Shipbucket

Portsmouth Bill wrote:I don't usually commnet here, but I always look in; so I'd like to say that your skills are developing and that is most evident in the latest design

Thank you. It is always nice to hear I may be on the right track.

Hey Zephyr we will some new WW2 aircraft carriers?

Not sure if I'm quite ready to do full-sized aircraft carriers yet. My drawings have been getting better, but when you start thinking about big flattops, well, thats a whole 'nother ballgame.

ah ok i was only wanting to know if you was going to make some carriers;)

Biancini1995 wrote:ah ok i was only wanting to know if you was going to make some carriers;)

eventually, yes. My list of "things to do for my navy" (also known as the table of contents for my naval database) is right here. You'll see a number of CV classes through the years I intend to get to eventually. Of course, that list is not comprehensive, especially with the smaller ships and auxilleries, which I add as I get to them, and changes for other classes already listed are subject to change if I get a better idea or suggestion.

This time a Seaplane Carrier/Tender of the Royal Fleet Auxillery




Tair River Class, Seaplane Tender
Displacement:
13,038 t light; 13,358 t standard; 14,976 t normal; 16,271 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
632.03 ft / 613.00 ft x 68.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
192.64 m / 186.84 m x 20.73 m x 7.62 m
Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
22 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8 mounts), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 7 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 475 lbs / 215 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 75
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 1.50" / 38 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 55,856 shp / 41,668 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 12,400nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,912 tons
Complement:
676 - 879
Cost:
£3.350 million / $13.400 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 59 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 1,172 tons, 7.8 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 80 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 1,072 tons, 7.2 %
- Conning Tower: 20 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 1,649 tons, 11.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,158 tons, 67.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,938 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45,155 lbs / 20,482 Kg = 418.1 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 5.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 15.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 81 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.11
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.61

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.503
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.01 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.48 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 14.10 degrees
Stern overhang: 12.50 ft / 3.81 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (14 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Mid (43 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (28 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 23.54 ft / 7.17 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 40.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 189.7 %
Waterplane Area: 28,963 Square feet or 2,691 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 303 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1,049 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 2.06
- Longitudinal: 3.73
- Overall: 2.18
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I really like this design, however it does have a few issues.
On the artistic front, the gangway is (hopefully) intended to carry people and as such is should be three pixels thick.
The bottom of the bow where it meets the keel could do with some smoothing over.
On the technical side, your High Angle director is too close to the mast to turn properly. Right now it's only usable against targets coming from the front. I also wonder about the aft mast. It's much too heavy to be carried on the hangar roof, so it'll have to penetrate the hangar spaces below. It's not an impossible setup, but it's worth bearing in mind since it provides a potential bottleneck.
Also, I really doubt the RFA has the skills to operate a ship like this, unless they're trained to the same standard as the Navy, at which point you might as well merge the two. And that's ignoring the political implications for the navy. After all, if the RFA can operate half a cruiser, what's stopping them from operating a whole one?

Also, you need to ad a ton of misc weight to the SpringSharp report since right now it's ignoring all the aviation facilities. The location of the guns on the drawing doesn't match the SS report while we're at it.

BTW, have my packet arrived at your place yet?

Thiel wrote:I really like this design, however it does have a few issues.
On the artistic front, the gangway is (hopefully) intended to carry people and as such is should be three pixels thick.

Hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

Thiel wrote:The bottom of the bow where it meets the keel could do with some smoothing over.

Yeah, that part always gives me fits.

Thiel wrote:On the technical side, your High Angle director is too close to the mast to turn properly. Right now it's only usable against targets coming from the front. I also wonder about the aft mast. It's much too heavy to be carried on the hangar roof, so it'll have to penetrate the hangar spaces below. It's not an impossible setup, but it's worth bearing in mind since it provides a potential bottleneck.

Hnh. I'll relocate it to someplace where it can actually be useful.
The majority of the hanger space is below decks aft with a lift centered between the 4 catapults. (slightly raised area below the rear of the aft catapult and front of the fore catapult. That is a short sideguard to port and starboard of the lift, not part of the lift itself. Mostly there to show where the lift is.) The above decks hanger is more for maintenance and repair, and I had thought that the mast did extend down through the roof and provided the access to the deck above; the guns and wireless shack.

Thiel wrote:Also, I really doubt the RFA has the skills to operate a ship like this, unless they're trained to the same standard as the Navy, at which point you might as well merge the two. And that's ignoring the political implications for the navy. After all, if the RFA can operate half a cruiser, what's stopping them from operating a whole one?

This ship is assigned to the RFA because of its role, and has a "hybrid" crew ... RFA for ships operations, RN for the guns, FAA for the floatplanes and aircraft maintenance/repair crew. My RFA is a little different from the British RFA, at least up until about 1948-49. Then it starts looking more like what we would consider the British RFA we know about.

Thiel wrote:Also, you need to ad a ton of misc weight to the SpringSharp report since right now it's ignoring all the aviation facilities. The location of the guns on the drawing doesn't match the SS report while we're at it.

When I did the SS report, I did it before I actually placed the guns. And yeah, I forgot about adding weight for the aviation facilities. oops.

this is a somewhat rough estimation of allocation of belowdecks space to give an idea of where I was heading.

Thiel wrote:BTW, have my packet arrived at your place yet?

Not as yet, but mail from outside the US takes its own sweet time getting here anymore. Some stamps I bought on ebay took 5 weeks getting here from Canada, and a package from the Netherlands with some coins took nearly as long.

I'd move that aft crew space forwards in front of and around the magazines, that'd allow a much larger engineering space to allow engines (not just boilers) as would moving the spare parts on top of the engineering spaces, that'd give a higher rate of survivability, hiding the machinery below/close to the water line

Like I said, thats just a rough, very rough, approximation of where things are. Since we can't see that, I was kinda figuring that the actual locations could be wherever they need to be.

Anyhow, an updated image of the bits we can see.