You are not logged in.

Autogyro hangars

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

  • 1
  • 2

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 11:09am

Autogyro hangars



The last few classes of cruisers have been mounting large transom sterns for landing autogyros on. Small types like the DAF.1 for cod and scouting. Experience will show that really a hangar is needed to protect the craft from the elements. The problem is trying to reconcile the need for a hangar and landing pad with the need for firing arcs aft. At the moment I've gone with this, lengthening CL-34 by 10m and deleting Y turret. Any ideas where else I could fit the pad and hangar?

The drawing obviously isn't finished yet.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 12:01pm

The obvious idea would be to delete Y turret and have a low transom stern, that way you could put the hangar under the deck aft of X turret (and not have to have an elevator). Aft end of the ship would end up looking kind of like Littorio, except with a longer deck run aft before the break.

Alternatively, if you don't mind having an elevator, just put ithe hangar underneath your aft deck.

gral

Beginner

Posts: 26

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 12:50pm

I don't remember - do autogyros take off vertically like helicopters? If they do, you can do like the Type 43 project and put the pad amidships.

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 1:02pm

What about something asymetric with uptakes to starboard and a landing deck offset to port? If the pilot misjudges then he can go around rather than just plow into the hangar.

What about a telescoped hangar?

Cheers,

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 1:27pm

There isn't really enough hull depth for a stern hangar and there are also problems with flooding as well. An asymmetric version with a bit of a landing deck might work better. I'll have to see what it looks like.

Gral, An autogyro can take-off vertically. Some used a clutch to couple the engine to the rotor. Even if not the take off run is very small on a ship doing 30knts.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 6:03pm



Redrawn with side flight deck.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 7:16pm

Well, looking at your 1935er cruiser and my current project for 1936 I have one question for the audience:

Which one looks like it fits into the time frame and which one looks like 20 years ahead in time?



I sometimes really wonder why things were like they were historically and why some technologies had so many troubles seeing the light of day.....

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 7:52pm

To be honest, when I see the second version of the CL-35 with the side flight deck, I really think that the next class of Italian ships will look like this...

... but maybe that's just my imagination.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Apr 4th 2007, 7:52pm)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:04pm

I am using Soviet ships as a considerable influence in my drawings, especially the unbuilt Missile cruisers. Only for general layout as gun turrets don't look quite the same as missile canisters. CL - 35 v2 is based off some similar sized Harrier Carriers. Unfortunately its not very practical to use SkyHook for recovering rotorcraft :D

I prefer v1 myself. It looks better and is most likely more practical. The offset sponsons would create problems with stability and mounting the requisite number of secondary guns is a problem.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:08pm

Certainly the asymmetric gun mountings might be seen as a problem, since the ship might have to break formation to unmask the larger light gun batteries.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

11

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:19pm

"Note to Cruiser Captains: This vessel always pulls to port in a line action." :P

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

  • Send private message

12

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:32pm

Although option 2 is intriguing, and more aesthetically pleasing (at least in profile), I think option 1 is probably the more feasible option. And, if you are still paying lip service to Cleito, it's less easy to fly conventional aircraft off it.

Having said that, the Admiralty did conclude that the aircraft-carrier arrangement (i.e. option 2) was more effective for helicopter operations than something like RFA Argus.

Other than these two options, I don't really see that there is anything else that can be done without resorting to the moderately insane arrangement of the Type 43. Given that that was after the aesthetics were improved, I dread to think how the original draft looked.

JohnEStauffer

Trainee

Posts: 155

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:49pm

We are talking about only autogyros or other rotary wing a/c in this design process?
If so, many of the considerations for FW or STOL a/c operations would not apply and both #1 & #2 would be doable.

I like #2 best - at least from appearance. It would probably work for rotorary wing a/c. #3 looks too utilitarian and the cranes obstruct the deck area. It looks like a merchant ship conversion.
For the point in time, #1 (or an improvement of same) is probably the best option.

gral

Beginner

Posts: 26

  • Send private message

14

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 11:44pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Gral, An autogyro can take-off vertically. Some used a clutch to couple the engine to the rotor. Even if not the take off run is very small on a ship doing 30knts.


Then it's easy to put hangars and pad amidships. You'll have to put the ship perpendicular to the wind to launch the gyro, but if it worked for King George V, I don't see that much trouble(a battleship would have more space for the pad though).

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

15

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 1:20am

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, looking at your 1935er cruiser and my current project for 1936 I have one question for the audience:

Which one looks like it fits into the time frame and which one looks like 20 years ahead in time?

I sometimes really wonder why things were like they were historically and why some technologies had so many troubles seeing the light of day.....


I'd say the second version is definately 20 years ahead of its time. I'd assume the first version's drawing with all its radars is for hypothetical purposes only but then again we already have Italian cruisers being built with extensive electronics suites while other country's are just starting to tinker with radar.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

16

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 7:50pm

Quoted

then again we already have Italian cruisers being built with extensive electronics suites


Do we? I must have missed that somewhere.

The radar fit pictured is from the late 30s with an air/surface search radar similar to CHL land based (the really big one), E.C. series surface FC radar(above director) and two sets of AA FC radar with small paraboilc arrays.

I don't like v2 simply from an ugliness point of view.

Gral, I'll have to see what a midships pad looks like but I think there might be problems from the funnel. Doesn't leave much room to escape either.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

17

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 7:51pm



Updated and almost finished v1.

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

  • Send private message

18

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 9:00pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Gral, I'll have to see what a midships pad looks like but I think there might be problems from the funnel. Doesn't leave much room to escape either.


I'd have to agree with that.
Autogyros can't be catapulted into the air, so a midships pad would suffer from severe turbulance from the superstructure. Aft is safer, much larger area of escape and no burning fuel in the middle of the ship if the worst happens

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

19

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 11:18pm

The ISB manages to secure a copy of "Design No.2" and, after some passing around and head-scratching, the Naval Affairs expert files it away for a rainy day, remembering hearing something about a new "short takeoff and landing" aeroplane being developed in Germany...

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

20

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 11:34pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

then again we already have Italian cruisers being built with extensive electronics suites


Do we? I must have missed that somewhere.




Duca degli Abruzzi
Duca d'Aosta

Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons
48t = 16x600mm torpedoes
40t = 25mm deck over torpedoes
Remaining tonnage goes where?


San Calepodio
San Calimero

90t = 6x quadruple 47mm mounts
10t = sonar D2bis
200tons fighter direction station


Claudio Laid down 1933, Sold 1933
Nerone Laid down 1933, Sold 1933

Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons
100tons aircraft
100tons aux diesel gensets
Remaining 200 tons?
  • 1
  • 2