| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2619 |
Page 4 of 8 |
| Author: | TimothyC [ February 13th, 2012, 8:33 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. | |
Other than whether or not there's a rudder, is there any way to tell the difference at a glance?
The size and shape of the support structure. CPCX actually stuck the rudder on the aft portion of the pods. I'd also note that fixed pods are more rare, and often used in conjunction with rotating pods such as on the RMS Queen Mary 2. Also note that fixed pods let you still have a direct shaft to the engines (even if it is very complex, and thus this is exceptionally rare),but for rotating pods you must have electric drive.
|
||
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 13th, 2012, 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
here I have to correct you timothy: so called azimuth thrusters are not electrical but still connected to the engines mechanically. this is highly complicated and often faulty, but for example a lot of tugs use this setup with succes. I should do some research to say anything for larger ships, but it is certainly not impossible. the dutch johan de witt uses this, although not with that much succes, but I have often sailed on the westerschelde ferry koningin beatrix (http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... eatrix.png) which has such an system. also, it is not very complex to have fixed pods, but it is not often done on larger ships....... an 'podded' propulsion system is basically an Z-drive, which about all short keel sailing yachts have. I could say more with some research, but homework is calling me back. |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ February 13th, 2012, 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
Bottom line being that azipods are not functionally useful on the "battleship" type vessel. Stick with a normal 4-screw setup like any other ship. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 13th, 2012, 8:45 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. | |
Bottom line being that azipods are not functionally useful on the "battleship" type vessel.
that is of course true Stick with a normal 4-screw setup like any other ship.  still, we could also say that an 'battleship' type of vessel is not functionally useful either xD
|
||
| Author: | TimothyC [ February 13th, 2012, 9:30 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. | |
here I have to correct you timothy: <snip>
Well, I stand corrected.Listen to Ace here, he's got more relevant experience than I do. |
||
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 13th, 2012, 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
timothy and colo are correct in this case though, as I do not know any succesful azipod or azimuth propelled surface combatant on the top of my head. if it is an good idea..... well it all depends on what you want this ship to do. |
|
| Author: | LordMalachi [ February 13th, 2012, 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
In theory, couldn't electric azipods and bow thrusters be used to keep a large ship like a battleship or carrier nimble during a battle? I'm not very up to date on modern sea warfare, but I would think the ability to quickly alter course&heading is still important, not to mention the increased reverse speed that azipods provide. I say electric because they'd be fairly difficult to damage, there are no long turbine shafts to break, or complicated angled connections. Just an electric motor outside the hull, and a powerplant inside the hull, connected by a really big pair of wires. Actually the idea should help any warship I would think, regardless of size o.0 |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 13th, 2012, 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
you will need a lot of or very big azipods. also, you need to fit cooling for the electrical engines the most failproof system is just the 'regular' setup. the plus of the azi- systems is manouvrability and, if done properly, an better flow to the propellor (for example by putting them up front of the pod, that helps a lot!) but do you really need that? the extra manouvrability helps the most at low speeds. this is why LPD's and ofshore ships sometimes have it. an warship is not build for low speeds..... on the contrary, the only place where you really would need this is the harbour. that said, my own AU carrier has azipods, and there is something to be said for them...... |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ February 13th, 2012, 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
:/ The idea of a battleship with azipods is just wrong in my view. Then again I draw real ships almost exclusively so I'll bow out. |
|
| Author: | LordMalachi [ February 13th, 2012, 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: futuristic battleship; HELP on superstructure. |
Gah >.< Last week I'm told warships operate at low speeds and things meant to improve high speed performance are useless, now I'm told they operate at high speed and low speed improvements are useless... I'm so confused... So regardless of usefulness, I can compare the traditional propulsion to an AK, reliable and gets the job done, and Azipods with an M4, can be touchy but has some special features? |
|
| Page 4 of 8 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
