I understand she burned through 1000 tons of coal on a 1 way trip and violated the Washington Naval Treaty as well as being part of a class of ships that was notoriously catastrophic but she's 260 meters long and with enough underdeck space to store a huge squadron. They could've had the Essex class carrier in 1917 come on.
Ok real talk why didn't they convert Olympic into an aircraft carrier
2,613 Tythatguy1312
4.6 years ago
@PointlessWhyshouldi most aircraft or airships at the time didn't need that much space. There's solid record of an aircraft landing on the forward deck of HMS Furious, so landing on a 260 meter long flight deck would be a relative breeze
They didn’t have the system to propel the planes fast enough forwards and because they didn’t the planes would need a takeoff space of at least 6,000 ft (1,800 m)@Badplanesdotnet
@PointlessWhyshouldi yes but the better ones were in service around the same time as Olympic's military aquisition. She wasn't even the first, seaplane tenders were already an old concept
Biplanes heavy slow inefficient @Badplanesdotnet
@PointlessWhyshouldi Olympic was literally the size of RMS Titanic.
Yes but these small biplanes that are trying to get of a boat isn’t a good idea @Badplanesdotnet
@PointlessWhyshouldi we are talking about the British Empire at its peak. They could 100% afford to do it
Because its more expensive to convert it than to just buy something new