- Location
- the details
You don't need to explain that to me because I'm quite aware that transmission losses are on the order of 20-25% on a good day and roughly 33% or more on an average day.
Kantai Collection - Fanfic Idea and Recs
- Thread starter sasahara17
- Start date
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Which puts Maersk Emma's shaft horsepower around - wait for it - 70,000!
- Location
- the details
And that's with, IIRC, a massive cheap fixed pitched propeller. I'd be going variable pitch, constant speed*.
* Not constant RPM. Constant speed means the propeller blades are always angled so they're biting the air or water in such a way that they're at their most efficient.
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Given variable-pitch propellers have even worse shaft-load limitations than fixed…
And are you ever going to address the other concerns I raised regarding this "design"?
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
What's your source on this? The sources I'm finding disagree with this claim. I can't find anything official from AISI, but one supplier lists 2100 F as the maximum service temperature in air (edit: so you have no factor of safety \edit) and another states that 310 will rupture from creep at 4 MPa (565 psi is ~3.9) in 10,000 hours at only 1000 C (~1832 F).
- Location
- the details
10,000hrs is 15 months, continuous, at that temperature and pressure.
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Considering marine boilers of the era were expected to last a good ten years of service before needing a major overhaul that's not going to cut it.
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
15 months at 1000 C, not the ~1150 C you designed for. If I remember correctly, all the mechanism of creep are thermally activated processes, which are typically proportional to e^(-1/kT). That translates to exponentially less service time as temperature increases.
You've knowingly designed a system with a safety factor of less than 1. That is not a safe nor practical design.
- Location
- the details
310 Stainless is an example of a material that's available "off the shelf" which can (barely) handle the temperature I said. I didn't say I'd actually use it.
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Okay, so what WWII era material would you use? From your story snippet I got the impression this was meant to be an in-period design.
Edit: on a related note, has any shipgirl game actually included the USS Montana? I didn't see her on the Kancolle wiki and I know she's not in Azur Lane.
Last edited:
Spherical_Light
Likely Illuminating a room near you
- Location
- NW US
".....Anything included Montana ship girl game wise?"
Not that I know of, of course, seeing as how I havent played a shipgirl game except for a couple days with crosswave....
Why do you ask?
Not that I know of, of course, seeing as how I havent played a shipgirl game except for a couple days with crosswave....
Why do you ask?
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm inexplicably fond of the idea of a battleship named for the state of Montana, mostly because of the Rocky Mountains. I was just curious if there were any official shipgirl versions of Montana to influence my mental image of the character.
- Location
- the details
IIRC, 310 Stainless was just about the best you could get back then.
I'm not sure if there were any WWII-era materials as temperature resistant and strong as 310 Stainless because I can't think of many availiable today that are that aren't derived from stainless steel that also don't cost a complete fortune.
Spherical_Light
Likely Illuminating a room near you
- Location
- NW US
"......Fan of Montana as a ship......"
I'd highly recommend going to Drachinifel on youtube. He has at least one video on the Tillman ships, which were the basis for the Montanas.
IIRC, A direct quote from that video went something like the "...The Navy wanted to build the Montanas, but...." A combination of priorities, construction resources and time prevented the class from being built basically is what happened.
Time because it would've taken at least 3 years to build one, if they were looking at a
Maximum Battleship or Tillman IV-2 for building... Yeah, I'm a fan of Montana as a ship too, but I just went ahead and started doing some stories; granted I used a version that came out of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnaughts [link on previous page]. Came out slightly overpowered, but yeah...
Please do understand that my version also involves efficiency of the 21 gun salute.... I will admit that it is utter insanity, but it is fun to be in the speculation station.
I'd highly recommend going to Drachinifel on youtube. He has at least one video on the Tillman ships, which were the basis for the Montanas.
IIRC, A direct quote from that video went something like the "...The Navy wanted to build the Montanas, but...." A combination of priorities, construction resources and time prevented the class from being built basically is what happened.
Time because it would've taken at least 3 years to build one, if they were looking at a
Maximum Battleship or Tillman IV-2 for building... Yeah, I'm a fan of Montana as a ship too, but I just went ahead and started doing some stories; granted I used a version that came out of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnaughts [link on previous page]. Came out slightly overpowered, but yeah...
Please do understand that my version also involves efficiency of the 21 gun salute.... I will admit that it is utter insanity, but it is fun to be in the speculation station.
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I feel like I need to acknowledge your reply, but I can't think of anything to add to this discussion that doesn't feel rude.
I do like your physical description of Montana as a big woman in that story snippet. I hadn't really thought about how to represent the belt armor in her shipgirl appearance. Now I'm thinking she'd be built like an American Football front lineman. Still athletic and not fat, but definitely big and heavy-set. Maybe not quite as tall as a front lineman, depending on the heights of the other shipgirls.
Thanks, but I'm not concerned with my version being a realistic portrayal of the ship. The only version of her I have at the moment is part of my (terribly self-indulgent) cast of dimension hopping OC's. She joins them for personal reasons and because they're responsible for her creation, after which she quickly gets a sci-fi tech retrofit and becomes SBB-1, Space Battleship Montana. Or maybe the designation would be SBBN-1 because she's powered by a fusion reactor? It doesn't really matter, I guess. I'm probably never going to write anything with those characters, including Montana, because it would most likely be too self-indulgent for anyone but me to enjoy reading. It's still fun to mess around with idea for, though.
I'd just been lurking in this thread until I decided to join in the discussion of IRL engineering.
FailLord
2050 lb bombs?
- Location
- very high up
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
My mental image had been "Iowa's younger but bigger sister, maybe with darker hair," but I'm not sure that's actually a good representation of the ship. I'm not a fan of the belt armor = bust size joke, if that's what you're referring to. I don't feel like getting into why. It's just my opinion.
There is also one fairly major issue with the boilers that I see.
How do you even plan on getting temperatures that high?
Bunker Fuel generally tops out at around 900 C due to several factors, so unless you use a different fuel you not getting 1000 C plus temps. You might be able to get that high with pure Oxygen but then you have to deal with pure fucking oxygen.
There are fuels out there but well...
The reasons for using bunker c are several and good common sense ones. Mainly because it hard to ignite which is a fairly major safety factor. And its was cheap.
Change that up and well... You loss those benefits.
How do you even plan on getting temperatures that high?
Bunker Fuel generally tops out at around 900 C due to several factors, so unless you use a different fuel you not getting 1000 C plus temps. You might be able to get that high with pure Oxygen but then you have to deal with pure fucking oxygen.
There are fuels out there but well...
The reasons for using bunker c are several and good common sense ones. Mainly because it hard to ignite which is a fairly major safety factor. And its was cheap.
Change that up and well... You loss those benefits.
- Location
- the details
I'm 5'11" and weigh about 200lbs. I'm a mommy and about the same size as a small NFL player. Given what I've read about shipgirl sizes I'd probably be about the same size as a treaty fast battleship although I like to think I'd be a very fast and excessively armored cruiser with obscenely good damage control fairies.
Not as good as @kouta's were if she was a shigirl because she survived and shrugged off some horrible shit I wouldn't wish on anyone.
PhoenixMercurous
Soaring through the stars
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, football players are big. Google says the average American Football lineman is about 6'2" and 245 lbs. That's pretty darn big, though not quite as huge as I expected.
I hadn't dug into the estimated heights of the various shipgirls, so I wasn't sure if my description made her too tall. If 5'11" is about the height of a treaty battleship, then going by Wikipedia's numbers of the design, 6'2 might actually be too short for Montana. She would've been more than 28,000 long tons heavier than the US's treaty battleships, about 200 ft longer than North Carolina, and 240 ft longer than South Dakota. The only reason it might not be reasonable to make her 6'6" and build as fuck is that the IRL Yamato and Musashi were comparable in size to Montana's design, but neither of those shipgirls are particularly heavy set or muscular in their official art.
- Location
- the details
When you're a gal my height you're about two inches taller than an average height American guy and will be looking down just to look someone in the eye practically everywhere you go even when you're barefoot.
"I'm bigger than you." is something gals my size can say to most men everywhere along with to some Lions, Tigers, and Bears.
Last edited:
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
*sighs*
The Tillmans had literally nothing to do with the design of the Montanas. American naval architecture had long since passed them by.
Not in the official art, but Musashi is commonly depicted as absolutely jacked in fanart. And quite frankly in a setting like this the fanart is about as valid as the official.
Jonen C
F.M.D.G.
- Location
- Lincopense, Ostrogothia, Suecia
Musashi is still less of a musclebrain than Nagato in the fanart-consensus (though, Musashi is stronger than Nagato), so to some extent the relative athleticism has more to do with the personality of the girl, or maybe a metaphor for how hard worked/combat effective the ship was.
For paper ships, I can picture there being less spiritual weight backing it, so any muscle bulk would be more for show than actual use. Think competitive bodybuilder rather than multiathlete/weightlifter/strongman/NFL handegger.
- Location
- the details
I imagine the Montanas being somewhat like "The Round Mound of Rebound" (Charles Wade Barkley). He wasn't the tallest NBA power forward of his day (listed as 6'6" but closer to 6'4" because NBA listed heights are propaganda lies*) and sorta looked like the NBA equivalent of an old fat and onery grandpa who had an attitude of "bring it, I dare you" back in the day.
* Take the publicly listed height and subtract two inches.
Spherical_Light
Likely Illuminating a room near you
- Location
- NW US
So, because it seems pertinent to the subject at the moment I will quote from one of my own stories on the subject of ship girl appearance. To be clear, I myself try to avoid too many references to physical appearance attributes. I use as a baseline, not anyone famous, but the tallest female classmate in my memory who was about 6'1, and basically stretch the height factor.
So, I'm wondering, does anyone know how the hair length and color for a ship girl is determined, or is that totally at author's mercy?
As far as relating to horsepower... UAD puts the horsepower at about 467kshp, which afaik, does not divide into 6 easily. It comes out 77,833.333333333 shp per shaft. And I don't think that kinda number decimal would be exactly...kosher for engines...?
The trouble was, when I used springsharp for this, I ran into more issues, like it refusing to generate a picture for a 1500ft long hull [that number being what I estimated the hull length would need to be in order to accommodate 7 turrets, engines etc]. And for some reason, springsharp also gave me a far higher shp value for the same value of ship, and because I surmised from reading through some threads here that 100k shp per shaft was just not done. I went with the 560k shp value as that could be distributed nice and evenly between 6 shafts.
However, now in my current story from which the above note comes from, I've scaled back the shp to 480k shp, which translates to 80,000 shp per shaft. To basically hit 35-37 knots in a pinch if need be. But not necessarily at full speed for a great deal of time, because over time, from my limited understanding, prolonged high usage of any mechanical complexity will result in degradation at a rate higher than the planned for attrition rate. So hence, it makes more sense to design a ship for a faster cruising speed, rather than a higher max speed.
Iowa's had something like 212,000 shp or so, and that was four shafts at roughly 53,000 shp per shaft [I forget the exact figure, I don't mind corrected here]. The Yamatos had around 150k shp that worked out to 37,500 shp per shaft [or 75,000 per shaft on two shafts if it wasn't four shafts].
But anyway, I see the horsepower and engine room debate dying down somewhat, just wanted to offer my perspective even if I'm not really an engineer. I have an interest in stuff like this, but not really all that serious. I may try to go back and dredge up the post I did in this thread last year to link the picture I posted.... Yeah.
Picture for reference found 18 pages ago. One advantage to UAD is that you make ship, and then actually test it in a battle to evaluate it. While the game doesn't yet have specific hull modifying features outside of displacement/length of overall ship. It has a decent amount of flexibility and detail as far as statistics go. I'm still working out the gun layout for the battle cruiser in my story, and I'm using UAD in that regard.
====================================
"...Tillmans had nothing...."
I agree with you Hornet, and yet this is why I created my own unique version... Granted, the picture I linked above is from the older version, where I only had the A-150 hull to use along with the Japanese style superstructure.
We could go on and on about ship design and how dockyard size and other factors contributed to ship design remaining mostly within sane and roughly standard layouts. I do have stories in the very stages using historical values, and yet the idea of the biggest still interests me.
I've always liked oddball layouts, like the Nelson with 3 forward turrets; an improvement to that would be one additional turrets to the rear, or having the scoutplane hangar be basically midships for even more gun coverage. There's still that giant hole of disadvantage to that design because of the all forward layout. Alternatively, one could go with a full astern layout, but you would be running very long shaft assemblies through the entire ship. I like the Amagi type of layout myself as well as the other varieties out there that feature a so-called "non Iowa layout".
To be fair, the Iowa layout is perfectly fine, but I've always been more of a symmetry person; two guns forward, should have two guns stern side to balance it out. Its more that the firepower is lacking if you only have one turret at one end versus two or more. Now that I think of it, the layout may have to do with the "chaser or kiter" process. A battleship is meant to be more of a chaser type, which generally means more guns to the front [Iowa/Nelson layout]. A kiter is more suited to a battlecruiser type like Amagi, where a majority of the turrets are on the stern end. Whereas if you have an even split, like Hood, Bismarck, or the Wowarships Montana; its more of a so-called broadside or line battle brawler layout.
I've rambled on enough here. Sorry about that. <pokes self> Stop editing to add more....
So, I'm wondering, does anyone know how the hair length and color for a ship girl is determined, or is that totally at author's mercy?
As far as relating to horsepower... UAD puts the horsepower at about 467kshp, which afaik, does not divide into 6 easily. It comes out 77,833.333333333 shp per shaft. And I don't think that kinda number decimal would be exactly...kosher for engines...?
The trouble was, when I used springsharp for this, I ran into more issues, like it refusing to generate a picture for a 1500ft long hull [that number being what I estimated the hull length would need to be in order to accommodate 7 turrets, engines etc]. And for some reason, springsharp also gave me a far higher shp value for the same value of ship, and because I surmised from reading through some threads here that 100k shp per shaft was just not done. I went with the 560k shp value as that could be distributed nice and evenly between 6 shafts.
However, now in my current story from which the above note comes from, I've scaled back the shp to 480k shp, which translates to 80,000 shp per shaft. To basically hit 35-37 knots in a pinch if need be. But not necessarily at full speed for a great deal of time, because over time, from my limited understanding, prolonged high usage of any mechanical complexity will result in degradation at a rate higher than the planned for attrition rate. So hence, it makes more sense to design a ship for a faster cruising speed, rather than a higher max speed.
Iowa's had something like 212,000 shp or so, and that was four shafts at roughly 53,000 shp per shaft [I forget the exact figure, I don't mind corrected here]. The Yamatos had around 150k shp that worked out to 37,500 shp per shaft [or 75,000 per shaft on two shafts if it wasn't four shafts].
But anyway, I see the horsepower and engine room debate dying down somewhat, just wanted to offer my perspective even if I'm not really an engineer. I have an interest in stuff like this, but not really all that serious. I may try to go back and dredge up the post I did in this thread last year to link the picture I posted.... Yeah.
====================================
"...Tillmans had nothing...."
I agree with you Hornet, and yet this is why I created my own unique version... Granted, the picture I linked above is from the older version, where I only had the A-150 hull to use along with the Japanese style superstructure.
We could go on and on about ship design and how dockyard size and other factors contributed to ship design remaining mostly within sane and roughly standard layouts. I do have stories in the very stages using historical values, and yet the idea of the biggest still interests me.
I've always liked oddball layouts, like the Nelson with 3 forward turrets; an improvement to that would be one additional turrets to the rear, or having the scoutplane hangar be basically midships for even more gun coverage. There's still that giant hole of disadvantage to that design because of the all forward layout. Alternatively, one could go with a full astern layout, but you would be running very long shaft assemblies through the entire ship. I like the Amagi type of layout myself as well as the other varieties out there that feature a so-called "non Iowa layout".
To be fair, the Iowa layout is perfectly fine, but I've always been more of a symmetry person; two guns forward, should have two guns stern side to balance it out. Its more that the firepower is lacking if you only have one turret at one end versus two or more. Now that I think of it, the layout may have to do with the "chaser or kiter" process. A battleship is meant to be more of a chaser type, which generally means more guns to the front [Iowa/Nelson layout]. A kiter is more suited to a battlecruiser type like Amagi, where a majority of the turrets are on the stern end. Whereas if you have an even split, like Hood, Bismarck, or the Wowarships Montana; its more of a so-called broadside or line battle brawler layout.
I've rambled on enough here. Sorry about that. <pokes self> Stop editing to add more....
Last edited: