Shipbucket

And now for something completely ridiculous!

While I'm thinking through the points Thiel and JSB have made (to be honest, it's a fairly simple solution, I'm just going to have to drop the McNamara-style efficiency drive in favour of something a bit more achievable - NSWE will probably standardise wherever possible, just not to the extent I'd previously thought) I thought I'd just regress back to a 12-year-old for a moment ... so, I present the Drachen 128, as used on the Bauamt CAAA '44 design that didn't actually see service until after the war was finished.

As on the other CAAA, it's a six-barrel Gatling mount, this time firing 128mm ammunition (the same ammunition as the KM40s on the CA '41 use). I can probably try to come up with a rationale for it, but I think we all know it's going to be handwaving and to be honest, this is more a distraction while I'm drawing New Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach's mid-war medium tank, which is slowly sapping my will to live. I thought the ships were intricate...

Fictional numbers, just because I'm somewhat obsessive-compulsive:
Min \ Max elevation: -5 \ +70
Muzzle velocity: 1,167 m/s
Range: 23,400m
AA Ceiling: 16,800m
Rate of Fire: 108 rounds per minute
CEP: 2-4km

Anyway, here it is, in it's monstrous and impractical glory:


Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Well, aside from the horror inducing vibration issues you've now also added a failure to feed issue from hell to the mix.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Hi Thiel,

Yeah, the thing certainly has issues ... which bit specifically is the cause of the feed issue? The tight curve on the ammunition lift would be my guess but I'm just looking to clarify.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

The fact that you're using a minigun style feed chute to feed 35ish kg shells. At full load you're looking at about two tons of ammunition in the chute which is enough to deform the ones in the bottom. Elevators as a rule doesn't do variable curves.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Ah, I see - that is actually supposed to be a track for a shell lift (though, as you've said, curves, may have to re-do that) rather than a shell feed chute.

Regards,
Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Well, the lift would be a beast of a machine all by itself. Depending on the firing angle it would need a top speed of above 80 km/h. Alternatively you could go for some sort of endless chain affair. There's also the question of how you get the shells into the lift in the first place. At 100+ round per minute handloading clearly isn't an option. That means some sort of drum or conveyor arrangement is necessary which is going to put a major crimp in ammunition capacity and I wouldn't be terribly confident in its reliability.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Hi Thiel,

Was thinking more in terms of having a heavy lift delivering multiple shells to a limited-capacity shell rack that elevates with the mount and feeds the shells in singly - the lift wouldn't have to be quite so fast (but would have to lift a heavier load) - as the maximum angle is 70 degrees I don't think I'll have to worry about shells falling out of the rack as it raises and lowers. That's part of the reason the balance point is quite far back - I figure (completely guessing, let's be honest, I'm a little OCD but not thatOCD) there that with the shell rammers to empty the lift into the rack and then the rack into the breech that'd provide a decent counter-balance to all that steel out the front of the gun (it's an L/90 rather than the L/61 the KM40 is) plus of course the actual shells.

As to actually getting the shells into the lift, you are right, that's going to present a problem. Best solution I can think of is to have each individual space on the shell lift individually loaded through scuttles for flash safety - that'll mean you can parallel up the loading crews - either that or just decide that my shell rings are magic and transfer up to the mount automatically. Is that even feasible for a '44 design, even given that, New Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach having spent ridiculous $ on this, it may be a little further advanced than it should be in '44?

Random Edit: By "Endless Chain" do you mean a paternoster-type affair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster Link because I have no idea how big a thing they are in Denmark - they're virtually unheard of in the UK (Leicester University does have one, though, and yes, you can go all the way around!).

Regards,
Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Yes. It seems like the only workable way to get the requisite number of shells to the gun with the current setup. It's going to be a real bear to get to work though, especially since you'll be unloading at different attitudes. The more reasonable solution would be an on mount ready magazine and just accept that you won't be doing sustained barrages. A counter rotating drum beneath the gun might be the easiest way of doing it, though it's probably not going to fit all that many shells without becoming overly massive

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Afternoon all,

Well, time to show the latest WIP and an update to the stupid gun.

Firstly, the WIP:


This is basically a scaled Akron - a careful examination of the frame size and spacing will reveal an approximately 110% Akron although the envelope, cockpit, elevators and the hull line markings are my own. Is a credit for CanisD / "D. Briedis" (whom I've not had the opportunity to talk to, I think) required?

I picked 110% because I'd thought that with the passage of a few years, particularly given the leaps and bounds in aerodynamic engineering, a 10% increase in size was feasible, at least.

A few details on this airship:
Length: 254m / 833ft
Diameter: 43m / 141 ft
Height: 49.5m / 161.5ft
Beam (as defined by elevator edges): 49.5m / 161.5ft
Cargo capacity: 72 tons (this is the same as the Akron, because...)
He carriage: 202,400 cubic metre / 7,147,700 cu.ft. + 6,450 cubic metres @ 150-300kPa / 227,800 cu.ft. @ 22-44 psi buoyancy compensation in low-pressure annular tanks A-J

The buoyancy compensation can accommodate approximately 10,000 kilos variance from "empty" to full - the tanks don't entirely empty and assist with frame stiffness - the annular tanks are located immediately fore-and-aft of the five frames mounting the engines - while emptying the buoyancy reserve into the lift cells requires no power, running the compressor to take He from the lift cells and force it into the buoyancy comp tanks requires that the propeller is de-clutched and the compressor clutched in. As Akron and Macon this airship also mounts (will mount ) condensers on the engine exhaust to collect water ballast, partly to stop having to run the compressors so frequently.

The propellers (and compressors) are powered by 10 x Modula 9 engines, giving the airship a high, if fuel-inefficient top speed of 90kn. As the airship design forces the propellers to be on the same level and in each other's wash, counter-rotating props have been fitted in an attempt to reduce interference, though these were eventually removed as an unnecessary complication given the mediocre performance benefits.

In addition to cargo lift (though the cargo lift, for all intents and purposes, is closer to the 10,000kg that the ship can compensate for than the raw 72,000kg raw lift number, unless ballast loading \ unloading can be arranged in advance) this class of airship is used as a flying aircraft carrier, hosting 5 parasite fighters (the FAA fighter is just for scale), themselves armed with 4 x 20mm and capable of fairly high speeds courtesy of their own Modula 9-2 engines developing around 1,800kW, and also as a radar picket, mounting a generator and two modified Freya radar sets on the lower hull, the radar picket acting as an AWACS and directing the parasite fighters launched by companion airships to intercept. The few remaining cargo variants had by 1942 (most had by this point been converted to either Zeppelin Flugzeugträger or Zeppelin Freya variants) mostly been tasked with outsize cargo, although successful trials at transporting light armoured vehicles were not progressed once survivability of the airframes was factored into the assessment.

Stuff to do is wheels and glass on the lower fin for landing gear and lookout station (note that the fin is supported at the leading edge by a frame, unlike Macon - that's one of the "lessons learned" in this AU by this point), those hull lines, which I am not looking forward to (the envelope took ages to get looking right and I'm still not entirely happy with it), which will in turn define the condensers and shading, the parasite fighter in SB and FD scales.

Oh, also, gun, with labels. I think it's better (but still has issues) and hopefully this shows how I was thinking to manage feeding this awful gun:


The drum's not actually counter-rotating as Thiel suggested but rotates along a parallel axis as this has a greater overlap in which to ram the shell into the breech. Two rammers for the actual Gatling gun, as I thought a) "the whole point about Gatling guns is to spread out the loading process" and b) given the rate of fire, having a single rammer do that was pushing it a bit, I'd thought. The second rammer is almost invisible behind the frame supporting the lower rammer, but there are a couple of pixels for it there.

EDIT: As per discussion with Thiel, have removed the "Double Hindenberg" refuelling method.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Inflight refueling between two airships sounds hilariously dangerous.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.