Shipbucket

I, at least, am not saying the chinook is too large. the impact it would have on the ships design is also very large though that is all I am saying.

_________________
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

There's no precedent for large, twin-rotor helicopters being used as shipboard helicopters on escorts. It just seem believable. Even if the RN trialled it into the 1960s, it doesn't make it "realistic".

Generally whenever we design AUs, we need to take into account and draw really heavily from real-life practices I would think.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

the RN planned chinooks on some concepts, notably escort cruiser and type 82. they would ship 4!
while not entirely practicable, I think it could happen. if there would have been no better alternative, that is something else, but I think we've seen worse things in AU's.
so, let me play the devils advocate here.

_________________
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

A twin-rotor design is more space efficient (and therefore lending itself to a greater consideration towards shipboard use) than a single-rotor design as the twin rotor design lets you use more of the fuselage for cargo instead of having a boom stick out uselessly. Remember the USN used several twin-rotor helicopters for ship-board use including the CH-46 Sea Knight.

thinking a bit now, IIRC the classification of ships is bound to the rotor diameter, not the number of rotors. meaning, 2 smaller diameter rotors require an smaller helideck then an single rotor helicopter of the same weight. drawback is that they cannot be folded so easy and tend to be higher, but for both are solutions to be found. the hangar might grow, but the helideck length would be about the same and the width will be less.

so, at the very least, I think comments should be directed at heavy helicopters on board combatants in general and not to the use of chinook-like types. and then, a lot more can be said about it..... if the type 23 can ship an merlin, wouldn't these cruiser size vessels not be able to equip 2 of these beasts?

_________________
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

Partially updated from the original.

Spiffy.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Looks interesting and powerful.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

agreed with the above. I am only a bit wondering about the bridge, it looks like the type 12's bridge with the enclosed bridge wings and the pilothouse in the front....... but I doubt that would be fitted on a ship like this. something more like the bristol seems logical?
I am wondering, what is her powerplant?

_________________
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

Ace, it is the Bristol's bridge or as close to it as possible from Hood's work on an alternate post war RN (Grey Funnel thread)

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"