[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
TurretHead
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: August 31st, 2010, 2:56 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.
Novice wrote:
Assuming your hangar sided are one pixel-wide, that it will work. Hangars tend to get clattered along the walls. If you look at a car's garage, you'll se what I mean.
I think there is plenty of room for this large hangar to store 6-8 helos and all the maintenance stuff needed to operate them. The hangar sides go to the edge of the hull as drawn in the original drawing and one pixel is six inches which is a lot thicker than the walls would be. There is no need for a hallway or anything along the sides of the hangars as there is plenty of room under the hangar for people to get up and down the ship.
Novice wrote:
Also consider the effect of the helocopters rotors spinning side-by-side, on each other. Altough you have more than enough width for the helicopters to stand along side each other, i'm not sure, that such is the case with the rotors spinnig.
Yes there is space for two Sea Hawks to be side by side without the rotors touching. But I doubt they would land and takeoff at the same time because that would be pretty dangerous!

Space and volume is the one thing this 40,000 ton ship does not have a problem with!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
socar37
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: August 31st, 2010, 6:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 8:48 am
I wouldn't be too concerned with reactor access for refuelling. The most recent designs (Virginia & Ford class reactors) are 30-50 year cores. The USN doesn't intend to ever refuel them; there's just so much involved even with access.

SoCar37
"Prepared In Mind & Resources"

_________________
SoCar37

"Prepared In Mind & Resources"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: August 31st, 2010, 8:42 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Be that as it may, but you'll still need access to the turbines, those won't last fifty years

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TurretHead
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: August 31st, 2010, 9:06 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.
Yes and this ship is concieved as a 1980s product as it doesn't have any later weapons and anti terrorist features. Very much a new build USS New Jersey surface action group leader type or Persian Gulf dominator.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
socar37
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 1st, 2010, 9:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 8:48 am
Thiel wrote:
Be that as it may, but you'll still need access to the turbines, those won't last fifty years
They just might. Enterprise (CVN-65) still has her original main engines, and there is no plans to swap out mains on the other CVN's. The only reason for large access to the main spaces is for reactor refuelling. Which is a once-in-a-lifetime occurance on Nimitz class and never on CVN-78.

_________________
SoCar37

"Prepared In Mind & Resources"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 1st, 2010, 9:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
No, they most certainly wont. Casigns and housings, sure. Turbine blades and wheels, no way. Especially not with nuclear power. Then thereøs all the other stuff down there that'll need replacement either in part or in whole during the ships service life. Alternators, Freshwater Generators, Coolers, auxiliary power units, the list goes on. Heck, the main breaker on that thing is likely to be the size of a large desk. Definitely not something you want to wrestle up a narrow ladder.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 2nd, 2010, 3:36 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
socar37 wrote:
Thiel wrote:
Be that as it may, but you'll still need access to the turbines, those won't last fifty years
They just might. Enterprise (CVN-65) still has her original main engines, and there is no plans to swap out mains on the other CVN's. The only reason for large access to the main spaces is for reactor refuelling. Which is a once-in-a-lifetime occurance on Nimitz class and never on CVN-78.
I wonder what would be the feasibility of an A1B backfit to some Nimitzes when it comes time to refuel them.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 2nd, 2010, 6:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
I doubt if they have enough hull life left to make it economical.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 2nd, 2010, 6:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2766
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
IIRC, even the Nimitzes, or at least the later ones, were pretty much thought of as a "never-refuel" ship.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
socar37
Post subject: Re: Turrethead's USN monsterPosted: September 3rd, 2010, 2:23 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 8:48 am
Thiel wrote:
No, they most certainly wont. Casigns and housings, sure. Turbine blades and wheels, no way. Especially not with nuclear power. Then thereøs all the other stuff down there that'll need replacement either in part or in whole during the ships service life. Alternators, Freshwater Generators, Coolers, auxiliary power units, the list goes on. Heck, the main breaker on that thing is likely to be the size of a large desk. Definitely not something you want to wrestle up a narrow ladder.
OK, full disclosure time. I have 18 years of nuclear navy experience; 6 of them on Nimitz class carriers. By all means, the turbine blading can handle full power for the entire design lifetime. These are not wimpy LM2500 gas turbines that have to be replaced wholesale after so many hours. Alternators last a long time too. The ladders can be removed and chainfalls used to get the main breakers out. Been there, done that. Yes it's a pain in the butt, but it's doable.

_________________
SoCar37

"Prepared In Mind & Resources"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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


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