[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 31  [ 308 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 631 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 29th, 2014, 8:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7194
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
bezo, could you please explain to me the effects of sheer and forecastles on hull strength? as far as I know there is no relation at all. (indirect, maybe, there is, due to seaworthyness and the loads this causes on the deck when blue water comes over, but this is very roundabout)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 29th, 2014, 9:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Well, my dear ace. I'm not the engineer here, you are. I'm merely referencing to the C&R:s opinion on the matter, as they planned the Texas-class BB:s. There is a relation though, as to the fact that, for instance, a focs'le will add additional longitudinal strength, and so will (according to the findings of C&R) the gradual tapering of the hull, forward-aft. Remember: if you only slightly bend a flat surface, the way the atoms re-arrange themselves will form a stronger, covalent bond, i. e. increase the pressure/pull strength of the matter. This was the chief reason that the C&R opted for making a slightly curved deck configuration, instead of straight flush. The fact that a long hull will inevitably flex and bend in almost any seaway was an additional reason to chose that configuration.
You're right about the dryness and seaworthiness aspects, though. Hence why there are also several advantages with such a tapering hull, a la Texas, besides added hull-strength! I, of course, ought to have mentioned that in my original post.
Now, here comes the most important aspect: ezgo394 is trying to create a vessel launched around 1912/16, somewhere in that ball park. In other words, our present-day science will not (in most cases) apply! Scientific model experiments had only begun. The science of ship building was not definite, as can be seen in many of the vessels from that period.
So, I cannot say that the USN:s C&R Bureau really knew what they were doing, but they thought so, and went ahead designing the Texas and New York according to their scientific findings and understanding. Sometimes, ace, you have to relent and "think back" The theories and modern computer and algorithm-based science simply won't be all that applicable in this case!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 29th, 2014, 9:40 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7194
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
forecastle will only add longitudinal strength when it is longer then midship. then, it influences the bending moment on the weakest point. right now, it influences the strength, a bit, yeah, but not the main strength of the hull but only the strength at the spots it is heightened. this might help a bit around the turrets, but it is not that this cannot be done any other way.

it is true that the hull shape with a bit of sheer seems to be custom back then, you know that better then me, but please be a bit clear on the reasons why, as what you said before completely missed the point, hence my commenting here. :P

the other advantages seem, to me, to be far more important then those small bits of hull strength.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 29th, 2014, 9:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 2738
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
bezobrazov wrote:
Remember: if you only slightly bend a flat surface, the way the atoms re-arrange themselves will form a stronger, covalent bond, i. e. increase the pressure/pull strength of the matter. This was the chief reason that the C&R opted for making a slightly curved deck configuration, instead of straight flush. The fact that a long hull will inevitably flex and bend in almost any seaway was an additional reason to chose that configuration.
I confess to only being fluent in modern materials science, rather than some possibly very strange things that were believed many decades ago, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Can you maybe rephrase, or toss us a link, or something?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
apdsmith
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 12:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: August 29th, 2013, 5:58 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Hi Bezo,

I may be misunderstanding (and I'm fully aware of the exalted company in which I speak, so please forgive me if this is a trivial question) but do you basically mean "they built the deck curved because arches are stronger"? Sorry, but as erik_t, failing to parse your comment...

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.
[ img ]
NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ezgo394
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 1:05 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1323
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 2:39 am
Location: East Brunswick, Federal Republic of Denton
@odysseus1980, I wanted to base it off the Texas primarily because it is my favorite dreadnought/battleship, and yes, the propulsion setup of the hovercraft and the superstructure are based mostly on the Aist, with the Zubr influencing the rest.

@seeker36340, yes I was planning to remove the forward casemates in the next refit.

@Bezobrazov, at first, I didn't know what you were saying until I looked at the Texas drawing, and I do see it now. However, I do agree with ace on this one (even though I am not particularly familiar with ship hull form characteristics) and I have NEVER heard anything like that besides the fact that a flush deck means that it will be 'wetter' than a hull with a raised forecastle. However, I will experiment with what you were saying, as I think it will make the drawing look slightly more 'complex' ;) (and possibly better for that matter).

Thank you for your comments and input!

_________________
[ img ] [ img ]
Many thanks to Rowdy36, who created the banners
Worklist: Entire modern day (2013) Denton and Salide Militaries
Austellus Hemisphaeria Wiki Pages

Drawings are signed as E.Z. Goin - Please feel free to call me EZ or Ethan


Last edited by ezgo394 on January 30th, 2014, 9:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 1:39 am
Offline
Posts: 2738
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
As I recall, the USN traditionally considered a forecastle hull to be dryer than a flush-deck. However, that is because a roughly constant internal volume was assumed, and thus a forecastle hull would have higher freeboard forward, at the cost of lower freeboard aft. For a small and fast ship, that can be a good trade.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 2:04 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Actually apdsmith, that's exactly what I was meaning to say. Thank you for clarifying it for everybody! As for the "exalted party", I hope you're not including this hack!
Anyway, thank you, ace for your very nice reply. I do admit to understand such things as hull strength, -lines, and all that in a probably old fashioned way. You're the "modern" guy, and I deeply respect your exhaustive knowledge in this area.
In my defense for a slightly confusing answer, at the time I wrote it I was constantly "pestered" by one of my students who asked questions about chemistry.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 9:28 am
Online
Posts: 2699
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Contact: Facebook
erik_t wrote:
As I recall, the USN traditionally considered a forecastle hull to be dryer than a flush-deck. However, that is because a roughly constant internal volume was assumed, and thus a forecastle hull would have higher freeboard forward, at the cost of lower freeboard aft. For a small and fast ship, that can be a good trade.
I believe that was what resulted in one of the main criticisms of the Fletchers compared to preceding designs that had forecastle decks.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ezgo394
Post subject: Re: Republic of Denton NavyPosted: January 30th, 2014, 10:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1323
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 2:39 am
Location: East Brunswick, Federal Republic of Denton
I opted to leave it as was, with the flat lined, flush hull (to make it a little easier on me :P ).
IMAGE REMOVED

DNS Lock Haven, Denton Dreadnought laid down 1911

Displacement:
24,422 t light; 26,246 t standard; 27,818 t normal; 29,075 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
575.00 ft / 566.00 ft x 95.50 ft x 27.50 ft (normal load)
172.52 m / 172.52 m x 29.11 m x 8.38 m

Armament:
10 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (5x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Main guns limited to end-on fire
17 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
2 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1911 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 14,962 lbs / 6,786 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 205.00 ft / 62.48 m 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 240.00 ft / 73.15 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
121.00 ft / 36.88 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 56 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 34,755 ihp / 25,927 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,829 tons (95% coal)

Complement:
1,076 - 1,400

Cost:
£2.747 million / $10.990 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,870 tons, 6.7 %
Armour: 8,430 tons, 30.3 %
- Belts: 3,313 tons, 11.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3,341 tons, 12.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,539 tons, 5.5 %
- Conning Tower: 237 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,298 tons, 8.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,824 tons, 42.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,396 tons, 12.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
34,876 lbs / 15,819 Kg = 25.4 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 18.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.54

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.655
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.93 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.79 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 23.24 ft / 7.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 79.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 169.4 %
Waterplane Area: 41,598 Square feet or 3,865 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 204 lbs/sq ft or 996 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.96
- Overall: 1.02
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

-EZ

Edit: Added portholes

_________________
[ img ] [ img ]
Many thanks to Rowdy36, who created the banners
Worklist: Entire modern day (2013) Denton and Salide Militaries
Austellus Hemisphaeria Wiki Pages

Drawings are signed as E.Z. Goin - Please feel free to call me EZ or Ethan


Last edited by ezgo394 on January 31st, 2014, 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 31  [ 308 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 631 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


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


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]