You are not logged in.

61

Monday, June 7th 2004, 9:18pm

sources

I finally found something about the reengining of the QE2:

"In 1987, the ship's steam turbine engines were converted to diesel engines, which allow the QE2 to maintain its average speed of 28.5 knots (32.7 mph) while saving over 30 percent in fuel costs. The ship's interiors also have been remodeled. Today, with few exceptions, the ship maintains very little of its original 1960s decor."

that's from http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02222004/sunday/sunday.asp

I'll keep hunting ....

62

Monday, June 7th 2004, 9:22pm

I would say we should go on standard displacement, seeing as our designs are based on treaty limits using standard figures.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

63

Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 9:18am

Quoted

Originally posted by LordArpad
As to the next version of SpringSharp, it's not going to address this, it'll be the next one after that. And my gut feeling is that Ian will follow whatever we decide here.


Is he lurking around? I would appreciate to hear his opinion as he has the best knowledge of what spring* does or does not. Maybe there is a better way to counteract the loss of tonnage due to more fuel instead of adding misc weight. One thing is that one could/should ajust draught because the more fuel you load the deeper your hull should be.

On QE2: Good info. So she gains about 30% of range. But she does so with late-1980er technology. We´re talking 1920-30. Maybe I wasn´t that far off with the 25% benefit I once suggested?

However the problem always will be to bring together two completely different points of view: that of a game designer and that of a player.

Regards,

HoOmAn

64

Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 12:00pm

re QE2: I'd say 40% - because steam turbine technology has progressed a lot more over time than diesel has. Deisel has gone from 200 g/PSh SFC in the chart I posted to about 200 - 190 g/kWh today (look up datasheets on www.mtu.com for reference). For the development of steam turbines check SFC from SpringSharp - easily done.

65

Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 11:37pm

Karaoke can help us with ship propulsion systems?!!!lol :-p

66

Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 2:38pm

yer wot??? you lost me - where did I say Karaoke? *grins* thanks for teh comic relief though - much needed in this conversation.

67

Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 10:03pm

In the link silly....at least thats what i got....my computer is haunted now? 8-(

68

Thursday, June 10th 2004, 12:03am

No, that's Bernhard typing a link without checking it first ... http://www.mtu-friedrichshafen.com is whom I mean.


Ooooops........

;-)

Bernhard

69

Friday, June 11th 2004, 2:41pm

ok,

over on W1 was the following suggestion:

2% weight penalty for electrical drive
20% SFC gain for diesel

I'll add 50% weight penalty for diesel

this gives:

Demo, Iberia CL laid down 1928

Displacement:
7,530 t light; 7,798 t standard; 9,072 t normal; 10,054 t full load
Loading submergence 672 tons/feet

Dimensions:
180.00 m x 18.00 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 1,040 lbs / 472 kg
12 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 2.76" / 70 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 107 % of normal area
Main turrets 2.76" / 70 mm, AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 82,230 shp / 61,344 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts


Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 130 tons, 1.4 %
Armour: 1,191 tons, 13.1 %
Belts: 426 tons, 4.7 %, Armament: 222 tons, 2.4 %, Armour Deck: 514 tons, 5.7 %
Conning Tower: 30 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,560 tons, 28.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,566 tons, 39.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,338 tons, 14.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 287 tons, 3.2 %

Metacentric height 3.5

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

161 t extra for diesels, 51t for electic propulsion

and:

Demo, Iberia CL laid down 1928

Displacement:
7,530 t light; 7,798 t standard; 9,072 t normal; 10,054 t full load
Loading submergence 672 tons/feet

Dimensions:
180.00 m x 18.00 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 1,040 lbs / 472 kg
12 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 2.76" / 70 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 107 % of normal area
Main turrets 2.76" / 70 mm, AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 82,230 shp / 61,344 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 130 tons, 1.4 %
Armour: 1,191 tons, 13.1 %
Belts: 426 tons, 4.7 %, Armament: 222 tons, 2.4 %, Armour Deck: 514 tons, 5.7 %
Conning Tower: 30 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,560 tons, 28.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,574 tons, 39.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,541 tons, 17.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.8 %

Metacentric height 3.7

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

This looks reasonable and realistic to me - can we adopt this? And it seems to be founded on Friedman.

Votes?

cheers

Bernhard

70

Saturday, June 12th 2004, 4:08am

I hate to say it but I just seem to fail to grasp the tech on this issue, its simply to complex given my knowledge to make a decision either way on these rules.

I'd personally prefer to stick to SS rules as it saves me the headache of "attempting" to understand weight penalty's for certain propulsion systems. That and the 50% figure for range increase has me concerned that someone will take advantage of something I know nothing about to gain an advantage. How many here understand this topic? Those that are somewhat knowledgable on the subject can't seem to agree on figures as well.

Seeing as I'm the appointed moderater I'd have to vote against rules on a subject I know nothing about and that those who do can't agree on. SS seems to Sim everything except mixed propulsion reasonably well enough to design a decent ship for our SIM.