Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 612 »
Author Message
Rhade
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 6:47 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2768
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 12:45 pm
Location: Poland
Outdated planes?

Ju 87 T-1 (a AU designation for C model or V-25 prototype?) was a only carrier dive bomber/torpedo plane Germans develop. One in 39 other in 41... in case of V-25 that plane was "brand new" for Kriegsmarine.
Fw 190 A-4 enter service in July 1942 it is a fresh from factory plane.

_________________
[ img ]
Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 8:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2767
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Rhade wrote: *
Outdated planes?
drawing-wise, not technologically-wise I'd say.

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ultraking101
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 9:25 am
Offline
Posts: 8
Joined: March 9th, 2020, 8:21 pm
BB1987 wrote: *
Rhade wrote: *
Outdated planes?
drawing-wise, not technologically-wise I'd say.
Exactly, the technology isn’t outdated, it’s just the drawings themselves are a few years old

_________________
Worklist:
-Kilo class ~95% complete
-HMAS Sydney ~10% complete
-Argentina AU


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 10:41 am
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
Ultraking101 wrote: *
Just to add a comment about the carrier,
1. there seems to be a shading issue with the propeller as it currently looks to have been copied from elsewhere as noted by the different colours.
2. Also the planes seem to be outdated, I’d visit Cascadia’s collection of AU German aircraft in the plane bucket discussion thread that provides a multitude of up to date aircraft (just remember to cite him)
3. At the bow region I noticed 2 issues, 1 being that their is a multitude of overlapping lines that create the “Heavy corner effect” (see rule 2.1 in the style guide), I also note that several lines are not connecting with one another such as the lines at the bottom corner of the bow at the end of the shading region and near the deck where there is a point missing.
4. (Take with a heavy grain of salt, as it’s my opinion) check out some other ships in the forum, I’d recommend the Spanish cruiser design by dalamace in “Never Built” and try out using those porthole colours instead of the older blues on your current carrier, for my ships I use them on it helps them look a bit more realistic.

On another note, it’s a splendid design and a nice concept, all that needs to be done now is some good ole touch up on the design and some shading adjustments and you will be good
Ultraking, thanks a lot for your very positive comments. I will take care of the aspects you mention, except one, but first an answer to your point regarding the screw (insn't propeller used only in airplanes?).

The screw, yes, I took it from another ship I draw (with more or less the power installed like this one) and that one I took from the part list here of Shipbucket. The shading (at least for me) is very difficult since I don't know the exact twist of the blades...

Now the plane issue: I don't know the part list you mention, I'll try to find out, but... as I said earlier the "navalized" versions of the two types I used are a bit different from the real ones used by Germany: The Ju-87 has a stronger engine fitted somewhere around 1.700hp mainly due to the much better avgas Germany gets in this scenario I am building up than it had in real WWII. This allows more boost from the part of the compressor and - cannot be seen here...- the airplanes of Germany (in this case, but not only) use inlet air intercoolers which increase also the power as we all know (or, to put it correctly before someone moans, intercoolers allow to extract more power out of the respective engines). And a revised Ju-87 (more streamlined in certain parts of the fuselage as well as the fairings of the main gear) with 1.700hp would have been much more effective than it was already... Since we are at it, "my Ju-87" take a 500kg bomb in the centre rack plus two 200kg ones on external wing attachment points or 2 x 200 liter fuel tanks to extend the range (important on naval use...).

Second, when "DKM Prinz Alfons" was commissioned, there were available updated versions of nearly all the planes Germany had but few new ones. A step I took from the future was the inclusion of the Focke-Wulf Fw-190 here, since in reality it didn't exist yet in 1940 at least in production. Here, I anticipated its service entry a year or so.

As for the portholes, what you say is new to me... I thought this kind of blue was mandatory...

Keep in touch mate, it's guys like you I'm searching for to do some healthy debates here. Thank you very much!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 10:54 am
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
BB1987 wrote: *
My apologies for joning this nitpicking bandwagon, (...)
Hahahahaha... Man, your humor is corrosive!... You made my day, mate!... :D :D :D


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 10:59 am
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
Ultraking101 wrote: *
Here are a few issues that me and BB1987 where able to find. Pointed to the locations to help you edit
[ img ]
Wow, this is indeed a lot of help on the part of you, guys! This is what one can call "positive criticism"! Thanks a real big lot for adressing so much attention to my work and for pinpointing one by one the parts needed to be corrected! But... not knowing the existence of newer airplane designs, I altered the two models I use on this ship! I altered the line of the canopies and the shape of the vertical fins' trailing edges. I even made the Fw 190 with a retractable rear landing wheel...


Last edited by Cargil48 on August 7th, 2020, 11:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 11:01 am
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
emperor_andreas wrote: *
I like the carrier...even noticed the nod to the Yamato-class by having the bridge structure exactly amidships. :D Nice work!
I make yours my words, but... the exit of the funnels are in line with the bridge. Now imagine the wind blowing from the starboard side... it would engulf the entire bridge with black smoke, no?...

And wasn't that drawing uploaded into the incorrect thread? Shouldn't have it been uploaded in the WWII aircraft carrier contest thread?


Last edited by Cargil48 on August 7th, 2020, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 12:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 2875
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Sorry if this was already discussed, but putting a DP gun director atop a spindly lattice mast would not work for a number of reasons. The most intractable is that ships shake, rattle, flex, and roll, and if your director and your gun aren't speaking the same language about their coordinate system (that is, agree on a common X, Y, and Z), then your director will point at the target while your guns don't. This is obviously not a recipe for an effective weapons system.

The reason you can get away with locating a surface search or air search radar up there is that the required precision in bearing is much less--beamwidths at L-band or longer are frequently on the order of five or ten degrees. In nearly all cases, before engagement, a target will be handed off to and reacquired by a higher-precision system, which is ineffective for initial search but can rapidly find a target given a rough idea of where to look. In many (most?) period combat systems, handoff was directly from search to fire control; operating at lower wavelengths for historical reasons, the RN actually had an intermediate system, termed a "target indicator", that more narrowly refined the target track between search and fire control.

Obviously, modern systems have blurred the lines here.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 1:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
erik_t wrote: *
Sorry if this was already discussed, but putting a DP gun director atop a spindly lattice mast would not work for a number of reasons. The most intractable is that ships shake, rattle, flex, and roll, and if your director and your gun aren't speaking the same language about their coordinate system (that is, agree on a common X, Y, and Z), then your director will point at the target while your guns don't. This is obviously not a recipe for an effective weapons system.

The reason you can get away with locating a surface search or air search radar up there is that the required precision in bearing is much less--beamwidths at L-band or longer are frequently on the order of five or ten degrees. In nearly all cases, before engagement, a target will be handed off to and reacquired by a higher-precision system, which is ineffective for initial search but can rapidly find a target given a rough idea of where to look. In many (most?) period combat systems, handoff was directly from search to fire control; operating at lower wavelengths for historical reasons, the RN actually had an intermediate system, termed a "target indicator", that more narrowly refined the target track between search and fire control.

Obviously, modern systems have blurred the lines here.
I've thought of that, but I took the FuMO 231 Euklid 3D-stabilized.
Quote:
The uncompleted Z 52 would have had an impressive radar outfit. The gunnery radar FuMO 231 Euklid was to be combined with the 3D stabilized bridge director, carrying a 1.5m diameter parabolic dish antenna.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_Radar.php

What I admittedly don't know is if that isn't too much weight up there... And, obviously, the timeline is not correct... I will include the change of location of that system in the general changes suggested by other members.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cargil48
Post subject: Re: AU WWII scenarioPosted: August 7th, 2020, 2:30 pm
Offline
Posts: 246
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
Ultraking101 wrote: *
BB1987 wrote: *
Rhade wrote: *
Outdated planes?
drawing-wise, not technologically-wise I'd say.
Exactly, the technology isn’t outdated, it’s just the drawings themselves are a few years old
I followed your advice and found interesting drawings. But not of the main planes, they either were not yet made (full of japanese stuff, that thread...) or have been in the beginning and are now obscured by Photobuckiet.

I saved what I could and am making my own aircraft part sheet only for German planes. As work is progressing, I will share it for the community.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 612 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


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


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