Shipbucket

Looks better than the NIGS version.
I'd be tempted to ditch the 40mm though. I assume the magazine is a tube inside the rear superstructure?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

One of the things that emerged when discussing aircraft was the differing paths and requirements required by the different engine types. When this was applied to my Gloster Griffon F5/34, using the radial engines available did not really give it the performance it might require to combat enemy aircraft, plus it does not have a very good upgrade path. Using the Rolls Royce Merlin gives similar power ratings for the earlier models but of course there is a clear upgrade path for the Merlin that can be used for the Griffon.

Much better. You need a slightly larger rudder area for tail control in yaw. I'd also be happier if you ballasted for the heavier engines (a ten pixel extension of the barrel past the rondel. It is a single point bridge load on the main wing (nose heavy--> Check the Zero-sen for what I mean.) and you need to balance it.

I prefer the Merlin version to be honest.... but then, I'm biased

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

:O That's a CRACKING looking Cruiser Krakatoa

Well done Fella

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

Added third view to Griffon drawings with enlarged fuselage and tailplane.

The extra length should be useful for an enlarged fuel tank, for extended range. Something most of the British fighters of the time suffered from - short range.

The original F5/34 had an 890hp radial. From that it made 330mph. But that would probably be unarmed. If I substitute a 1050hp Merlin with the better aerodynamics from the nose, longer fuselage with more fuel, it would probably still make the 330+. The armament is still a problem. While I might like to keep the 6x0.5" mg's, so that when the FAA starts receiving US aircraft (Martlets from 1940) that there is a commonality of ammunition. I would also like to put some 20mm cannon on from 1940.

To make it happen with the Merlin then the Griffon would need a guaranteed supply of the engines. Its own production line. Some manufacturer like Gloster or Fairey needs to be brought on board by the FAA with a license to build Merlins.

One of the changes I did for the FAA was a radial engined Sea Battle, maybe that should go back to the Merlin. If the fighter and torpedo bomber are using the same engine, commonality of parts might be worthwhile. Would it then be worthwhile to also look at a Merlin powered Blackburn Skua?

I like the Gloster Griffon, personally i prefer the radial engine.

_________________
kike-92

Updated the Battleship Barfleur and CVL Vindictive with the new badges Kim Werner drew.

Big thanks to Kim.

I have been reviewing my cruiser lines post WW1. The original line I have uses the Frobisher class hull and using twin and triple 7.5" mountings. The 7.5" gun is a good enough gun and being smaller/lighter does give some spare tonnage that can be used for the necessary extra armour over the RTL County class. The biggest difference between the RTL County and my expanded Frobisher's is the radius of action. The difference in range is about 4000 miles. Difference between 13,300 nmi at 12 knots and 9000 nmi at 12 knots. Almost a 50% loss. That is just the difference in the size of the hulls. Lots more space in the County hull for fuel and provisions.

The other cruisers being built at the same time as the Frobisher's was the 'E' Class. So my thought was, "What would an improved 'E' look like with 8" guns?". My first part of the idea was to replace the twin 8" of the County's with triples. Mainly as a weight and space saving device. One of the improvements of the 'E's was the unit system of machinery, intentional or otherwise. From forward to aft the propulsion system ran, boiler room, boiler room, engine room and lastly another boiler room. This gave the slightly odd looking funnel arrangement, but powerful 80,000shp propulsion system.



What was required was an expanded hull. Going from the 570 x 54.5 foot hull for 7x6" at 33.5 knots to the 617 x 66 foot hull with 9x8" at 32 knots. The original design made space for where aircraft handling facilities could be fitted but these were not fitted to the mid 30's. In fact a series of refits and rebuilds were required from completion to 1939-40 to keep the ships at the forefront of their class.



As completed.

Displacement: 10,010 tons standard, 13,250 tons full load.
Dimensions: 617 x 66 x 21 feet
Machinery: 4 shafts, Geared turbines, 80,000shp
Speed: 32 knots
Endurance: 10,000 nmi @ 14 knots
Armour: 3.5" belt, 1.5" deck, 3" turrets.
Armament:
9 x 8" (3x3)
5 x 4" AA (5x1)
4 x 2pd AA (4x1)
Aircraft: nil
Torpedoes: 12 x 21" (4x3)
Crew: 740

As rebuilt to 1940.

Armament:
9 x 8" (3x3)
8 x 4" (4x2)
12 x 2pd (3x4)
16 x 20mm (16x1)
Aircraft: 2
Torpedoes: 6 x 21" (2x3)
Crew: 765 (800 as flagship)

Very nice drawings.
I honestly thought some new user necro'd this, didn't check the name.

_________________
A signature is just for people who say, "I didn't put enough words in my post."
Oh, wait.