven Curtiss JN-4D 'Jenny' airplanes.

[j-c-c]

I agree and mainly why landing aspects were never part of my original question.

[freebeard]

Oh, really?

Specifically, is any gain in laminar airflow across the flight deck to assist/enhance take-off and landings a consideration in the ships overall design?

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Oh, really?

Touche.

However, On the third post (below) on this thread, my second post mere hours later from my first post, I believe I made my first attempt to narrow my threads concern to the bow's takeoff area. Not sure I ever deviated later from that primary area of concern anytime afterwards even if deck after the takeoff area has any issues with airflow.

#3 "On US carriers the deck is extremely flat in the takeoff portion IMO.
My thinking a carrier in many ways might operate as an inverted flat bottom car with a front splitter, optimizing smooth/proper air flow for aircraft on the deck, but my question centers around, is that intentional?"

[freebeard]

Galloping goalposts. Still don't care.

Airborne aircraft carrier
An airborne aircraft carrier is a type of mother ship aircraft which can carry, launch, retrieve and support other smaller parasite aircraft. The only dedicated examples to have been built were airships, although existing heavier-than-air aircraft have been modified for use in similar roles. Wikipedia

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by j-c-c

Touche.

However, On the third post (below) on this thread, my second post mere hours later from my first post, I believe I made my first attempt to narrow my threads concern to the bow's takeoff area. Not sure I ever deviated later from that primary area of concern anytime afterwards even if deck after the takeoff area has any issues with airflow.

#3 "On US carriers the deck is extremely flat in the takeoff portion IMO.
My thinking a carrier in many ways might operate as an inverted flat bottom car with a front splitter, optimizing smooth/proper air flow for aircraft on the deck, but my question centers around, is that intentional?"

I would presume that every 'feature' of any military hardware has been 'thought to death.'
'Splitters', while around since 1931 on self-powered passenger rail cars ( WESTINGHOUSE Corp. ), and around 1935 on at least one research automobile ( Koenig- Fachsenfeld's at the FKFS, Stuttgart, Germany ), would be the time frame you'd want to be looking into carrier bow design.
Cross-pollination in fluid mechanics technologies would not escape aircraft carrier design considerations.