Re: Type VII
Posted by:
Rainer Bruns
()
Date: September 08, 2005 03:56AM
Hi Johannes,
what a novel approach to naval architecture!:-)) Afraid your idea of a third engine is out of the question for the foll. reasons:
1) Hull too narrow to put it side by side with the others, thus you will practically have to double the length of the E/R.
2) Aside from the obvious inefficiencies of a triple screw propulsion, where would you place the third prop?
3) An extra 2 knots still will not be fast enough to outrun the escorts and planes, which as of '43 were pretty efficient to force the boats under water and kill them.
4) If the couple knots were realy mandatory, the easiest and most cost-efficient solution would be to add on 2 or 3 cylinders to each engine, lengthen the DieselE/R by 1/3 (less than 2 meters).
Rgds, RB
what a novel approach to naval architecture!:-)) Afraid your idea of a third engine is out of the question for the foll. reasons:
1) Hull too narrow to put it side by side with the others, thus you will practically have to double the length of the E/R.
2) Aside from the obvious inefficiencies of a triple screw propulsion, where would you place the third prop?
3) An extra 2 knots still will not be fast enough to outrun the escorts and planes, which as of '43 were pretty efficient to force the boats under water and kill them.
4) If the couple knots were realy mandatory, the easiest and most cost-efficient solution would be to add on 2 or 3 cylinders to each engine, lengthen the DieselE/R by 1/3 (less than 2 meters).
Rgds, RB
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
Type VII | L. Weiss | 08/12/2005 01:41AM |
Re: Type VII | Eric | 08/12/2005 01:40PM |
Re: Type VII | L. Weiss | 08/13/2005 02:54AM |
Re: Type VII | Johannes Felten | 09/05/2005 04:30PM |
Re: Type VII | Rainer Bruns | 09/08/2005 03:56AM |
Re: Type VII | Tom Hirst | 06/28/2010 07:08PM |