The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4761 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 ... 239  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
As I recall, New York Naval Yard, the lead ship yard for the class, made drastic changes to the engineering space layout of the Iowa as they were drafting the construction drawings for the lead ship. This greatly reduced the volume subject to flooding from single underwater penetration of the engineering spaces. The bureau of ships liked it, and adopted the change for all of the class.


One gets the feeling that the Iowa class were designed in a hurry by different teams that didn't coordinate very well, The ship yard responsible for construction drawings then had to use considerable initiative to make the design actually buildable.

Amongst other things a sign of this is found in the almost unbelievable screw up that caused the hull to be designed for barbettes too small to accommodate the intended guns and turrets. This had to be hurriedly fixed by giving the ship different guns than intended, to fit hurriedly designed turrets conceived at the last minute that would fit in the barbette.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 448
The design seems to be a mixed bag of planning.

I suspect that the location of Turret No. 3 was moved after planning was well under way. I have seen no documentation to that effect but its awkward position suggests to me that it was originally going to be somewhere else.

The hull plating and deck positions appear to have been thought out well in advance.

Things that appear to be done on the fly include:
- Uptakes
- Air Intakes
- 5-inch ammo hoists

If you look at the BGP side cutaway, you can see that the uptakes for the No. 1 fire room go aft at the 2d deck. They also go inboard but that is not visible in the BGP. So they take a right angled path. The uptake paths take up a lot of volume in the hull and superstructure.

Also on the BGP you can see that there are angled bulkheads at above each fire room because the air intakes above are not aligned with the armored grates into the intakes at the 3d deck. The air flow for Fire Rooms 1 and 3 just goes into the uptake space at the 2d deck. There is a compartment with the uptake pipes running through it for each fire room. That compartment has grated openings above and below for the intake. The uptake air flows through the uptake pipes. The intake air flows through the room containing the pipes.

For Fire Rooms 2 and 4 the intakes are separated from the uptakes. I have no idea why those intakes were compartmented off from the uptakes.

The entire 02 level of the conning tower is devoted to the air supply for Fire Room 1. All of the fire and engine rooms have air supply trunks that generally follow twisted paths. I am puzzle why the #1 got such grand treatment.

The 5-inch hoists are just all over the map and appear to follow no reason. Some paths are mirrors. Others are not. Some go straight fore/aft, inboard/outboard, while others go at angles.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
The navy at the time had very insular Bureaus. BuOrd was responsible for the main turrets and BuC&R (Construction and Repair) doing the actual ship design. So generally one makes the guns fit on the ship. The difference in Barbettes and turret ring was about a foot, which doesn't sound like much but one of the things that has a cascade effect through the structure and the original turret design was already pretty "stuffed". Amazingly no one suffered any retribution over the incident. Fortunately it was resolved before any metal was cut.

The hull has very little volume aft (Especially compared to Trumpeter) despite it's broad above water profile. The tunnel between the skegs actually begins under Turret 3, the short centerline skeg is to help support the weight here.

Interesting ship!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 448
As I have posted here before, the shell plating is a great mystery to me still. I still cannot get myself into the head of the designers. The variety of joints is truly bizarre. Here is a photo that illustrates a complexity that occurs in many places in the hull.

The diagonal seam above the wood "fence" is between the E (lower) and F (strakes). The area at the farthest left is a casting. The vertical seam to the left of the fence is the forward edge of the cast. The point where it intersects the diagonal is the upper/forward corner of the casting. The F strake then runs along the top of the casting.

The E strake overlaps the F strake but had to welded flush to the casting so there is no overlap at the corner. In order to make this joint the overlapping area of the F strake had to be thinned out until the overlapping area was completely gone.

The same machining was done to the E–D1 strake seam below. The taper is harder to see because of the fence but, behind the fence, the overlap is clearly visible.

There are many places in the hull where two overlapping strakes merge at a "T" and the same kind of machined taper had to be used.

So why go to all of this trouble of riveted lap joints and machined scarph and rabbet joints with rivets in the hull shell? Welding would have been much cheaper, faster, and stronger.

One might say they did not trust welding. But they trusted welding for the shaft casting that has to absorb all the vibration from the propeller. They trusted welding for the bow. They trusted welding for the ends of the strakes at the bottom of the hull. They trusted welding to create the I-beams of the keel (then riveted the rider plate and flat keel to that, creating a weaker joint). They trusted welding for the frames.

The flawed logic used here was somewhat corrected for the Illinois and Kentucky.

http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016105e.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The USN didn't design "detailed engineering drawings" of ships before contracting them out. They had a Naval Architect firm, Gibbs and Cox likely (who had the NYNY as there contract manager), produced a set of drawings based on the parameters that the USN wanted for the ship. They tried as best they could to design the basic design so anyone building the ship could "fill-in" the final design and stay in the weight/size limits. Those "Contract Proposal Drawings" were sent out to builders so they could bid on the project. And yes Navy Yards were builders as well (supposedly the NYNY building group was a separate part of the NYNY from those doing contracting and repairing) and had to submit a proposal to build the ships at some cost like private yards. The bidders went over the drawings and started engineering drawings of their own so they could get a more accurate idea of the actual design for pricing the job. If they found something that didn't fit or where they saw a problem, they brought it up with the USN Contracting Office to get a solution. It may have been made part of the USN proposed design and shared with the other potential builders or left as something a builder offered to reduce his cost.

Even after a contract award was made, changes occurred because of additional issues arising. Sometimes things were found that could be built differently that saved time and cost. Plus, building such a ship during wartime (in Europe at the time) where feedback (from the Brits) is coming in all the time, other changes were made. The USN was repairing battle damaged RN units in their yards and learning a lot. The addition of AA weapons and directors was a major addition not originally planned on.

Any changes made by the USN AFTER CONTRACT award, means the USN had to pay for it.

It was a messy process, made more so by trying to finish ships ASAP while fighting a war.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
My recollection is that one of the reasons for construction in Navy Yards was that a lot of changes were anticipated. For a civilian yard change orders are a major source of income out side the original bid and often where profit is made. It was quoted that the change orders would not generate extra expense in the Navy's yard. True to some extent if the changes are made before metal is cut. The Iowa's were coming fast on the heels of NC/Washington and the SODAK's and there may have been a shortage of drafting resource.

Amazing the ships came out as well as they did.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
R.E. Davis wrote:
Quote:
Even after a contract award was made, changes occurred because of additional issues arising. Sometimes things were found that could be built differently that saved time and cost. Plus, building such a ship during wartime (in Europe at the time) where feedback (from the Brits) is coming in all the time, other changes were made. The USN was repairing battle damaged RN units in their yards and learning a lot. The addition of AA weapons and directors was a major addition not originally planned on.

And this is one of the reasons why no two IOWA ships is identical - the aforementioned procedures in addition to any numerous individual shipyard issues with supply of steel, etc. manpower, etc. caused the shipyard to do detailed engineering which resulted in visual differences in the 4 ships. While the broad, general class attributes were spelled out as Rick has noted (length, breadth, tonnage, etc.) in the BGP's, the construction methods employed at the time caused numerous problems and extensive manpower to accomplish due to the security and "compartmentalization" of construction. One of the maintenance managers at the DuPont facility where I worked (1976-86) had been part of a construction crew fabricating 5"/38 cal gun mounts on NEW JERSEY at the Philadelphia shipyard. He & I talked quite at length about how each crew was separated as to job and function and that they were often not aware of exactly what the final results would look like as I guess only section leaders and above were privy to the actual construction plans/prints on the job site. All this in the name of security to prevent sabotage and spying. And yet, those ships are here today - what a magnificent tribute to the shipyard workers/managers and design personnel who produced those ships!

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 448
Here are the paths of the 5-inch hoists on top of the framing. Only the hoists for mounts 5-8 are symmetric. The inboard hoist for mount 9 is angled so that it passes through a bulkhead. If it were straight it would miss so I have no idea on that.

In regard to mounts 1-4, I can only imagine the difference is due to the layout of the magazine.The starboard magazine is a few feet forward of the port magazine.

Some documentation refers to one of the hoists in each pair as a powder hoist and the other as a projectile hoist. However, the hoists are the same. Because they are just conveyer belts the same hoist model can be used for different sized guns (up to 6").

Attachment:
5-Inch.jpg
5-Inch.jpg [ 213.04 KiB | Viewed 1350 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
So we can say then that many things during the building of the ships was done on the fly in order to resolve unforeseen complications overlooked in the blueprints....

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
In reality, tase ships the penultimate expression of the "Dreadnought" were put together by many many talented men of the ship building trades that knew how to make things work. Much in the ways that the Chiefs in the Navy make the fleet work. Maybe an American genius.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
That’s why until CAD software had progressed to the point where it is able to render everything in 3 D and detect any fit and collision problem between parts, it was necessary to construct a wooden mockup of any complex structure just to make sure all the parts can fit where they are suppose to.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
It has been pointed out that ship builders from different countries have different traditions regarding how much of the ship is calculated in detail ahead of time and how much is extemporized during the construction. For example, in the decade prior to WWI, apparently the Russians calculated and sketched everything in detail, and the shipyards were not suppose to improvise. When the Russians solicited proposals for ships to be built in Britain, the russian admiralty were astonished so much of the British design were expected to be fleshed out as the ship was actually built.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
The Boeing 777 was the first large aircraft designed without mockups. The computer claimed that a mechanic could "get to everything". Of course you might have to have one arm 6" longer than the other and a hand on backwards, or train a chimp to do it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
David P wrote:
Quote:
then what happened with the Ford & it's ammo elevators?

Well, that occurs when you allow private industry to dictate the terms of building/design contracts where they bear very little of the actual R&D costs PRIOR TO the actual construction of the contracted item and promise to develop the necessary engineering/design as it evolves - and always at the public's expense. But how can it change when so many of those in Congress who approve these policies are in bed with industry to begin with?

Go back and look at the history of development of fighter planes in the 1920's/30's/40's and you'll see that all aircraft manufacturers had to bear the R&D costs themselves and actually produce a working version of their design before production contracts were awarded.

IMHO, this is just more of "the swamp" that needs to be drained before we can get back to sensible and reliable engineering/design and construction of any commercial/military equipment and have confidence we are getting a worthwhile and functioning product at a reasonable price. Does the 737 MAX ring a bell??? :doh_1:

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Folks, please try to keep it on topic - this thread is big enough as it is!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:27 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba; Canada
Gentlemen, I just want to/have to say THANKS for having this conversation in the first place.

To see these talks and allowing us to gain some insight as to 'what went on' and "how'd they do that" is incredible. Much appreciated, and please,,,,, carry on!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 448
The hull internal structure is made up of several elements. There are three main types:

1. vertical longitudinal members (keel longitudinals)
2. horizontal longitudinal members (stringers, breasthooks, and you might include decks)
3. transverse members (frames, beams, floors)

It is hard to keep track of things because one type of member can be composed of subcomponents and members can flow into a different type of member.

A frame can include floors (the part under the deck) and beams but beams and floors do not have to be part of a frame.

Stringers flow into breasthooks and torpedo bulkheads. So part of a torpedo bulkhead could be called a stringer.

Furthermore, the members are not solid structures. Support structures flow and intersect in three dimension so many members have to be intercostal. The general rule is that vertical longitudinal members take precedence over transverse members that take place of horizontal longitudinal members.

Unlike a model ship, the hull shell was built first and the structural members were erected behind the shell. The shell was largely, if not entirely, self supporting.

Here is an image showing the underlying structure going by what the plans call things. The frames are in red. Note that the framing stops at the third deck within the citadel. There are webs at some frame locations that effectively extend the frames up to the second or main deck. Some of these have beams that go all the way across creating a full height frame. However, many of the frames do not have extensions above the third deck in this area. Apparently, the designers were relying on the stiffness and strength of the side armor for support here.


Attachment:
NJ Interior.jpg
NJ Interior.jpg [ 96.88 KiB | Viewed 1976 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
I’ve never seen any indication the shell of a battleship can be self supporting in large part. Instead piece of it small enough to be self supporting are erected, then structure behind it are added to provide it with support and stiffness, and provide the strength to withstand the weight of addition structure, the more shell is erected around the first piece.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Here is a photo of Iowa: Plates are starting to wrap up from the bottom. Note scaffolding, probably to facilitate riveting.

Attachment:
Iowa.jpg
Iowa.jpg [ 306.6 KiB | Viewed 1946 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Yes, but before those side plating get very high, the interior of the double or triple bottom, the bulkheads, the side protection system, and the decks in the lower part of the ship would all be put in. I don’t think you will find many instances where the shell platings rose much more than 1 deck above the highest deck that’s been installed inside it. Also, the framing for the side plating is usually installed before the framing. You often see side frames sticking up above the highest strake of side plating installed.

Note while the scaffolding was erected up to near main deck level early on, not much of the actual shell plating is erected above the highest interior deck that’s been installed:

http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016162a.jpg

http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016162e.jpg

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4761 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 ... 239  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group