Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chvywolf
    replied
    Ships Service Turbine Generators. Iowa's (if I'm correct) have 8 of them at 1.25 MW a piece. I've spoken to a friend of mine that was an engine-men on the USS Sacramento. One of the two AOE's that got half of Kentucky's engines after it was canceled. From our brief chat, at least on his ship, you didn't need all of the boilers running to run the SSTG's.

    I don't need to bring the entire ship up to operational status (as cool as that would be). I'm really just trying to see if it's even worth a feasibility study at this point. The idea being money from outside being brought in for a restoration/upgrade of engines and power generation equipment of the Iowas (with as little to no modification as possible to keep the Navy happy) to be able to provide emergency power to the power grib, which she is already tied to, and in the same way as solar power or a diesel engine generator. Just a really big one.

    Besides, maintenance aside, a modern day commercially available Kohler engine/generator (P/N 1250REOZDD 60Hz if your interested for comparison) rated at 1250kW killes 82.7 Gal/hr of Diesel. x8 = 661.6 Gal/hr.

    Iowas, according to a 1943-44 War Logistics guide, burn 484 Gal/hr Not Underway with (8) 1.25MW SSTG's running. If by chance my friend is correct, and say you can run half the boilers for all the SSTG's, then hopefully that would mean even less fuel consumption.

    Call me crazy, but I think it's worth a look, if it's something that can help keep these pieces of history around longer and in shape to do potentially do some good.

    Then again, I am a hopeless tron, and a bit of an idealist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Chvywolf View Post
    Very new to the board, but this may be the place to answer my questions. (Keep in mind, I'm former Brown show navy...)

    Having recently been to Big J a few months ago, and South Carolina just last week, I started bouncing some ideas around with some friends and I've been researching ever since which led me here. So...

    My questions are:

    How many Boilers are required to run all of the SSTG's on the Iowa's. Specifically, NJ.

    What is the fuel consumption of an Iowa Not Underway. Only reference I could find was 1943-44 War Logistic put it at 484 Gal/hr.

    And the main reason I ask, which after reading 55 pages of posts, I'm starting to loss hope that this could be done:

    Would it be possible to active the necessary boilers and equipment, to turn Big J into a 10MW Emergency Power generator. Not taking into account the shore side of it. Connecting to PSE&G Grid (For New Jersey anyway) wouldn't be a problem. Phase load can all be regulated etc... I'm more concerned with the ship side of things.

    I know it's been done before with active ships, ala Jan 1930 with USS Lexington (CV-2) powered 1/4 of the City of Tacoma, USS Wiseman (DDE-667) Powered the city of Manila for 5 1/2 months in WWII and the Port of Mason during Korea.

    It just seems to me that Big J could use some help, and I can't help but try to think of ways to get it (it's part of my regular job anyway so not to much of a stretch).

    I realize this wouldn't be a free or cost free type of thing, but if some money can be brought in, or utilized under emergency preparedness funding (Gov is all a shell game with money, just a matter of how you word the request as to where you get it from), something to that effect. Again, I know it wouldn't be cost effective, but think about these ships still being able to contribute. Even going so far as an emergency shelter, with heat, lights and fresh water. Even sell some juice back on maint runs.

    Is it possible?
    You need not worry about the New Jersey, there are already plans being laid out just for such reasons in the near future. But, I can tell you that the SSTG's, Boilers etc will not be part of it. That in itself would be a major undertaking and you would have to bring the entire Engineering section on line and have it sufficiently manned around the clock. And constant maintenance.

    Something the USN would never allow without their permission and the insurance itself would be astronomical.

    You have a total of 8 SSTG's aboard split across four different engine room compartments.

    During 1945 the Wisconsin reported making 27 knots on four boilers, it seems there is plenty SHP to run all eight SSTG's but even so now you have 8 machinery rooms on line and all supporting systems. (4 Main Engine Rooms SSTG) & (4 Boiler rooms) outside of this and supporting systems you have air emmisions within the city limits. Not good for a navy ship and diffacult to remain in emmisions if regulated.

    The man power alone and updates needed to achieve this seem to be far out of the finacial reasoning behind it.

    You would not need to make 10 megs. Far less then that to power the ships needs considering you could eliminate many systems aboard not being used.


    To answer your question about how much fuel would it consume sitting still would be answered by finding out the minimum rpms the SSTG's would have to turn being powered by x amount of constant steam power in order to power x amount of equipment along with the Aft diesels for back up lighting in case the plant comes off line and all the auxilliaries.

    The fuel is variably adjustable on the power plants via atomizer nozzles and burners along with feed pumps etc.

    You also need the water treatment plants on line.

    But it would be a science to get it perfect (more money then what its worth)

    You have to think that along with the manpower, repairs, insurance etc etc etc then comes the bill for the full per ton.

    Theoretically possible, but the cost of doing all that would sooner make you want to build a power plant instead due to cost, insurance and reliability reasoning.

    Thats also without the men, equipment and auxilliaries it would take to even spin one shaft.

    You might as well put her back to sea instead.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 24 Dec 13,, 05:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    SSTGs? Biggest problem is getting the Iowas back to operable condition ( it would cost a small fortune). Plus theres not an abundant supply of spare parts etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chvywolf
    replied
    Very new to the board, but this may be the place to answer my questions. (Keep in mind, I'm former Brown show navy...)

    Having recently been to Big J a few months ago, and South Carolina just last week, I started bouncing some ideas around with some friends and I've been researching ever since which led me here. So...

    My questions are:

    How many Boilers are required to run all of the SSTG's on the Iowa's. Specifically, NJ.

    What is the fuel consumption of an Iowa Not Underway. Only reference I could find was 1943-44 War Logistic put it at 484 Gal/hr.

    And the main reason I ask, which after reading 55 pages of posts, I'm starting to loss hope that this could be done:

    Would it be possible to active the necessary boilers and equipment, to turn Big J into a 10MW Emergency Power generator. Not taking into account the shore side of it. Connecting to PSE&G Grid (For New Jersey anyway) wouldn't be a problem. Phase load can all be regulated etc... I'm more concerned with the ship side of things.

    I know it's been done before with active ships, ala Jan 1930 with USS Lexington (CV-2) powered 1/4 of the City of Tacoma, USS Wiseman (DDE-667) Powered the city of Manila for 5 1/2 months in WWII and the Port of Mason during Korea.

    It just seems to me that Big J could use some help, and I can't help but try to think of ways to get it (it's part of my regular job anyway so not to much of a stretch).

    I realize this wouldn't be a free or cost free type of thing, but if some money can be brought in, or utilized under emergency preparedness funding (Gov is all a shell game with money, just a matter of how you word the request as to where you get it from), something to that effect. Again, I know it wouldn't be cost effective, but think about these ships still being able to contribute. Even going so far as an emergency shelter, with heat, lights and fresh water. Even sell some juice back on maint runs.

    Is it possible?

    Leave a comment:


  • SlaterDoc
    replied
    Well, since I forgot which thread we were discussing the barrels in, I wil post this here!
    My heart is gladdened to see what many thought could not be done, get done!
    Here's hoping we see this effort repeated for the Iowa in the near future!


    I JUST HOPE THOSE BARRELS ARE POINTED "AT" THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO REMND THEM!

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by Dan_Bickell View Post
    Thank you for your reply, Mr. Landgraff!

    So, these did exist, not only on Missouri and Wisconsin, but on Iowa as well. Also, they were present long before any of the modernizations. That confirms what I expected, but I'm surprised to hear about Iowa having them at one point as well. I am also surprised to learn that they were in the original WW II plans.

    Now I just wonder why some of the class ships got them, while others did not, and apparently at different times (before and after the range finders were removed).

    I am also wondering about North Carolina as well. I would assume her turret 1 had them as well as turret 2, given their purpose?
    Main reason that the Iowa class NEEDED those vents is very simple.

    LENGTH FROM TURRET I TO THE BOW.

    Those 887-foot long ships would just plow through one large swell and into the next with less pitch than the shorter hulled BBs. Fortunately the forward mushroom vents on the Main Deck had well designed automatic closures. Narry a drop would get through to the forward berthing on 2nd deck. However, during a long haul through such seas, the CLANG, CLANG, CLANG of the closures did get on a few crewmen's nerves. But at least they stayed dry and eventually learned to sleep through the noise.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied


    Turret III and then Turret I so yes they did :D.

    O you can see the rot i was talking about in yhe top pic. Have more pics of the carnage too :/.
    Last edited by 85 gt kid; 11 Dec 13,, 22:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan_Bickell
    replied
    Thank you for your reply, Mr. Landgraff!

    So, these did exist, not only on Missouri and Wisconsin, but on Iowa as well. Also, they were present long before any of the modernizations. That confirms what I expected, but I'm surprised to hear about Iowa having them at one point as well. I am also surprised to learn that they were in the original WW II plans.

    Now I just wonder why some of the class ships got them, while others did not, and apparently at different times (before and after the range finders were removed).

    I am also wondering about North Carolina as well. I would assume her turret 1 had them as well as turret 2, given their purpose?

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Nearly identical "Green Water Vents" are on the Wisconsin. As a matter of fact, the Norfolk sketches that designed the vents were used as a basis to build the same vents on the Missouri. I have a number of photos of both ships with the vents and even the original WW II plans that proposed them to begin with.

    The vents on the bottom of the turret bustle merely had little doors that were supposed to close when the ship was plowing through a high wave. The water cascading over the bow of that class of ships kept wiping out the range finders on the forward turret. So the range finders were removed which is why you see only a closure plate bolted on where the range finder "ears" used to be.

    When the Iowa was sent to Pascagoula for her reactivation in 1982, I saw a photograph that showed smaller, but higher, vents on her forward turret. But they were removed during the modernization and never reinstalled.

    We were planning to put vents similar to Missouri and Wisconsin on the New Jersey (as well as Impressed Current Cathodic Protection, additional armor on the "citadel", etc.) but Congress decided to put the ships back into mothballs again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by 85 gt kid View Post
    Maybe the panels are some sort of access panels? These seem to trap water bad though cause NCs are rotting bad. Funny how ships from the same class can be so different sometimes.
    Possibly because their blowers are not in use. Or perhaps the vent themselves cannot drain.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Maybe the panels are some sort of access panels? These seem to trap water bad though cause NCs are rotting bad. Funny how ships from the same class can be so different sometimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Dan_Bickell View Post
    Thanks for the responses!

    I can't find any photos of Iowa or New Jersey, at any point in history, with these turret ventilation ducts. None of the Iowas seem to have had them when originally built, and it appears that they were added post-WW2 to Missouri and Wisconsin.

    About the only mention of them I can find is that they were added to the latest Tamiya 1/350 model of Missouri circa 1991 released in the last year. They referred to them as "turret #1 ventilators", and were included as new separate parts. They are missing from every detail set I have seen for other Missouri models.

    It is interesting to note the differences between the Missouri and Wisconsin ducts. The height of Missouri's was limited by them being installed while she still had the "ears" on turret 1, but remain the same height after the ears were removed. Wisconsin's ducts seem to have been added after the ears were removed. In the picture where they only extend about 1/4 of the way up the sides, there is no bend in the ducts, which makes it look like they would have been water catchers.

    I am really curious about these. Why only on turret 1, and why only on Missouri and Wisconsin? Why do Missouri's each have the 6 bolted panels each, while Wisconsin's (and NC's) are smooth? It does not appear that NC had them initially either, and why turret 2 in her case? All of the turrets seem to have the vents on the bottom outside edge, but why might the duct extensions have been added? Perhaps they act like snorkels in rough seas? That might explain why they only exist on turret 1, but that doesn't seem to explain turret 2 on NC.
    Because they serveded the Gulf War unlike the Iowa and New Jersey that only served up to the beginning and then retired.

    The difference in them could be just as easily defined as different design, different vendor that manufactured them.

    For the Iowas, turret one was always wet in that area, that is why there are several bridge pics looking foreward available that show turret one trained to about 120 degrees. Because the original range finder shutters were always getting damaged and their brass/bronze covers dished in and the optics damaged in heavy seas.

    Also, outside of weight savings this is why they were removed from turret 1 plus turret one does not need the range finder so long as you have the "cheater" box inside which tells turret one where turrets two and three are trained to in relation to target and ships coarse, bearing, etc. That is if you are in "local" and not taking turret training orders from gun plot or director automatically.

    The lower you are to the water surface as in turret 1, the less far you can see, even with optics. The higher you are (turrets two and three) the farther you can see with the optics in the turret.

    Savy?
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 11 Dec 13,, 18:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    For the Iowas (excluding New Jersey) They were added during the 1980's reactivation.

    On New Jersey, the vents are there its just the duct extensions were not added. However, you can clearly see in the picture at that time (and presently) they are covered with meshing and flush to the turret bulkheads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan_Bickell
    replied
    Thanks for the responses!

    I can't find any photos of Iowa or New Jersey, at any point in history, with these turret ventilation ducts. None of the Iowas seem to have had them when originally built, and it appears that they were added post-WW2 to Missouri and Wisconsin.

    About the only mention of them I can find is that they were added to the latest Tamiya 1/350 model of Missouri circa 1991 released in the last year. They referred to them as "turret #1 ventilators", and were included as new separate parts. They are missing from every detail set I have seen for other Missouri models.

    It is interesting to note the differences between the Missouri and Wisconsin ducts. The height of Missouri's was limited by them being installed while she still had the "ears" on turret 1, but remain the same height after the ears were removed. Wisconsin's ducts seem to have been added after the ears were removed. In the picture where they only extend about 1/4 of the way up the sides, there is no bend in the ducts, which makes it look like they would have been water catchers.

    I am really curious about these. Why only on turret 1, and why only on Missouri and Wisconsin? Why do Missouri's each have the 6 bolted panels each, while Wisconsin's (and NC's) are smooth? It does not appear that NC had them initially either, and why turret 2 in her case? All of the turrets seem to have the vents on the bottom outside edge, but why might the duct extensions have been added? Perhaps they act like snorkels in rough seas? That might explain why they only exist on turret 1, but that doesn't seem to explain turret 2 on NC.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    The NJ definitely does not have these on any of her turrets.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X