[Post Reply] [*]  Page 6 of 6  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6
Author Message
Post subject: Re: "Harrier Carrier" challenge (Sept 2019)Posted: October 2nd, 2019, 2:38 am
User avatar
Posts: 3295
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
I like this last entry, an Iwo Jima on steroids!

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: "Harrier Carrier" challenge (Sept 2019)Posted: October 2nd, 2019, 1:14 pm
Posts: 2751
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
More like a Tarawa, I'd say--the three Mk 45skis are notable :)

More fine entries!

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: "Harrier Carrier" challenge (Sept 2019)Posted: October 5th, 2019, 5:01 pm
User avatar
Posts: 7201
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
My comments on the entries. First of all, all of them were quite interesting! a succesful challenge for that alone in my opinion!

Das Schlemm's T-JPH 1 might loose this challenge. Not because it is the worst design, but because it is less detailed then the others. Is this actually a never build as in the USN considered this? it would not surprise me.
I am a bit worried about the big hull openings for the hull strength, but they are nicely rounded to avoid stress points so could be reinforced to avoid the issue. I wonder about how good it could look/be if it was brought fully up to the standards of the other entries, this was posted first so might have been amazing if it had been worked on and posted late in the challenge.

Superboys CV-4 escort carrier. Amazing concept, nice idea, very minimalist and well drawn. I would be worried about stability when parking multiple aircraft on the deck though and the visibility from the relatively narrow forward pilothouse must be horrible (there are not even bridge wings to look around the gun positions on the bow, so directly forward the helmsman will see exactly nothing)
There are some tiny technical and drawing errors too, like the liferafts on the pilothouse which are unreachable for maintenance or emergencies, the old SH-2 drawing and the aircraft control room which needs radiation shielding from the navigational radar, but this is both interesting and exceptionally well drawn.

Krakatoa's Iowa refit. Most of my earlier comments have been adressed, I think, so I look at the drawing anew.She still feels a bit kitbashed, especially noticable in the multiple paint and glass colours visible. Some flaglines and antenna cables seem to go nowwhere as well. Technical comments:
- SPG-62 have not been used on any ship without AEGIS. The correct directors here would have been the SPG-51 for the standard missile, and I think Mk 95's for the ESSM would be best....
- SM-3 is shipped but no modern 3D radar which would be able to find it's targets. The same goes for the SM-2 ER
- ASROC is shipped but the ship has no sonar
- I suspect with this much topweight added, the platform on which the armoured box launchers were fitted would have been removed
- You now have no liferafts aft
- The doors from the gallery deck interfere with the roof of the hangar deck as shown in the elevator opening.
So yeah, she still feels kitbashy and unfinished in my opinion.

Blackbuck's Macha class. This is, put simply, excellent work. The only minor issues I can find is that I would expect some more zinc anodes and vents on the hull then drawn, and that the large radar on the pilothouse seems a bit blocked by mast and directors aft. Other then that, I can only say well designed and well drawn. The full specifications also add credibility to the design.

Heuhen's Delta class. It is well drawn, the only issue drawing wise I really have with it is that some spots look extremely detailed and others look empty and some mismatches between side and top view. Technical issues, I have with the arrestor gear arrangements (too short to the stern, lading strip over both of the elevators, a ski jump somewhat but not completely in line with said landing track, and why are they even there), the gunnery emplacements (too low to shoot over your parked aircraft on the deck so arcs are horrible in realistic conditions), but the main error on this drawing seems to be a tiny bit of the carelessness of mismatching the views you are drawing.

Rowdy's CEC. Very nice drawing, well detailed and well designed. Technical issues are that I would expect the hull cutouts a bit larger, and that I am worried for the intakes and uptake volume between the both bays and the hangar, going down into the engine rooms in the hull. I might be very wrong on this though, with gas turbines in the superstructure for example this is a non issue.

Hood's Volga. Well drawn, weird looking, but completely believable nonetheless. Minor issues are that I think the hull shading makes little sense, and that the liferafts seem to be nicely near the flight deck but that near most of the crew of this ship. I do wonder about the possibility to fit the superstructure further aft, as it is already modified anyways to fit it somewhat to the side I think?

MitcheLL300's CL-81. Very nice, although part of that is of course owed to colo's nice Worcester drawing. Different window colours on the aircrafts and the ship distracts a bit from an overall very nice drawing. The boat davids look a bit underdetailed, and some modern details (such as lights) are only added in the rebuild section. Liferafts seem a bit achaic for 1970, especially if some modern inflatable liferafts are on board too. There are some spots not painted just aft of the boats. Technical issues: the foremast aft tripods end in mid air and the 40 mm's lack fire control. The flight deck in that position begs the question why the boats are not kept aft were they were with an smaller ( foldable maybe) crane instead of moving them forwards, and it unclear why the equipment on the funnels was not removed when the new masts were placed with more then enough space for that equipment (or more modern versions of it)

Miklania's MPF 2010. Well executed drawing of an less well thought out concept. It begs the question why this drawing was not split into 2 versions: one for the never build section of the forum, and one 'improved' for this challenge. The drawing could use a little detail, the ship will always remain slab sided but the pilothouse, funnels, cargo hatches, Mk 29 'spots' and the cranes aft could all be easily improved upon. Liferafts are all on one side of the ship and there are no ventilation vents, personnel doors, maintenance hatches or railings drawn. All this could have been improved without going out of the realities of the original design.
All this does not make it an bad drawing, I think it is quite well done! I just think it could have been better if Miklania dared to leave the original concept a tiny bit more, because what is drawn shows both research and dedication to how the ship would work.

I will of course not add commentary to my own drawing, but I'll take this space to answer some things said about mine. Re: the frigate class sonar: I suspect the ship would have been, similar to FFG-7, build with the hull strength in mind to fit an SQS-23 in repeat ships. I intentionally did not fit ASROC but Sea Lance instead, which could be fired on targets from other ships or airborne platforms instead of being limited to targets of the ships own sonar. Heightening the EX-83 was an great idea but I had no more time to actually implement it :P For the same reasons I have not added full specifications in the text, I will probably do that on the shipbucket wiki soon.

Ro-Po's multi mission ship. The drawings are well made, but they deviate a bit from shipbucket style for my taste. Technical comments: the stern thruster that high near the waterline is a bad idea (it comes above your boot topping which means it is above your low ship weight line, which means waves destroying your propeller and lots of resistance). I am not sure why the aviation control points are that low on the superstructure if the rest is kept the original height and shape. Exactly the same pilothoue and bridge shape for an much narrower structure seems unlikely, as does keeping the same masts (especially that bow mast) and radars as the original. Worst issue however is that big cargo door amidships, which will take most of your ships strength while this version is lengthened compared to the others. This means this variant will need an massively strengthened flight deck (the cutouts for the boats do not help with that) and a lot higher topweight then the other variants, which is not a good thing if you want to operate aircraft from them. I suspect that either the cargo version is massively overstrengthened to the point of no longer making money or the carrier version is breaking in half somewhere during it's lifetime.

wb-21's varda class looks like it could work. I frown a bit when looking at the amount of aircraft on the ship though, 36 aircraft seems like quite a lot, but that might be me and depends on the exact arrangement. Minor issues are the fact that the anchor looks to be a bit close to the sonar dome, the too straight bilge keels for a ship this fast and the mooring gear seems a bit sparse.

Charguizard's Kaapstad looks amazing and I think it should work too. I only have a few issues really, the minor ones first:
- IRL, the LW-02 series and the STIR do not really share a common age. the LW is from before 1970, the STIR from after. That said, there is no reason the LW-06 or something in universe would not use the same or a similar antenna and the STIR antenna was developed from the one found in the WM egg which was around in 1970. the USN SPG-60 was also quite similar, and around in 1970. So impossible in our timeline, but not an impossiblility in an AU timeline.
- The 'lower' STIR really has a terrible arc, could that not have found a place under the heightfinder or something? or even on an platform extending from the superstructure a bit higher up?
- How do the elevators work? asking because the hull seems to have no sponsons, being completely straight up...... but the elevators cut into the actual hull, if I may believe the top view. Apart from the fact if this is an good idea, it should be visible in the sideview if the elevator 'gap' was further inboard then the hull. OR does the ship actually have sponsons which are not visible? it looked to me as if the gallery deck was the only thing extending from the hull in the sideview, but the top view suggests more is happening..... how does this work?

Other then these points I really REALLY love this thing, with only the minor missed oppurtunity of not using an radar derived from the dutch VI-01 instead of an USN style heightfinder distracting from the nice megabananas, jump jets, details, and shape.

All in all, a great set of challenge entries, and may the best one win!

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.

[Profile] [Quote]
Ro-Po Max
Post subject: Re: "Harrier Carrier" challenge (Sept 2019)Posted: October 5th, 2019, 6:13 pm
User avatar
Posts: 636
Joined: May 1st, 2017, 8:35 am
Contact: Website
Thanks my friend for the constructive criticism :) I will take into account all the shortcomings of the project, after the challenge :) :!:

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: "Harrier Carrier" challenge (Sept 2019)Posted: October 7th, 2019, 1:15 pm
User avatar
Posts: 11
Joined: May 19th, 2019, 10:53 am
Location: Barnegat, NJ
I don't think there's any "might" about me losing. There are some absolutely awesome artists on this site. I probably shouldn't have sent the T-JPH in as early as I did. Live and learn, and hopefully I can get better as time goes on.

A.K.A. Das_Schlemm
[ img ]

[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 6 of 6  [ 55 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

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

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