[Post Reply] [*]  Page 23 of 24  [ 233 posts ]  Go to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »
Author Message
RipSteakface
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 16
Joined: July 7th, 2017, 6:32 pm
WOW! Just...wow, man! These are just unbelievably incredible. I hate to ask you to do even more work, but do you think you could do an entry on the Novgorodian carrier aircraft at some point?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RaspingLeech
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 10:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 68
Joined: December 8th, 2015, 8:07 pm
Contact: Website
I understand a lot of these designs are based on actual Soviet never-were carriers, but it just seems odd to me that the Novgorodians would bounce between ski-ramps and catapaults. One would think they would choose one design and stick with it.

Needless to say these are all fantastic images nevertheless.

_________________
Current and Future Projects:
Ace Combat aces: Misc liveries
F-15 liveries: US (Aggressor, NASA), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore, never-were potential sales


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 11:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7723
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Fantastic! :)

_________________
My Worklist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 9:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4038
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
Thank you guys.

To awnser few questions:
Quote:
1. STOBAR carries are all fish and no fowl. What I mean by that is that you are not likely to find steam catapults on a STOBAR carrier. These machines are mechanically complex and take up too much deck space. The catapults also compete with the ski ramp for assisted takeoff function. At least that seems to be the RTL reasoning and current practice.
Only carrier which has both catapults and ski-jump ramp is the newest project 23000 class which doesen't have steam cats but EMALS. With those the force and speed of the launch can be controlled and adjusted far more accurately than steam catapults.
Quote:
3. I observe this other RTL item to consider for the AU aircraft fluff for early Novgorad AU naval jets. The USN had a lot of trouble with early pure swept wing Sabre-like jets, especially in traps. (Dutch rolls and stalls on approach.). Anything that looks like a Mig 19 in planform is possibly susceptible to the same RTL problems? The reason the 1950s modified cranked delta Panthers and Phantoms and the British Sea Vixens look the way they do is because a cranked delta planform is far more forgiving in a trap in near stall conditions. These jets of this era, one could suggest, were all underpowered compared to their piston engined predecessors and the present current generations of naval jets. There was no emergency military reserve for a pilot to power his way out of an A of A mistake.
As with British and Americans in RL, AV-RKKF in this AU also had to learn to master the launch and recovering of early jet fighters from the hard way. The I-6 and I-9 were adaptions of the land-based fighters and indeed had all the short-commings that arrow-winged fighters had. First proper fighter developted for carrier operations was the I-27 which had similar crancked-delta wings as in F-4, altough the plane was alot smaller. The next generation I-23 had VG wings as they gave even superior STOL characteristics. The 4th gen fighter I-34 pushed the limits even further with its integral blended-wing-body arragment.
Quote:
6. I do have one question based on my ignorance and my need to learn. Why three screw shafts? For turning circle and into the wind sheer reasons, US carriers have adopted either two or four shaft and symmetric rudder control for their carriers. Most other navies do or did the same. Why would the AU Novgorod navy be different? I mean I don't understand it and I would like to know the advantages. The RTL Germans were not stupid. They considered a three shaft and three rudder arrangement in some of their notional 1930s carrier designs.

The 3-shaft arragment seems to be quite popular in RL Soviet shipdesign, especially in the large combatants like carriers and battleships. Interesting enough is that none of the ships that actually emerged into reality did not have tripple screws (aside some of the smaller ones) but often adopted either 2 or 4 shafts.
Quote:
I understand a lot of these designs are based on actual Soviet never-were carriers, but it just seems odd to me that the Novgorodians would bounce between ski-ramps and catapaults. One would think they would choose one design and stick with it.
You just haven't read the descriptions of the carriers, the awnser is quite obviously explained there. Just like in OTL Soviets, the Ski-jump was orginally fitted for the I-41 (Yak-41 in RL) VSTOL fighters. In Novgorod, the first ship to have ski-jump is the Project 11430 class. As with the Soviets, Novgorod found out that conventional aircrafts with good STOL characteristics can also take of by using the Ski-jump and thus the follow-on pr. 11432 had arrestor wires for recovering conventional planes. At first it was only inteded for the AEW aircrafts but during the 90's and early 2000's it was decided that the I-41 would be replaced with the I-55, small conventional fighter with superior capabilities compared to the VSTOL I-41. As the Project 11430 and Project 11432 have gas-turbines and no steam boilers, catapults were impossible to adopt.

_________________
Coming next: L/M Moskva, some research ships, pr.26bis, Pr.1144 remakes and Project 1143 complete redux.



Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
Submit your drawings to the archive here
Novgorod AU wiki


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Judah14
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 2:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 744
Joined: March 5th, 2013, 11:18 am
Location: Philippines
Contact: Website
Nice work on the carriers!

_________________
らき☆
Republika ng Pilipinas AU | Republic of Corpus Christi AU | Kingdom of Windermere AU
Close Windows and open doors with Debian GNU/Linux
Current project(s): Windermere AU, FD Scale Liebherr construction equipment


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 3:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 544
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Gollevainen wrote: *
Thank you guys.

To awnser few questions:
Quote:
1. STOBAR carries are all fish and no fowl. What I mean by that is that you are not likely to find steam catapults on a STOBAR carrier. These machines are mechanically complex and take up too much deck space. The catapults also compete with the ski ramp for assisted takeoff function. At least that seems to be the RTL reasoning and current practice.
Only carrier which has both catapults and ski-jump ramp is the newest project 23000 class which doesen't have steam cats but EMALS. With those the force and speed of the launch can be controlled and adjusted far more accurately than steam catapults.
I accept that explanation. Still, I was curious and I went looking to see what US RTL work on an emal actually shows the current status is. They are not going to combine an emal and a ramp.

https://www.quora.com/Military-Why-dont ... -ski-jumps

The upshot is that I learned something new. The USN really doesn't like ramps because the required clear takeoff run eats up flight deck hardstand parking space. It is not that a cat/ramp combo doesn't work. The Russians use the compromised ramp alone because if a catapult packs it in, they still want to be able to launch Sukhois and the ramp is cheap, simple and idiot proof. The Russians like idiot proof. The Americans accept the added risk of a mechanical casualty in the catapult, because the cats allow the Americans to launch fast and heavy in rough all weather conditions. Ramps are more weather sensitive, launch rates are slower and there are attendant added risks. (see below.)

Either logic works. The kicker is that I know the "kick" the conversion of horizontal lift to vertical shove that the ramp provides through altering the plane's thrust line, also radically changes the A of A for a burdened aircraft as it points nose up. The Russian pilots run a much greater risk at full load of stall and flameout, thus plunge into the sea, as they come off the Kuznetsov's ramp than their VSTOL American counterparts do (YAK 141 vs F-35 C) on a roll off from a flat decked amphib. A cat throw would make this problem much worse by extending that shove UP and extending the time the A of A is nose high. That is why the Russians use 3/4 loads on the navalized Sukhoi, specialized carefully checked engines, and that compromised ramp alone. There are lift/thrust conversion limits, just as there are cat throw limits. They certainly are not stupid. They know what their airframes can take and what their pilots can do.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 5:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4588
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Did you really type that question into Google and use Quora as a source? Let's see some analysis from Friedman et al... using the equivalent of YaHoo answers is not acceptable.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 573
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Hi, Gollevainen. Nice designs, as ever. May I ask a couple of questions? First, Why, in some CVs, the island is placed close to the edge of the hull (like in Project 73K, Project 69AV, Karl Marx or even helicopter carriers like Project 68) and in others, it is placed in a more centered position (like in Lenin, Orel or Frunze). Second, Why your 1957 Kuril had an open bow, if some of your previous designs already had the enclosed hurricane bow. And the last one, can you told us something about the aircraft which is directly over the bridge of your 1955 Servormorsk (I suppose that it must be the B-3, but I´m not sure) and what kind of propulsion arrangement had? Thanks and cheers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 13th, 2017, 10:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 544
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Colosseum wrote: *
Did you really type that question into Google and use Quora as a source? Let's see some analysis from Friedman et al... using the equivalent of YaHoo answers is not acceptable.
If you want Norman Friedman, just remember that he is not post 1983 when it comes to carrier aviation and carrier operations. Most of the questions I raised come in the crucial 1939-1965 period and the final one is post 1983 (Falklands War) and even in the pre-1983 details Mr. Friedman gets a lot of things about aircraft carriers wrong.

For example:

https://archive.org/details/74462TheAngledDeckCarrier

Straight from the USN after the Intrepid conversions. Not the way Friedman describes it at all in his illustrated History, when he describes what the angled deck did for USN aircraft operations, you'll notice? It, in the 1955 time frame in this film, even gives the cogent reasons for why the ski-ramp, a future British development, is not preferred at all down to the present for the navies who have mastered CATOBAR technology.

Anyway, the Quorum answers, especially from the Indian contributor, are actually quite correct and accurate. The myth about Russian aircraft not being able to jump the ramp with full loads is an example. They can. It is just a bit risky for peacetime operations and I have already noted that the Russians aren't stupid.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 14th, 2017, 1:40 am
Offline
Posts: 2313
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Deftly stepping aside from internet expertise, Golly, I'd note that a number of your radars seem like they may not have sufficient clearance to rotate.

They are, of course, beautifully rendered drawings.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 23 of 24  [ 233 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited