Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 11  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 511 »
Author Message
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 5th, 2011, 5:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
I judge Bombhead's to be vastly superior.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 5th, 2011, 5:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Thanks for the encouraging comments mates ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 5th, 2011, 5:42 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Agreed, that bombhead has nicely updated this, but I question the hangar, as it was specified to accept the larger Seaking and EH101, rather than two Sea Lynx, so the hangar needs to be enlarged. I would also judge the earlier drawing to be more accurate around the bridge. :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 5th, 2011, 8:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Is there a new Exocet launcher on the parts sheets anywhere ?.By 89 the Exocet was being replaced by Harpoon as in Type 22 batch 3.Typical build time in UK yards being about 7 years.British specs was always being changed half way through building,leading to massive delays and cost overuns.And yes Bill the bridge does look a bit plain so I swopped it for Miho's.I worked on the theory that since a chopper is statistically only available for ops 30% of the time two smaller ones would be better than one large.IMO the ship impact of such a large chopper and hanger would have been too much on such a relatively small hull.The good thing about never were designs is you can take a few liberties,like the R2D2s ;)

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 6th, 2011, 12:43 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
Bombhead wrote:
Revamped version of my very 1st SB drawing.She just needs one of Kim Werner's excellent badges/C of A.
:D Awesome drawing of this destroyer. Of course, I'll make the crest for her ;)

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 6th, 2011, 7:11 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Many thanks Kim.That will complete the drawing nicely. ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ALVAMA
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 6th, 2011, 7:25 am
I love that drawing indeed aswell! Quite great piece of work! Though I've to agree with Hood about her name..


Top
[Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 6th, 2011, 7:53 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Quote:
I worked on the theory that since a chopper is statistically only available for ops 30% of the time two smaller ones would be better than one large.IMO the ship impact of such a large chopper and hanger would have been too much on such a relatively small hull.The good thing about never were designs is you can take a few
An interesting development, and quite within the design parameters, so sure, go with two. The only problem I could foresee is that the hangar would have to be wide enough to accomodate the two, and I'm not sure if there is enough spave for that. All that said, a very nice drawing. the Type 43 would have been quite a formidable warship; and yes, a pox on John Nott :twisted:


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 6th, 2011, 11:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
On the starboard side, there's a void between the forward superstructure and forward funnel which should be filled by the visible section of the port situated hangarwall. Otherwise an excellent rendition, and I am especially pleased with the fact that it is rendered with both starbord and port elevations!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: Type 43 DestroyerPosted: June 7th, 2011, 2:01 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
looks good. want to draw a how she would look in 2010 version?

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 11  [ 103 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 511 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests


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


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