Shipbucket

If this is the standard I'm happy with that

Single-arm Seadart? Hmm, well I've got the Friedman reference but I'm sure I've seen another set of plans of a frigate armed with it on the internet (not sure if the site still exists though), I thought I'd saved the pics but can't find them now.

Given that over at Secretprojects research work by a member there reveals the NIGS launcher was very much like the Sea Dart launcher, the launcher must have a fairly long design period. The fact that the drawing in Friedman's shows a launcher almost identical to the twin-arm showsit would be very similar to the twin-arm launcher with only a starboard rail. An odd arrangement but possibly a economic one to share launchers but omit one rail, and it would remove the need to radically change the mechanisms and technical aspects of the magazine too. We might further venture a possibility that it was deliberate, a ploy so any single-arm design could be upgraded if their Lordship's minds changed?

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

well, that gives one problem: the magazine would need to be offset (as, if the magazine was just as wide as the regular one, there would be no use for an single launcher)
thus, it would seem more likely to me for it to be an launcher set up like the Mk 13, with more or less the rail of the twin but an support on both sides.
I think the magazine would be an 'half' magazine of the regular sea dart, but as I have no data for the width of both....... I have the amount of missiles in the single and the dual launchers though, so the answer to that can be found when I will be comparing magazine lengths.

the only other thing that might be kept in mind for this is the fact that there was an sea dart/ikara launcher combo proposed once, which IIRC used an single launcher as well....... but I doubt this would be the same launcher as the one we are talking about 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

The single-arm launcher seems quite rare, perhaps only really a concept for saving weight and money. It seems most of the other DS3** designs of that time had normal twin-arm Sea Dart but with varying magazine sizes. As the caption in Friedman says the launcher is "marked 'single seadart launcher' and was probably to have been a redesigned unit proposed at the time by Vickers". The fact the plan of the DS392 shows a Sea Dart launcher that looks identical to the standard could be because the designer simply didn't know what else to draw (implying no port-side rail becuase you can't see it in 2-D anyway!). Vickers obviously had an idea for a smaller launcher, probably with an eye for export frigates. It doesn't appear to show on any other designs so may have been a purely notional excercise (and the Admiralty probably always wanted a twin-arm system anyway).

Therefore I feel whatever impression of a Vickers single-arm design we make will only really be an 'AU' part since we have no bona-fide images at all, only placeholders on the plans.

I found copies of the frigate I mentioned before at Secretproject.co.uk, but these don't show the single Sedart, but DO show a common Seadart/ Ikara launcher. Unfortunately, again the designer has been lazy and simply replicated the twin Seadart launcher! I think other members there have been hunting for the common launcher without success. I can't there being too many differences in external appearance, perhaps a chunkier rail but the Ikara dimensionally should fit.

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

hmm, well, I will do a try soon then, (as the dutch sea dart tromp would have used it I need it) unless you want to draw it, Hood? you are more experienced with these systems, mine would most likely end up like an sea dart sized Mk 13 launcher.......

_________________
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

Sure, I can give it a go if your willing to wait until perhaps the end of the week.
I'll try and keep it as real-world as I can while keeping the general style of most single-arm launchers. I can mentally 'see' what I want, its just a case of translating it to pixels!!

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

waiting is no problem, I might myself do the belowdeck before that, so I can work ahead with the ship, but I will wait to see what you come up with then as you seem to be further on this then me indeed already

EDIT: and I might run out some quite familiar stealth turret in return for the work you do

_________________
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

Sorry Ace, I ninja'd you

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Excellent work Mihoshik!

Just for the records, we've exchanged PMs about the belowdecks part. I feel, though do not know for sure, that the Mod 1 changes only concerned the substitution of the GRP turrets. There may well be magazine and loader changes but I feel these would not show at this scale, nor be too drastic as upgrading on RN ships seems to have gone smoothly without excessive internal work. Obviously the 155mm TMF would be a different matter.

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

looking good! (as I said on pm to miho already )
the only thing I just noticed (on my own drawing of the mod 0 as well) is that the part facing back is now light as well, this would be wrong when placed on board ships, so I will change this (miho, is it ok if I fix the mod 1 on this as well?

on the belowdeck part, I have no other information then that it is smaller then that of the mod 0 (from navweaps, IIRC) so I guess there can exist no problems from having the part being slightly too big I could try out a few things (for example from the fact that the 155mm turret would have fitted in exactly the same space as the mod 1 of the type 45) but as the type 23 has them swapped for an one-for-one basis, I suppose, if you think so, there can be no harm in keeping it the same.

speaking of the 155mm, I had promised an stealth turret, so I might just.....

_________________
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