Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 20 of 36  [ 353 posts ]  Go to page « 118 19 20 21 2236 »
Author Message
Shipright
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 3:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 397
Joined: February 15th, 2013, 2:16 pm
Ha, like that challege laid down wasn't going to be accepted :)

[ img ]

From left to right:
-Mk1 Human
-Combination oven/steamer stack
-Stand up mixer
-Griddle w/ gaylord
-Stainless counter w/ undercounter reefer/freezer
-Industrial microwave
-Counter top steamer
-Meat Slicer
-Stainless counter w/ dishwasher and undercounter reefer/freezer
-Bread Slicer
-Bufflo Chopper
-Deep fat fryer w/ gaylord
-Stand up reefer/freezer
-Bread Proofer
-Small electric steam kettle
-Large electric steam kettle
-Tilt skillet

This is all the galley equipment present in the crew galley of a DDG51 FLTI, though there are multiples of some of these.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 4:23 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
I generally agree with Hood, but that doesn't mean I don't get a chuckle every time I see a little tiny thing that isn't strictly necessary.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 5:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
erik_t wrote:
a little tiny thing that isn't strictly necessary.
could you maybe explain this a bit more? you mean like the 'semi-joke' stuff in the posts by heuhen and shipright, or do you have that 'chuckle' on the stuff posted in the first post of this thread too?

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shipright
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 5:26 pm
Offline
Posts: 397
Joined: February 15th, 2013, 2:16 pm
erik_t wrote:
I generally agree with Hood, but that doesn't mean I don't get a chuckle every time I see a little tiny thing that isn't strictly necessary.

You try telling a shipmate his fresh bread "isn't necessary".... ;)

But I see you want to see the IMPORTANT stuff, the things that REALLY makes a US warship go...?

[ img ]

...may I introduce you to the DDG51 FLTI wardroom, from left to right:

-Mk1 mouth breathing Ensign briefer ("How do I hide I know absolutely nothing about what is on these slides...")
-SUPPO's chair (*sleeping*)
-OPS's chair (*picking nose*)
-CMC's chair ("how in the hell is this butter bar getting paid more than me for THIS")
-XO's chair ("I am pulling this boot's PQS as soon as this is over")
-POWERPOINT!!!
-CO's chair ("Who can I blame for this... AH, CSO!")
-CSO's chair ("I am going to get blamed for this")
-WEPS's chair (*daydreaming*)
-NAV's chair ("YAY, I am sitting at the big girl's table!")
-Coffee, lots of it


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 7:13 pm
Offline
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
For practical reasons (space on sheets) I'd keep belowdeck ("cutaway") parts on separate sheets but organized (filenamed) in the common sequence with "main sheets", though I think it could lead to situation where they'd be perceived as "less worthy" - which certainly isn't the case, esp. considering how much effort is being put in creating them.

Few words on "current problems":
-to me the definition of "belowdeck parts" would be rather intuitive - they are these elements that can't be seen (in significant part or in entriety) on "typical" SB drawing - like ammunition/missile/torpedo etc. magazines and reloading mechanisms, propulsion, and installations particularly important to the tasks of the ship on the drawing (or significant for some technical/historical reason and therefore valuable to show). Parts like kitchen installations, toilet plumbing, bunks etc. although in fact critically important to actual operation of any vessel, rather don't need to be added except in a bit of tongue-in-cheek manner. ;)
-as for the deck penetration issue - I'd say that if there's something "hidden" (of the part/installation that's "eligible" to be included in the sheet) then certainly it fits. If particular part has no deck penetration, I'd certainly still see it on the sheet if it would be some sort of "complete preview" (for example: sheet "guns of navy X" with 10 types of guns - 9 with deck penetration, 1 without).

Shipright, Heuhen
Great work! :lol:
Even though for the actual purpose of this thread (it's "spirit") these drawings can't be considered anything else than humorous, they are excellent in themselves. :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Raxar
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 9th, 2013, 10:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 31st, 2011, 4:49 pm
Location: Michigan
On the other hand, it's a reminder of all the stuff you need on a warship and roughly how much space it takes up. ;)

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Obsydian Shade
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 11th, 2013, 11:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 797
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 5:44 am
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
Is there anything for the French M 1953-64 100mm guns? I find the current drawing (at least I think it is) confusing. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=491&start=140 Is that showing some below decks penetration? I can't find any pics showing it raised that high up.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 11th, 2013, 11:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Obsydian Shade wrote:
Is there anything for the French M 1953-64 100mm guns? I find the current drawing (at least I think it is) confusing. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=491&start=140 Is that showing some below decks penetration? I can't find any pics showing it raised that high up.

raised that high:

It's depending on which ship they was mounted on. some ship might have them mounted higher up due too something that is in the way (aka High solid railings, or parts of an superstructure) other might have them mounted low.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ne1172.jpg


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 12th, 2013, 12:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Obsydian Shade wrote:
Is there anything for the French M 1953-64 100mm guns? I find the current drawing (at least I think it is) confusing. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=491&start=140 Is that showing some below decks penetration? I can't find any pics showing it raised that high up.
it was raised higher on some ships, so no, no belowdeck part shown (this gun was drawn before this thread started)
I have some references for her belowdeck part somewhere, if you require I will look it up and draw it, but the fact that I myself did not require this gun yet makes that I have not drawn nor checked it.

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Obsydian Shade
Post subject: Re: belowdeck partsPosted: October 12th, 2013, 3:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 797
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 5:44 am
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
That explains it. I checked Bezo's DDG as the most recent ship using it that I could think of, and it seemed lower mounted, which made me think that some of the drawing was showing belowdeck parts. I'm looking at possibly substituting it for Soviet made Ak-276, but am researching the weights. It seems that the the M-1964 version is around the same weight as that gun.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 20 of 36  [ 353 posts ]  Return to “Parts Sheets Discussion” | Go to page « 118 19 20 21 2236 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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


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