Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 14  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 714 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 12:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
well, you run into one big problem here: where do you get the fins from for that extra set of missiles? you can not expand the finning area, as that is based around the size of the missiles. the control unit that is on top of the magazine would also not be duplicated, and you would not be able to put the magazines that close to each other because you need some construction around it, otherwise the center bulkhead would just bend when you empty one magazine.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 12:51 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
acelanceloet wrote:
well, you run into one big problem here: where do you get the fins from for that extra set of missiles? you can not expand the finning area, as that is based around the size of the missiles.
It's a battleship, it's got beam to burn so expand the fin storage that way. Or upwards for that matter.
acelanceloet wrote:
the control unit that is on top of the magazine would also not be duplicated,
True, but you'd still need room for the elevator and rail system. The entire thing will be covered on the final drawing so there's not much point in drawing it all out.
acelanceloet wrote:
and you would not be able to put the magazines that close to each other because you need some construction around it,
Right now there's space for 45cm thick girder in between the loaders which should be plenty for side-to-side rigidity and since the magazines are no wider than the original ones lengthwise rigidity/strength shouldn't be a problem either, especially once you start to look at the masses the structure was originally designed to take.
acelanceloet wrote:
otherwise the center bulkhead would just bend when you empty one magazine.
Come on Ace, you really don't think that. The missiles does not form part of the magazines structure. ANd even if they did, the load trays are still there.

_________________
“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]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 1:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
yes, it has space to expand the fin storage, but how would you reach it? this would result in, when firing the missiles, cabinets with fins being swapped as well..... not what I would want to do, as those cabinets are huge!
and I am talking about the weight of the missiles. if you have an construction with no longitudinal support (such as decks, as the original has) when the weights are changed, the bulkhead wants to bend. yes, it is not that big an problem that you could really see bulges or so, but it might very well be enough to make the elevator rail fitted on that bulkhead stop working.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 2:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
acelanceloet wrote:
well, you run into one big problem here: where do you get the fins from for that extra set of missiles? you can not expand the finning area, as that is based around the size of the missiles.
would doubling in height the finning area work? i mean addind another pair of fin storage levels under the ones already there.. or even adding them beside them, as i have more beam on a battleship...
acelanceloet wrote:
also, IIRC, you can have 1 SPW-2 and 2 SPG-49 (but I might be wrong on that)
i admit that i don't know that much about missile guidance systems, but every Tartar-armed us warships has a set of 2 SPG49 and 2 SPW2 for every twin launcher fitted on board, the benefit of having two twin launchers is (i think) to have upt to four missiles in the air at the same time, so each one would need it's dedicated missile guidance suite (i suppose 4SPG49 and 4SPW2, but i may be wrong too) wich should be also placed on centerline in order to fire those missiles to both port and starboard without problems; this puts me back to the problem that to have this entire suite placed i end up with such a massive piramidal setup that the highest illuminator is as hig as the main gun rangefinder ont he fire-control tower (and i still have to place the height-finder even higher behind them...)

as for the bulkhead between magazines, is this way better?
[ img ]
7 pixels instead of a single one

last but not least, thanks for the help given

_________________
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]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 2:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Ace, the thing is designed as a box. All the stresses should be taken up as compression by the sides/top/ends/bottom. I'd be very surprised if it relied on tension being taken up by external structures. It's inefficient, inelegant, takes up much more space and fails to utilize one of steels best quality, the ability to resist compression.

And you're already throwing multi ton missiles loaded with high explosives and rocket fuel around, designing a conveyor system to supply the fins is a much simpler task.

_________________
“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]
seeker36340
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 3:04 pm
Offline
Posts: 617
Joined: June 9th, 2012, 10:21 pm
Lovely idea


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 3:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
if there is an good solution for the finning area, I think this works.
and there is always some tension being taken up by external structures, as just plating can not take any load, you have to have constructions on it, which can not be at the inside of the magazine as the elevators are there. I would estimate about 1 meter between the magazines would work, as you have to be able to actually build and maintain the void space that exists because of these constructions. (that means a minimum of about 60 cm between the bulkhead, IIRC)

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
seeker36340
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 3:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 617
Joined: June 9th, 2012, 10:21 pm
Interesting...It could be interesting to fit the fixed-array SPS-32/33 like Long Beach and Enterprise. That was considered the cat's meow when those two ships were built. It's never worked worth a darn (at least on Long Beach when I was onboard), but the designers might have at least played with the idea. Just a thought.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 6:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 3907
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Great work on the Montanas!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Montana Class Missile conversionsPosted: March 3rd, 2013, 8:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
seeker36340 wrote:
Interesting...It could be interesting to fit the fixed-array SPS-32/33 like Long Beach and Enterprise. That was considered the cat's meow when those two ships were built. It's never worked worth a darn (at least on Long Beach when I was onboard), but the designers might have at least played with the idea. Just a thought.
I'm not sure they'd have played well with the 18in guns.

_________________
“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]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 14  [ 133 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 714 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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


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