Shipbucket

One word from me....WOW

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket

magnificent

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Zephyr,

Your Great White class looks like a good beginning but looks incomplete to me.
Shading maybe?
And the small bits every ship has outside of the prelimary design.

Probably because it is incomplete. I know next to zip about subs, surface warfare being my preferred area of study, so I posted it to try and get meaningful suggestions on what to do with it.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Though cool and handsome and all that, you could've chosen a far, far better design, such as my Duke of Edinburgh-class!
Granted the 10 6" guns in casemates were rendered virtually useless in anything but moderate seaway, the DofE:s 9.2" guns, six of them were far superior to the normal 8" guns, which you have equipped your Pluto-class with.
Also the Scharnhorst design did not lend for a stable gun platform. Both Commander Hans Pochhammer and Adm. Graf von Spee himself testified to that fact. Though the later Warriors were the best british armored cruisers built, with an exceptionally steady roll, making them steady gun platforms, the DofE:s were noted for the same characteristics as well.
One thing I did notice, on closer examination, is the fact that you've not succeeded entirely accurately to represent the famous, and characteristic whaleback bow. Maybe you should check this detail and see what can be done?

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

Sorry but the Harpy needs a rethink, too fast for size/weight/hull coefficient (bulges may stop it rolling over but they will knock a lot off your speed). Too many people - overcrowded. Too many aircraft - not enough room (14-18 might be better). Too much weight for hull (overstress). To get the amount of horsepower for your 1919 hull to get to 33 knots on the tonnage your hull is carrying would require a much larger propulsion system than your ship has room for.

I just like the looks of that class of ships, and I am trying not to just have a carbon copy of the British Navy. The follow-on Ajax class is slated for 9.2's (just getting started with that one, so its a ways away from being posted as yet). Also, since I didn't copy the Scharnhost exactly, made a few little changes, it seems to have helped with the springsharp assessment... ---------------------
Honestly, springsharp thought it was ok, and the crew is actually less than what ss said it ought be. I believe it will stay "as is". Besides, and not trying to be snarky, there was plenty of opportunity to raise concerns about the design here in my design thread instead of in the naval factbook. It is slightly larger than the Hermes, which carried 20 aircraft, so I don't think 24 is out of line.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Actually the Hermes is bigger in size than the Harpy 614x64 (39296) H= 600x70 (42000). Hermes is designed as a carrier yours is a converted Saturn type cruiser. The Saturn is 11,767 tons Harpy 16,605, thats over 40% increase in weight and you expect your ship to still make 33 knots, and then you have to take the bulges into consideration. None of the data you supply gives the horsepower of the propulsion system you expect the Saturn and Harpy to make 33 knots on. Neither ship is big enough to take the propulsion system to get it to 33 knots from a 1917-19 system. Have a read on the Brit upgrade from the D class to E class cruiser and what was required to get to 33 knots. That is at the same timescale as your ships.

To get the Hawkins hull from 60,000shp @ 30knots to 33 knots is going to require something like 90,000shp - to get Harpy to 33 will be more like 110,000shp because of the bulges and extra weight on the same hull shape. To give you some idea of size - that would be the same size of propulsion system needed for HMS Tiger the battlecruiser. Otherwise just accept that it will be slower and adjust your statistics accordingly. Same with your aircraft - your ship is smaller in area and will carry less.

Springsharp is not infallible by any means. Why do you think I dont use Springsharp for the details for my ships? Because Springsharp does not have enough variables to give sensible answers to the questions.

I use real ship data from the time period because the ships, building materials, building methods, were continually evolving. Engineering methods for the engines and boilers reduced the size & weight by 35-40% in 20 years (1912-1932). You build your ship post 1930 and you might just get a propulsion system small enough and powerful enough to fit in your ship and get it to 33 knots.

You think I don't pay attention to real specifications? That seems a bit presumptuous.

As far as your SHP numbers, you may be correct about that. I'll look into it. The air group stays as is, though, at 24 max.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆