Description
The Courageous-class ships had an overall length of 786 feet 9 inches (239.8 m), a beam of 90 feet 6 inches (27.6 m), and a draught of 28 feet (8.5 m) at deep load. These were increases of 9 feet 6 inches (2.9 m) in beam and over 2 feet (0.6 m) in draught compared to their earlier incarnations as battlecruisers. They displaced 24,210 long tons (24,600 t) at normal load and 26,990 long tons (27,420 t) at deep load, increases of over 3,000 long tons (3,000 t). Their metacentric height declined from 6 feet (1.8 m) at deep load to 4.4 feet (1.3 m) and the ships had a complete double bottom. In 1939, Courageous had a complement of 807 officers and enlisted men, plus 403 men in her air group.
Their half-sister Furious was the same length, but had a beam of 89 feet 0.75 inches (27.1 m), and an average draught of 27 feet 3 inches (8.3 m) at deep load, two feet deeper than before the conversion. She displaced 22,500 long tons (22,900 t) at normal load and 26,500 long tons (26,900 t) at deep load, over 3,000 long tons more than her previous displacement of 19,513 long tons (19,826 t) at load and 22,890 long tons (23,260 t) at deep load. Furious's metacentric height was 3.6 feet (1.1 m) at deep load, a reduction of 1.48 feet (0.5 m) after her conversion. In 1932, Furious had a complement of 738 officers and enlisted men, plus 468 men in her air group.
Read more about this topic: Courageous Class Aircraft Carrier
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“It [Egypt] has more wonders in it than any other country in the world and provides more works that defy description than any other place.”
—Herodotus (c. 484–424 B.C.)
“As they are not seen on their way down the streams, it is thought by fishermen that they never return, but waste away and die, clinging to rocks and stumps of trees for an indefinite period; a tragic feature in the scenery of the river bottoms worthy to be remembered with Shakespeare’s description of the sea-floor.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)