Shipbucket

Another upload

what is that line at the bow, above the sonar dome? no ship I have ever seen has something like that as far as I can remember now, where does it come from?

the shading is still awwful, and are you sure ECM suite is the same as the one on type 45? (there are also some black pixelfields over there which looks bad)
the anchor looks to be fitted quite far aft, are you sure it should be over there?
the portholes look a bit fuzzy
I have doubts about the CAMM VLS cells being the same size as the ones of the Mk 41, but the hatches drawn seem to be....?

_________________
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

well, I'm no expert on the Type 26, but the CGI as posted here, surely seems to support Gunship's placement of the bow anchor. It could be that the shape of the sonar is more flattened, and therefore requires the anchor to be set somewhat abaft the sonar dome.
As for the shading, I don't think you need to be that harsh, ace. Yes, sure, you disagree with the shading, but awful? No, I don't think so. Actually, in my view it's a fairly decent job, possibly inspiring me to rework some aspects of my Type 23s and 22s. As for the other comments, about missing pixels or strays, I cannot tell, since I haven't 'blown' up the picture yet...

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

of course you see nothing wrong with the shading bezo, it seems to be based on your type 23 drawing.
I am against it not because I think it looks bad, but because it does not represent the shape of an underwater hull accurately.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632 ... 20test.png
in this drawing I have set out the differene between what the shading shows and what it actually is shaped like on almost all warships with displacement hulls. the exact angles of the lines may differ from the different reference point (I myself keep the 45 degree angle as shading start point) but the problem remains: the bow is not to be shaded dark,the skeg is vertical and shading at the above water hull should correspond with that at the below the waterline hull. shading like this can only be accurately drawn with at least an grasp of what an lineplan looks like, which seems not to be the case here.

the fact that I dislike the contrast and colour choice is an personal preference, the above is what makes it wrong.

_________________
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

Well, there we go, ace! So much better an answer. and, truthfully, I didn't realize that Gunship may have based his shading on my Type23, but now, when you've pointed that out, I can see your point, and also agree on its validity. Of course (my PoV only!) the shading principles can be left, but the it needs - I agree there - to confirm with the actual (or anticipated) form of the hull. But, ace, I'm very pleased with your answer!

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

Very good discussion and recommendations to improve the drawing. The truth is that it is still unclear the final design.
If someone wants to take the drawing and want to change, you can do it without problems.
Here are the pictures I took for work.

I like that CVS401 Perseus missile, with its two sub-effectors!

As usual Hmmm,

I'm afraid that your sources are not "official".
Your 3D sources look more like a Naval(or website)-Magazine 3D CGI...
I do not believe that these sources are 3D English Shipbuilders (BAE sources)

How you found your 3D sources ?

a handfull of small details comments, to improve your drawing

So is this "Global Combat ship"
the model being built on the Clyde?
I think I see from the diagram that this ship uses a screw propeller.

Now I'm not a ship buff but I was reading about the Voith Schneider Propeller yesterday, and these points impressed.
So I was thinking "Hmm Voith Schneider Propeller - all good" and I got to wonder "why not", meaning why is the VSP not used in all modern ships, especially something where performance matters like a military ship?

Why is this type 26 frigate not designed to use the Voith Schneider Propeller?

Or have I come to the wrong forum for that question? Is this a train-spotter forum for ships, scientists not welcome, because they ask far too technical questions that no-one here has a clue about?

I, for one, applaud technical questions Shipbucket is a place where artists, engineers, seafarers, ship spotters and everything in between all have their place, and even clash every now and then, so asking these kind of questions is no issue, there will always be somebody who knows more of the subject

The disadvantages of an VSP are low efficiency at speed (or even inability to reach that speed) primarily, and large draft and ship design impact second.
the advantages are very good control at low speed, low noise levels (due to lower rotation speed indeed) and a large amount of torque for a given amount of engine power.

in short, this gives advantages when used as main propulsion on tugs, minesweepers and low speed patrol vessels, but completely unsuitable for transports, cruise ships or combatants because of their inefficiency and inability when going fast. in these cases, the VSP could potentially see use as auxiliary or maneuvering thruster. development of an cyclodial rudder for example allows it to be used as such.

_________________
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