| Author |
Message |
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
 |
|
|
Sean
I have dug up a bit more stuff but only on the UK river class, I now have a couple of drawing that show the location of the Sonar dome and give "general size /shape"
As they are from current books sent me a PM and I will e mail them to you.
Graham Murdoch
Sean
I have dug up a bit more stuff but only on the UK river class, I now have a couple of drawing that show the location of the Sonar dome and give "general size /shape"
As they are from current books sent me a PM and I will e mail them to you.
Graham Murdoch
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:21 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
Arrr!! where the hole goes ?
Same place as the a UK River class ?
I will have a look around but I suspect that it would be before the fwd Fuel tank thats before the boiler room on the centerline
And well who going to prove you wrong !!!
Graham Murdoch
Are we starting to count rivets here? ( I leave that to my day job submarine QA does that to you  ) Arrr!! where the hole goes ?
Same place as the a UK River class ?
I will have a look around but I suspect that it would be before the fwd Fuel tank thats before the boiler room on the centerline
And well who going to prove you wrong !!!
Graham Murdoch
Are we starting to count rivets here? ( I leave that to my day job submarine QA does that to you :big_grin:)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:09 am |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, I have a Tacoma project on the backburner, and I'm trying to figure how to add the sonar to the kit. Do I drill a hole, etc.
And of course, where the hole goes....
Thanks for the info, though. It gives me something! Well, I have a Tacoma project on the backburner, and I'm trying to figure how to add the sonar to the kit. Do I drill a hole, etc.
And of course, where the hole goes.... :big_grin:
Thanks for the info, though. It gives me something!
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
Re: Tacoma PF Sonar |
|
|
graham wrote: ... I suspect that the QBF was a lower performance that the “standard USN DD&DE sonar But this is supposition, there is nothing about operational performance in the book.
Did you check the appendix in the back of the book? A lot of the juicy performance data hides there. [quote="graham"]... I suspect that the QBF was a lower performance that the “standard USN DD&DE sonar But this is supposition, there is nothing about operational performance in the book. [/quote]
Did you check the appendix in the back of the book? A lot of the juicy performance data hides there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
Tacoma PF Sonar |
|
|
|
Ok I finally remembered that I also had a copy of US NAVY WEAPONS by Norman Friedman ( on reflection a very useful book with a reasonably WW2 Sonar section)
It states that that the Tacoma PF had a QBF sonar
QBF Page 257
Surface ship sonar for units up to frigates (PF) size, using a rectangular (10.5in X 10.5in) projector It operated on 22-28Kc/s at 150Watts power with range scales of 1k, 2k, 3k 4, 5k, and 10kyds.
Hoist and train where electrical 3000 where build This I assume that it was hoisted and lowered liker any other sonar ie through as hole in the bottom of the hull
Comments:- the standard large ship ( DD and some DE ) used a QCJ which appears to have 4 times the transducer surface area 19inc x 19in and 400watts power so I suspect that the QBF was a lower performance that the “standard USN DD&DE sonar But this is supposition, there is nothing about operational performance in the book.
Graham Murdoch
Ok I finally remembered that I also had a copy of US NAVY WEAPONS by Norman Friedman ( on reflection a very useful book with a reasonably WW2 Sonar section)
It states that that the Tacoma PF had a QBF sonar
QBF Page 257
Surface ship sonar for units up to frigates (PF) size, using a rectangular (10.5in X 10.5in) projector It operated on 22-28Kc/s at 150Watts power with range scales of 1k, 2k, 3k 4, 5k, and 10kyds.
Hoist and train where electrical 3000 where build This I assume that it was hoisted and lowered liker any other sonar ie through as hole in the bottom of the hull
Comments:- the standard large ship ( DD and some DE ) used a QCJ which appears to have 4 times the transducer surface area 19inc x 19in and 400watts power so I suspect that the QBF was a lower performance that the “standard USN DD&DE sonar But this is supposition, there is nothing about operational performance in the book.
Graham Murdoch
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry about the delay I been bushwalking for the last 9 days ( my feet hurt  ) but I didn't find anything sorry my libary at work may have something but i not going back there until next week I know they have a copy of Seek and Strike ( UK ASW development during WW2 there may be some thing in there)
graham murdoch Sorry about the delay I been bushwalking for the last 9 days ( my feet hurt :eyebrows: ) but I didn't find anything sorry my libary at work may have something but i not going back there until next week I know they have a copy of Seek and Strike ( UK ASW development during WW2 there may be some thing in there)
graham murdoch
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:23 am |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I'll look in Friedman's US Naval Weapons of WW.II when I can locate it. It may be in my office.
I'll look in Friedman's [i]US Naval Weapons of WW.II[/i] when I can locate it. It may be in my office.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:02 am |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The 1992 WI article has nothing to say about the sonar equipment. The text focuses mostly on comparisons with DEs and argues that the frigates were not as inferior as sometimes alleged.
The 1992 WI article has nothing to say about the sonar equipment. The text focuses mostly on comparisons with DEs and argues that the frigates were not as inferior as sometimes alleged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:57 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'd appreciate any info you find!  I'd appreciate any info you find! :thanks:
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Sean
I dont have any thing specific on this but I would assume that its the same arrangement as used but the rest of the US DEs
The british river had a Hull Outfitt that was raised and lowered as required
There is not much written on on the Tacoma class but they played a much more usefull role that most people realise
I have Warship International articale in the shed some where I will see if I can find it.
Graham Murdoch
I have actuall seen these ships at sea, JMSDF ones in 1972 off Japan in the distance about 3/4 of them
Sean
I dont have any thing specific on this but I would assume that its the same arrangement as used but the rest of the US DEs
The british river had a Hull Outfitt that was raised and lowered as required
There is not much written on on the Tacoma class but they played a much more usefull role that most people realise
I have Warship International articale in the shed some where I will see if I can find it.
Graham Murdoch
I have actuall seen these ships at sea, JMSDF ones in 1972 off Japan in the distance about 3/4 of them
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
Tacoma class Sonar |
|
|
|
Anybody know if the sonar on the Tacoma class was lowered through some sort of hatch, or was there just a "hole" in the bottom the dome was raised/lowered out of?
Anybody know if the sonar on the Tacoma class was lowered through some sort of hatch, or was there just a "hole" in the bottom the dome was raised/lowered out of?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ