[Post Reply] [*]  Page 9 of 9  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 9
Author Message
apdsmith
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 2nd, 2016, 7:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: August 29th, 2013, 5:58 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Hi K,

A further suggestion, if that's ok. If you move the forward deck-edge elevator as far forward as you possibly could, from what I can it'd aid getting aircraft out of the way of aircraft on approach. If you're keeping the bridge structure that will largely protect them from being rammed by an aircraft that loses control on landing and you could possibly use the length of deck between the bridge structure and the lift itself to queue aircraft to return to the hangar while keeping out of the flight path of aircraft landing or taking off.

Ad

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 2nd, 2016, 9:16 pm
Offline
Posts: 2488
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Sorry Ad, I only put the deck edge elevators on at the last moment. They should be evenly spread forward and aft to facilitate the take off and landing events. To do that properly will mean moving the superstructure further aft. I will do a deck edge drawing of its own to see if it helps or hinders.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 3rd, 2016, 3:08 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Krakatoa wrote:
Sorry all the aircraft aboard are of Canard design.
[ img ]

Those are not deck edge lifts. Those are inboard center-line lift.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 3rd, 2016, 3:10 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

Those as you drew them are not exactly deck edge lifts to me. Those appear to be inboard center-line lifts as I see them. I know that it is a confused terminology thing when applied. Let me explain why I see that way. When I read someone write deck edge lift, that means to me the edge of the flight deck perimeter along the outside of the hull. That's strictly on me for not making sure I understood what you meant by deck edge lift. I still want to try to convince you to look at the possible different solution of moving those lifts as drawn to the outside perimeter of the flight deck. Can I quote again my reasons why?
Quote:
3. The flight deck should be as clear of wind breaks and physical obstructions as possible. The carrier operating tempo and its defense depend on the speediness of how fast it can launch and recover aircraft. There are three ways to do this currently, one called CATOBAR (catapult assisted take off back arrested recovery) and RTOBAR (rolling [ski jump] take off barrier arrested recovery) and vertical take off arrested or vertical landing. All of them require unimpeded and open recovery runs with vertical landing being the most dangerous on a cluttered deck because of the downdraft and downwash. Vertical landings are uniquely dangerous in that there is a sideways slip component as the helicopter or the jump-jet tries to slip into its assigned landing spot on a moving ship. That is why many vertical landers (helicopters) use a cable winch recovery assist to haul down onto their deck spots. Jump-jets can't do that, which is why you don't see jump jets operate off the back of frigates.

Anything that clutters a take off/trap run, even if it is a man standing in the wrong place at the wrong time is a giant error in judgment that leads to at best a delay in the operating tempo or to assorted disasters like plane on plane collisions or roller-skating or a crashed bolter or just a warmed up plane sucking that man into its engine (or setting him or something else) on fire. All of this has happened. The result is that there are rather firm and hard rules for how you design (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers. If you look at the French Charles de Gaulle or an American Nimitz, those rules are very plain to see
That means to me a manmade hole in the flight deck that interferes with cross feed operations is an idea that I urge you to reconsider.
Quote:
Then get rid of the island (wind baffle and collision hazard) and use a navigation bridge about 1/3 back from the prow to PORT.
Why put the lifts at the outside perimeter, you might ask?

This solution allows the lifts and the bays into which they open to act as cargo transfer aids as well as plane elevators. The advantages so conferred translate into a ventilated open hanger that disallows confinement of conflagrations and explosions as well as easy cross transfer from carrier to escort and supply ship.

I also urge you to reconsider that island arrangement. It does nothing for navigation and air group control as positioned and could be actually a fly on hazard for planes trying to land on a cross wind deck.
Krakatoa wrote:
Sorry all the aircraft aboard are of Canard design.
My bad. I should pay better attention.

Can I suggest something about canard aircraft anyway? The USN really believes in nose point and single thrust line. That for them means firm 2-d unified tail control. Those are pusher propeller driven 1-d nose control and 1-d tail control aircraft of the pre fly by wire era as I think you drew them. Canards do not work too well under those established limited conditions. Nose wander sets in and it cycles and augments in precession. Dutch roll it is called and it is a pilot killer.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: The Cuzco-Class Ironclad battleshipsPosted: February 16th, 2016, 3:54 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
What roll would a first-rate battleship like the Cuzco serve in? Also, that 6" bow chaser gun doesn't look powerful enough to handle an attack from forward. The ship could be assaulted by another with forward-firing guns and have only 1 light gun to reply with. Just some suggestions because I don't like center-battery turret ships very much.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Current Worklist:
-Real designs
-Nicaragua AU
-Emperia Group AU
-FD scale diesel trucks


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 16th, 2016, 4:03 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
Krakatoa wrote:
You can see from the battleship class below why I want to continue to use the 'Pyramid' feature on the earlier warships. It does suit the later classes of ships while I may have to have a rethink on how I use it on the earlier classes.


Cuntinsuya Class Battleships.


Like most countries, the demise of the various Treaties in 1935 made it possible for the Incan Navy to lay down its first 35,000 ton battleships. A class of four was laid down, one per year, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939. This gave completion dates from late 1940 to late 1942. The design was a conventional layout with three triple 15" turrets, two forward and one aft. A dual purpose armament of 130mm/5.1" in twin turrets was fitted to save weight. Armour was to be as thick as possible within the limits set, and this amounted to a 14" strake of belt armour with a very useful 7" of deck armour. Propulsion for a speed of 30 knots was fitted. Four aicraft with two catapults were fitted in the center of the ship around the funnel. The AA battery featured a new triple 40mm mounting while the light AA was made up of the 20mm Oerlikon in twin and single mountings. All in all a well balanced class of battleships well able to take on any other of the Treaty battleships completed.

Displacement: 38,000 tons standard, 47,750 tons full load.
Dimensions: 790 x 108 x 30 feet
Machinery: 4 shaft, geared turbines,150,000shp
Speed: 30 knots
Endurance: 14,000 miles at 15 knots.
Armour: 14" belt, 7" deck, 13/9/6" turrets, 6" tower.
Armament:
9 x 15" (3x3)
18 x 5.1" (9x2)
24 x 40mm (8x3)
34 x 20mm (8x2, 18x1)
Aircraft: 4
Crew: 2700


[ img ]


Cuntinsuya (11/1940) Service/Fate:

Huascasuya (04/1941) Service/Fate:

Amazonisuya (03/1942) Service/Fate:

Yupanqui (09/1942) Service/Fate:

-With 6 inches of tower armor, that giant superstructure could be very vulnerable in a gunnery action. Overall good job though, I like the secondary and anti-aircraft artillery placement. Looks like a fast ship and a potentially good candidate for carrier/convoy escort as well as a good line-of-battle ship.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Current Worklist:
-Real designs
-Nicaragua AU
-Emperia Group AU
-FD scale diesel trucks


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: Your catamaran carrier.Posted: February 16th, 2016, 4:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
I love the idea of a catamaran carrier! Good concentration of Anti-aircraft artillery around the flight deck and tower. Looks very fortified. Would like to see some propulsion specifications. I feel like it would do with a diesel-electric power system or steam-electric power system.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Current Worklist:
-Real designs
-Nicaragua AU
-Emperia Group AU
-FD scale diesel trucks


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 16th, 2016, 4:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 1432
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Tobius regarding the CV, do all of your points about how a CV works not really apply to much newer CVs ? pre angled deck designs worked very differently (ie waving off bolter's or they go into crash barrier) I'm really not sure they can be compared especially when we are talking about a design that would have been started in the late 30s!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: The Incan Empire.Posted: February 17th, 2016, 2:02 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
That is in my pilot house. WW II carrier operations, especially on the small CVE's were extremely concerned about roller skaters and bolters. They called the roller skaters runaways then, and the bolters, plow-ins because there were no clear runs in a land on for a WW II or pre WW II American carrier at all. The planes landed on were either struck below using the aft centerline elevators to clear the trap (land on) or they were manually pushed forward clear of the trap and bunched up near the fly-off to keep the rear flight deck clear.

With the coming of jets, there was no longer any choice. You had to create a clear path for the bolter. The jets were too large, powerful and massive to be safely caught by a crash net. In fact by late WW II most of the piston engined attack planes and fighters were almost too powerful to be stopped by the existing catch nets. Sometimes flight deck tractors or sacrificial planes were parked mid-deck to catch a plow-in. It was assumed that the plane that plowed in would explode and the aircrew would be killed in that case. The doctrine was to put the fire out, spray off the spilled gasoline from the wreckage and oil to de-slick the deck and push the wrecked planes and other debris over the side.

Hold the funerals later during the down time. This was and is a dangerous business. I think many people have seen that video of a Hellcat plowing into an island on a WW II carrier and snapping in two? That pilot who survived was lucky.

Yeah, I know what I am talking about. You cannot stick obstructions on a flight deck unless you expect them to be hit by landing planes, even when you design it absolutely correct to the best practices of the time.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 9 of 9  [ 89 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 9

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


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


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