Think you've seen a big diesel? Think again!! (pics) - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

seafarer12 · #46 03-15-2005, 02:04 PM

And we cant forget the last resort on the carriers, the radar guided 20 mm vulcan cannons

Hatterasguy · #47 03-15-2005, 02:40 PM

Vulcan cannons are so cool!

Nothing like putting up a wall of 20mm steel.

whunter · #48 03-15-2005, 07:16 PM

I agree in general.
But in theory, with nuts, suicide Tactics and bad weather/timing/decisions, even with today’s weapons and technologies, you can still get caught with your pants down.

"I would not take that job".

Hello R Leo
I do not see Fuel bunker capacity in the data list?

Ralph69220d · #49 01-06-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Their is a formula to figure out the max hull speed for a displacement hull; but off the top of my head I don't know it.

Now aircraft carriers are fast, I think the official top speeds are secret but I am thinking in the 50 knot range!

That would be a sight seeing a 1,100ft long ship doing 50 knots and they can turn to.

They like forty knots across the deck to launch and retrieve aircraft; I had a Navy friend back in the 70's who was stationed on Guam. His plane landed in Hawaii; he happened to know a certain sub was at Pearl Harbor and left about the time his plane did; so, he knew when it made port in Guam. He wouldn't give what the average underwater speed had to be of that attack submarine, only to say an attack sub has to be much faster than an aircraft carrier that it might be protecting. From what he said indirectly, 60 knots underwater is not full speed of a nuclear powered attack sub. The sub is not quiet at such a speed and so generally attack subs might travel only at the speed of a Russian ballistic missile which routinely were followed.

t walgamuth · #50 01-07-2006, 12:30 AM

can travel a lot quicker in very deep water as the additional density prevents cavatation and hence more traction to go fast.

i have not heard 60 knots before but i think i have heard 50 for a carrier so if the cavatation thing is true, then i suppose it follows that the subs would be faster.

mind boggling!

oh yeah! recently read a book titled "silent victory" about ww2 sub war in pacific. it seems that some of our early subs had german diesel engines, MAN, i think. and they had major failures with them early in the war, losing a good many subs from catastrophic engine failure at a bad time. they eventually decided that the engines had been built to fail by the german companies in anticipation of the war to come.

tom w

Hatterasguy · #51 01-07-2006, 02:04 PM

Prop designs on subs are usually secret, I remember my dad telling me when they had his out of the water for maintaince they always had a tarp over the prop. They would spends days tunning the prop to get it running just right.

Anyway yeah the deeper a sub runs the faster it can go without making a lot of noise. Again I am sure their is a formula to determine water depth vs shaft rpm and how much would cause cavitation.

Also the max operational depths are usually secret.

t walgamuth · #52 01-07-2006, 03:00 PM

but deep!

tom w

83-240D · #53 01-07-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

but deep!

tom w

cold too!

#54 01-07-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 83-240D

cold too!

LOL, How many people do you think remember that joke?

Red Pike · #55 01-07-2006, 09:46 PM

The company that originally designed these big diesels was Sulzer (Swiss, I believe), which has been bought out by Wartsila (Finnish?) and renaimed NSD (New Sulzer Diesel). The design is licensed to various companies around the world, with a few Asian companies building them under license. I sail on ships with some of these engines (RTA84C, RND90M), and while you cannot cut out a piston while running, we do have procedures to shut down the engine, remove the piston and blank off various ports, and run at a reduced speed so we can limp into port without tug assistance.

The RND90M has no valves, just intake and exhaust ports (as does the Fairbanks-Morse 38ND 8 1/8 opposed piston engine).

I, too (Hattie) sailed on Navy ballistic missile submarines, and operated the nuclear propulsion plant. I could tell you how powerful they are, and how fast and deep they can go, but I'd have to kill all of you first

When I was in the Navy ('73 to '86) I heard a story: during WWII none of our subs were being sunk by the Japanese; until some dip$hit Senator or Congressman made some comment on the floor, in open session, that the Japanese were too stupid to set their depth charges to the proper depth (which he named). Amazingly, after his speech, we started losing lots of subs to the Japanese...go figure

Hatterasguy · #56 01-07-2006, 09:50 PM

You also hear stories of U boats going down to some silly depths to avoid depth charges. Those sub mariners had brass ones, some of the crap they pulled was insane!

t walgamuth · #57 01-07-2006, 10:55 PM

i mentioned. incredible how stupid people can be.

also we had a lot of trouble with our torpedos for at least a year. the top brass put all their eggs in the basket of magnetic detonation. the fish were shot under the ships and designed to explode under the hull where there was no armor. but they didnt work very well. also the japs had torpedos with almost twice the explosive power of ours... and they were contact operated, that is they just hit the side and exploded but a contact trigger device. our magnetic stategy was to compensate for the weak charges in our fish. finally several uboat captains tested them and proved that the magnetic devices werent working, and eventually it was fixed.

it was a good book.

tom w