Author Topic: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.  (Read 5166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aston

  • Out of the Whiffing Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2014, 10:19:28 am »
Practises and displays for Londoners on the Thames, playing with Tower Bridge ....  :lol:

I think the problems were spotted early on .... !

Offline wuzak

  • Full scale Arrow in basement
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2014, 04:42:20 pm »
By the way .... why are aircraft carrier islands always on the starboard side ??

Right hand drive is better?

Offline zenrat

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 18653
  • Currently on double secret probation.
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2014, 05:22:52 pm »
By the way .... why are aircraft carrier islands always on the starboard side ??

Right hand drive is better?

Swing on take off due to engine torque with piston engines?  You'd rather the plane went into the sea than into the superstructure?

Fred

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

My name is Commander William Riker.  Take me to your women.

Offline Mr.Creak

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2014, 05:37:02 pm »
By the way .... why are aircraft carrier islands always on the starboard side ??
Hiryu and Akagi?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_superstructure_of_an_aircraft_carrier_on_the_starboard_side?#slide=2
Traffic patterns, apparently.
Normal circuits are flown anti-clockwise (always to the left) as seen from above. That puts the island out of the way.
What if... I had a brain?

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10383
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2014, 08:35:51 pm »
Practises and displays for Londoners on the Thames, playing with Tower Bridge ....  :lol:

I think the problems were spotted early on .... !

Yes. The Royal Navy did a lot of testing with models.  The airflow patterns were determined to be most favourable on carriers with single islands, one side or the other.  While this became less important as aircraft speeds and engine power increased and angle decks were developed, the fashion had set in.  The side the island was placed on was determined by the traffic patterns and the traffic patterns tended to be determined by the torque of the propeller rotation.   The Japanese, being Japanese of course had to be different to everybody else.  ;)

Putting two islands, one each side was found to create a "wind tunnel effect" and the wind speed made landing more difficult for the lower powered biplanes just after WWII.   It was also felt it would more likely cause greater risk of accident, particularly with the flying bridge over the top.   I've seen articles in various naval journals which went back and re-examined all this and they had some wonderful pictures of the models used in the tanks.  They had Port mounted Islands, split landing on and taking off decks (aft and fore, respectively), starboard mounted Islands, split Islands on both sides, etc., etc.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Offline aston

  • Out of the Whiffing Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2014, 09:13:56 pm »
That's very interesting. Any signs of ski jumps in among those early experiments?

What would the take off speed have been for those 20s aircraft? If the ship could make about 30knots what would the take off and landing distance have been? Not much, presumably .... so were arresters needed then? I know I've seen net systems ......

On tv today someone was climbing the rigging of a tall ship to the first platform, saying the wind speed there was a third greater than at sea level ..... perhaps comparable to a typical flight deck height? It suggests it must be bloomin' windy on carrier flight decks .

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2020, 08:54:20 pm »
What if HMS Hood la Richelieu (top), alternatively a more british option with bits taken from KGV

Will die without understanding this world.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2020, 09:54:42 pm »
What if HMS Hood equipped with huge 20 inch artillery? 3x2



EDIT: 2x2 may be a better idea :-\
« Last Edit: April 15, 2020, 06:43:12 pm by ysi_maniac »
Will die without understanding this world.

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 41823
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2020, 06:35:10 am »
Suits that layout  :thumbsup:

The R.N. did "play" with the idea of 20" guns in the thinking behind the heavy battlecruiser named HMS Incomparable by Jackie Fisher, but it never got anywhere even on paper.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2020, 06:39:40 am by NARSES2 »
Decals my @r$e!

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2020, 09:59:04 pm »
Two alternatives to install 2 quadruple 14 inch turrets (from kgv class) in HMS Hood. Old secubdary artillery is deleted and main turrets of HMS Belfast are intalled too.

Will die without understanding this world.