Page 2 of 6
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 14th, 2011, 6:22 pm
by MihoshiK
Hm, Tim, considering the location and the fact that they appear angled to the front/back in the lineart, I think that's not a smaller set of intakes on the forward superstructure above the regular ones, but rather a location for chaff launchers.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 14th, 2011, 8:28 pm
by TimothyC
MihoshiK wrote:Hm, Tim, considering the location and the fact that they appear angled to the front/back in the lineart, I think that's not a smaller set of intakes on the forward superstructure above the regular ones, but rather a location for chaff launchers.
Quite possibly.
One issue I am having is that the uptakes are just not big enough. I may add a second row below the current ones.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 15th, 2011, 10:41 am
by Hood
Overall its looking good. A very purposeful design that somehoe reminds me of those unbuilt early 1960s Soviet cruisers in overall appearance.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 16th, 2011, 3:44 am
by TimothyC
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 16th, 2011, 10:38 pm
by ghost792
Nice work. I found out about the CGBL a few years ago and I've been fascinated with it ever since. One peculiar thing, though, not with your work, but the design itself. Why only three missile directors instead of four like the Ticos? It seems odd that the Navy would hamper a CG's capabilities in that way.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 16th, 2011, 10:53 pm
by TimothyC
ghost792 wrote:Nice work. I found out about the CGBL a few years ago and I've been fascinated with it ever since. One peculiar thing, though, not with your work, but the design itself. Why only three missile directors instead of four like the Ticos? It seems odd that the Navy would hamper a CG's capabilities in that way.
I'm presuming that the forward directors are side-by-side, just as they are on the Ticos themselves. It really does contrary to the idea of building built to Burke standards (something that Erik just said to me, and I happen to agree with it). I am looking at tracking down where the painting is so that a higher resolution image might someday make it online. Until then I'm stuck with what I've posted here (and on a couple of other forums).
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 17th, 2011, 1:06 am
by Karle94
Nice ship and good work. Should`t the Harpoon launchers face outwards, instead of inwards?
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 17th, 2011, 1:14 am
by TimothyC
Best guess I have is that they cross fire across the bow.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 17th, 2011, 2:48 am
by ghost792
The Navy started positioning the Harpoon tubes to fire across the opposite side they were mounted on so that the missiles' exhaust could be directed overboard. It made protecting the ship from the exhaust far easier.
Re: CGBL
Posted: October 17th, 2011, 8:36 am
by Morten812
looks great, apart from the aft funnel being the tallest, just my humble opinion.