Musing on it, a converted battleship with no prior experience with the type, cap 1 kida works, and if a later card did the full conversion spaverio give that cap 2.
Flip side is, fly-off strike, fighter cover4 are possibilities we might consider
STUKA OPERATIONS: The Ju 87B Stuka,Ju 87 R2 Picchiatelli and Ju 87D can base on this unit.
Freccia Operations - The G.50 Freccia can base on this unit
Improvised ASW - instead of thier normal attack, aircraft based on this unit may make a 2 dice ASW attack in the air attack step
==================
CAP2 + poor facilities?
Cap1 + fly off strike?
I still like the idea of Cap 2/Poor Facilities... If we are giving it Stukka/Freccia operations, I would wnat to be able to use them both and not have to choose.
I've been hunting but cant get a definite planned aircraft complement. Best i saw was a world of warship forum post putting it at 30. The hull persisted til 1926 though.
Bearn and Eagle are roughly speaking the same tonnage, bearn is in fact much shorter The in game logic au64 makes about having both squadrons makes sense too
I have also seen (going off a SpringSharp guide) that the theoretical maximum aircraft that can be fit on a hull is Beam * Length / 70, which would put the maximum number at 89 aircraft.
Using the Same method for Akagi, we get 110 aircraft (vs. 66 combat ready), and for Lexington 122 (as opposed to the actual 90).
Taking a ratio of aircraft for Albatro corrected for historical conversions, we would get a range of 53 to 65 aircraft, which would best be classified Cap 2 (to allow a generous margin for spars).
I would prefer a proper plan or reference to be certain.
Gen. Bonfegettis proposal for a from scratch carrier was projected with 40. Theyre similar in dimension. So i can see where your coming from and the logic to it. Just, references :/
After intensive internet searching, i have found nothing better than line drawing for this. If references exist, there in italian or in print or both.
What we know for sure, The hull was proposed to be used in a carrier in 1921, during the washington naval treaty talks. This plan resurfaces. Again was rejected and she's scrapped the next year.
A 9000t, carrier was in fact ordered by the RM in 1921/22 but cancelled after. This ship is in the ryujo/hosho/hermes/langley range. This is confirmed in warship 2007.
Further proposals were made after this as far as a 1936 crisis here the augustus/rex became thecpredominant proposals. An emergency carrier similar to our spaverio, then falco (spaverio as aquila) then aquila as we have, and spaverio as we have.
But in terms of actual specifucations we've got not much to go on to lock this away. I've been stalking Tiornu on the old forum to see if he mentioned anything. No luck as yet.
My enthusiasm for using FC as the ship is waning. I think the SA combinations are fine but a italian Ryujo makes a lot more sense in terms of practicality and economics than Ansaldo trying to bilk the italian government. Especially if we're grasping at reference straws.