WesWorld

just noticed something: BC 0.421? ouch! Especially at the time and for such a big ship ...

Another variation...



Helle-13k, GREEK Cruiser laid down 1909

Displacement:
12,293 t light; 12,885 t standard; 15,379 t normal; 17,313 t full load
Loading submergence 769 tons/feet

Dimensions:
650.00 ft x 74.00 ft x 26.60 ft (normal load)
198.12 m x 22.56 m x 8.11 m

Armament:
10 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (5 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns
Secondary guns mounted low & subject to being washed down in a seaway
8 - 3.00" / 76 mm QF guns
Weight of broadside 3,418 lbs / 1,550 kg
4 - 0.0" / 0 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 8.00" / 203 mm, end belts 2.00" / 51 mm
Belts cover 80 % of normal area
Main turrets 8.00" / 203 mm, 2nd casemates 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 2.40" / 61 mm, Conning tower 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 50,155 shp / 37,415 Kw = 26.50 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
690 - 897

Cost:
£1.140 million / $4.561 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 427 tons, 2.8 %
Armour: 3,778 tons, 24.6 %
Belts: 1,298 tons, 8.4 %, Armament: 1,151 tons, 7.5 %, Armour Deck: 1,196 tons, 7.8 %
Conning Tower: 133 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,508 tons, 16.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,580 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,086 tons, 20.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 3.8

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.09
Shellfire needed to sink: 19,394 lbs / 8,797 Kg = 75.8 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 74 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.38
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.26

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.421
Sharpness coefficient: 0.32
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.99
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 75.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 120.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 126 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 128 lbs / square foot or 625 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.10
(for 16.20 ft / 4.94 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.30 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

hmm at that time I'd expect Q further forward - definitely before the aft command tower.

I agree with LA, the bc is quite low for a ship of her era and size. I can think of no historical cruiser design build that early with similar fine hull lines but I could surely be proven wrong....?

I also liked the four-funnel-version much better - but that´s probably just me.

First she has to go on a diet - now she's not tubby enough!!!

With three funnels she looks a bit 'Anglo'. I can't see a problem with Q and X together, there would be the centre shaft turbines in between. This is like US ships of the time.

Cheers,

One small tweak needed:

"4 - 0.0" / 0 mm submerged torpedo tubes"

Lookin' good otherwise.

ok, I so have no clue about early US designs, it isn't even funny I have never seen a pic or anything of tjeir armed cruisers. So I was going from European/German practice. And maybe from that earlier drawing where i more or less expected Q to be between tose two groups of funnels ....

cheers

Bernhard

Quoted

One small tweak needed:

"4 - 0.0" / 0 mm submerged torpedo tubes"

Lookin' good otherwise.

Whoops. That is worse than those Iberian 17.7 mm torpedoes. :-)

Must be transphasic torpedoes.

Haven't you heard of 'equiped for but not fitted with?'. Clearly I'll have to put more time into springstyle and less on the drawing.

I'm thinking of 1910 era US battleships rather than the 1905 AC which look rather backward compared with European designs of the era. US BB designs of this time are all centreline with the 5th turret added aft rather than midships as in a European design. Note that all but 1 AC were reciprocal engined and this influenced their layout. Dreadnought had the midships turret added after it was found that there was going to be room for it with the turbines taking less space.

Cheers,

Perhaps the BC could be explained as 'one of those oddballs...'

I think she looks good with this turret arrangement. Now is that Q-X-Y or X-Y-Z?

Have you considered simming her using SS 2.0.1?