|
A fast 44 gallons a minute
|
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch It gives me a warm feeling to know we're not the only nation going into debt for such silly toys that can be disabled by four guys in a rubber raft. |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:50:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:50:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic Doel Fin. Won't plane without it. |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:07:27 -0400, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:50:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic Doel Fin. Won't plane without it. I guess when the bow lifts the sonar dome must extend to stay submerged. Neat. Pretty good wakeboarding too. --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:50:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg Gotta love those Brits. Sitting on the fantail, sipping a beer. Eisboch That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic Check this out: http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%...nFlap9_01.html Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:25:54 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic Check this out: http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%...nFlap9_01.html Thanks. Very cool. It's a wonder this is only a recent innovation, but I guess the Navy is slow to come to such changes. I read the entire article, and noted there are required changes to the screws. I did a quick google to see if the RN is using the flaps, but didn't find anything. I'll keep looking. That rooster tail really spoils the view from the fantail, and the waterfall noise is irritating to boot. Some of my fondest Navy memories are of spending off watch hours on the fantail when at flank speed. The screws beating the water - I think about 60 turns at flank speed - created a deep thrumming that went right through you. And it was my boilers producing the power. Back in the fireroom the screaming auxiliaries, the burners roaring, the sound of steam whistling through the generating tubes, into the main, and the starboard shaft spinning in its alley all gave me an additional vision of the end result - fantail screws beating the water, pushing us on. A ship is really a marvelous beast. Unless the damn thing is sinking, of course. Thanks again for stirring some memories. --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... A ship is really a marvelous beast. Unless the damn thing is sinking, of course. Thanks again for stirring some memories. --Vic Believe me, the memories are mutual. The wake full of fluorescents at night and the sky filled with millions of more stars than you ever noticed before. Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:58:42 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:25:54 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: That rooster tail looks weird. I spent many hours on the fantail of a similar size/weight destroyer doing 27 knots. (John King DDG-3) We had no rooster tail. We had more HP according to the specs - 70k versus 50k, and probably better acceleration, as I recall our strengths. Their screws must be radically different to create that spray. Guessing about that, of course. --Vic Check this out: http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%...nFlap9_01.html Thanks. Very cool. It's a wonder this is only a recent innovation, but I guess the Navy is slow to come to such changes. I read the entire article, and noted there are required changes to the screws. I did a quick google to see if the RN is using the flaps, but didn't find anything. I'll keep looking. That rooster tail really spoils the view from the fantail, and the waterfall noise is irritating to boot. Some of my fondest Navy memories are of spending off watch hours on the fantail when at flank speed. The screws beating the water - I think about 60 turns at flank speed - created a deep thrumming that went right through you. And it was my boilers producing the power. Back in the fireroom the screaming auxiliaries, the burners roaring, the sound of steam whistling through the generating tubes, into the main, and the starboard shaft spinning in its alley all gave me an additional vision of the end result - fantail screws beating the water, pushing us on. A ship is really a marvelous beast. Unless the damn thing is sinking, of course. Thanks again for stirring some memories. --Vic I sure envy you guys. One of my wildest dreams was to go for a destroyer ride in the North Sea. I did get offered a ride while in San Diego, working with an Army diving detachment, but I ended up having to change the plans about a week before the scheduled ride. We would have been out for about a week. One of the big regrets in life! |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500, John H.
wrote: I sure envy you guys. One of my wildest dreams was to go for a destroyer ride in the North Sea. I did get offered a ride while in San Diego, working with an Army diving detachment, but I ended up having to change the plans about a week before the scheduled ride. We would have been out for about a week. One of the big regrets in life! You would have liked it. But if you really want do it you still can get a ride to Europe via the North Sea on any number of merchant vessels. Maybe even steam driven. That's how I'm going to Europe when my wife gets the time and demands I visit Poland with her. I don't fly. The QE2 prices aren't bad either when you figure it's a nice room with a balcony over the sea for 4 or 5 days, all the food you can eat, and transport to Europe. I can even get on a ship here in Chicago that goes to Europe. Won't be much different than a destroyer if my only visit to the North Sea is any indication, since the seas didn't allow for much speed. That was my only NATO operation. Here's what you won't do. 1. Come alongside a Limey oiler for refueling expecting them to get a line across with a monkey fist, and suddenly see them shoot a line cannon instead. The damn spear on it penetrated the 1/2' thick, wall of a 6" wide aluminum stanchion about 20 feet from where I was standing. Our deck apes weren't happy at all as they struggled to pull it out, I swear I could hear the Brits laughing. Most of our superstructure was aluminum. 2. Highline across rough seas to the cruiser U.S,S. Columbus as a casualty control observer. I watched a few guys go before me. Our ships would roll apart and up they would go, then down as the ships rolled toward each other, and the chair went low enough for the first guy his feet were in the choppy sea moving at maybe 15 knots, which was our speed needed to keep steady way in those waters. He was spun around, the rope was tightened, and things went smoothly after that. My concern was if the carrying rope broke. Though we wore a life jacket, the chair and pulley were heavy steel, and would take you right to the bottom if you didn't get out of it quick. Suddenly the chair was back and somebody was yelling "Smith!" I ran over, jumped into the chair, was buckled in, and off I went. I might have been given some quick instructions, but don't remember. I don't really remember much of the ride as I was hauled 50 or 60 feet across to the Columbus. I didn't get wet. I was probably holding my breath anyway. What I remember well is the deck apes on the Columbus grabbing the hanging straps of the chair to steady it, and being lowered quickly to the deck. I grabbed my seatbelt to free myself, and damned if I couldn't get myself loose. One of the apes quickly freed me and I got out of the way. I think my legs started shaking thinking about that rope breaking and me sinking to the bottom. I made damned sure I knew how to unbuckle myself from that chair before I highlined back a couple days later. I can't for the life of me even remember the return trip, but here I am, so it was a success. --Vic. |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:53:15 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500, John H. wrote: I sure envy you guys. One of my wildest dreams was to go for a destroyer ride in the North Sea. I did get offered a ride while in San Diego, working with an Army diving detachment, but I ended up having to change the plans about a week before the scheduled ride. We would have been out for about a week. One of the big regrets in life! You would have liked it. But if you really want do it you still can get a ride to Europe via the North Sea on any number of merchant vessels. Maybe even steam driven. That's how I'm going to Europe when my wife gets the time and demands I visit Poland with her. I don't fly. The QE2 prices aren't bad either when you figure it's a nice room with a balcony over the sea for 4 or 5 days, all the food you can eat, and transport to Europe. I can even get on a ship here in Chicago that goes to Europe. Won't be much different than a destroyer if my only visit to the North Sea is any indication, since the seas didn't allow for much speed. That was my only NATO operation. Here's what you won't do. 1. Come alongside a Limey oiler for refueling expecting them to get a line across with a monkey fist, and suddenly see them shoot a line cannon instead. The damn spear on it penetrated the 1/2' thick, wall of a 6" wide aluminum stanchion about 20 feet from where I was standing. Our deck apes weren't happy at all as they struggled to pull it out, I swear I could hear the Brits laughing. Most of our superstructure was aluminum. 2. Highline across rough seas to the cruiser U.S,S. Columbus as a casualty control observer. I watched a few guys go before me. Our ships would roll apart and up they would go, then down as the ships rolled toward each other, and the chair went low enough for the first guy his feet were in the choppy sea moving at maybe 15 knots, which was our speed needed to keep steady way in those waters. He was spun around, the rope was tightened, and things went smoothly after that. My concern was if the carrying rope broke. Though we wore a life jacket, the chair and pulley were heavy steel, and would take you right to the bottom if you didn't get out of it quick. Suddenly the chair was back and somebody was yelling "Smith!" I ran over, jumped into the chair, was buckled in, and off I went. I might have been given some quick instructions, but don't remember. I don't really remember much of the ride as I was hauled 50 or 60 feet across to the Columbus. I didn't get wet. I was probably holding my breath anyway. What I remember well is the deck apes on the Columbus grabbing the hanging straps of the chair to steady it, and being lowered quickly to the deck. I grabbed my seatbelt to free myself, and damned if I couldn't get myself loose. One of the apes quickly freed me and I got out of the way. I think my legs started shaking thinking about that rope breaking and me sinking to the bottom. I made damned sure I knew how to unbuckle myself from that chair before I highlined back a couple days later. I can't for the life of me even remember the return trip, but here I am, so it was a success. --Vic. I've read about some of those hair raising chair rides. Don't know if I'd have the balls now to do it. When in my 20's? Maybe. No, the QE2 wouldn't do. It would have to be a destroyer so I could stand in the bridge and watch the water come crashing over the bow. Hey, that's the dream. Maybe the Navy could make some bucks taking joyriders along! |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:57:06 -0500, John H.
wrote: I've read about some of those hair raising chair rides. Don't know if I'd have the balls now to do it. When in my 20's? Maybe. I think I was 19, maybe 20. My balls weren't an issue. I just used the Navy's. No, the QE2 wouldn't do. It would have to be a destroyer so I could stand in the bridge and watch the water come crashing over the bow. Hey, that's the dream. Maybe the Navy could make some bucks taking joyriders along! You might get that on a cargo ship passage. Just bring the Captain a bottle of whatever suits his nationality, and you can get yourself on the bridge. It's not scared of you if you ain't scared of it. But even the Navy can't guarantee heavy seas. Man, you got me going. I used to go up to the flying bridge or the walkway in front of the bridge windows to watch the bow bury itself. I was more like the ship dove into the sea than the sea crashing over the bow. I was *always* the only guy out there. It was wet, and usually cold. Gave me those "Victory at Sea" Captain-like moments, a nice break from the usual fireroom drudgery. But in 3 1/2 years on that destroyer, and maybe 500 days actually at sea, we were in seas like that probably less than 10 times. All main deck doors were secured, and I had to wend my way forward and topside internally, climbing ladders by the CIC, radar and sonar operations. Though watching the bow bury itself and then struggle up again was exciting, it wasn't particularly scary. Maybe because I was already soaked with spray and wind, the bow failing to emerge from the waves and me floating in the sea wouldn't have been such a shocking transition. OTOH, while walking down an internal passageway when the bow took a dive, and you were suddenly walking downhill, every step downhill added to the fear factor, because you were waiting for that sucker to come out of the dive. It was like being in a long coffin on a trip to visit Davy Jones. When it came up from the dive, the whole ship would shudder,as if to say "Whew, I'm back! Maybe we'll go later." There was a main deck expansion joint just aft of midship, and you could watch it move in such seas. I always figured that's where she would break in half. I'm glad I did my Navy duty and merchant marining before the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. My imagination is active enough. I wonder if they allow that song on ships? --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:11:14 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:57:06 -0500, John H. wrote: I've read about some of those hair raising chair rides. Don't know if I'd have the balls now to do it. When in my 20's? Maybe. I think I was 19, maybe 20. My balls weren't an issue. I just used the Navy's. No, the QE2 wouldn't do. It would have to be a destroyer so I could stand in the bridge and watch the water come crashing over the bow. Hey, that's the dream. Maybe the Navy could make some bucks taking joyriders along! You might get that on a cargo ship passage. Just bring the Captain a bottle of whatever suits his nationality, and you can get yourself on the bridge. It's not scared of you if you ain't scared of it. But even the Navy can't guarantee heavy seas. Man, you got me going. I used to go up to the flying bridge or the walkway in front of the bridge windows to watch the bow bury itself. I was more like the ship dove into the sea than the sea crashing over the bow. I was *always* the only guy out there. It was wet, and usually cold. Gave me those "Victory at Sea" Captain-like moments, a nice break from the usual fireroom drudgery. But in 3 1/2 years on that destroyer, and maybe 500 days actually at sea, we were in seas like that probably less than 10 times. All main deck doors were secured, and I had to wend my way forward and topside internally, climbing ladders by the CIC, radar and sonar operations. Though watching the bow bury itself and then struggle up again was exciting, it wasn't particularly scary. Maybe because I was already soaked with spray and wind, the bow failing to emerge from the waves and me floating in the sea wouldn't have been such a shocking transition. OTOH, while walking down an internal passageway when the bow took a dive, and you were suddenly walking downhill, every step downhill added to the fear factor, because you were waiting for that sucker to come out of the dive. It was like being in a long coffin on a trip to visit Davy Jones. When it came up from the dive, the whole ship would shudder,as if to say "Whew, I'm back! Maybe we'll go later." There was a main deck expansion joint just aft of midship, and you could watch it move in such seas. I always figured that's where she would break in half. I'm glad I did my Navy duty and merchant marining before the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. My imagination is active enough. I wonder if they allow that song on ships? --Vic YES! You know what I'm talking about. Your description of the times on the flying bridge is exactly what I've pictured in my imagination. Very cool! |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:26:27 -0500, John H.
wrote: YES! You know what I'm talking about. Your description of the times on the flying bridge is exactly what I've pictured in my imagination. Very cool! That tells me that we're both hip. Basically wild and crazy guys. --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:12:29 -0700, Calif Bill penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg You want fast? The USS New Jersey made good with 35.2 knots on 27 March 1968.... and that is for 51,000 tons... not some wimpy little foreign aluminium can. Fuel consumption? 187 gallons per minute at flank speed....... Fun Read: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/bbma/index.htm -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:51:25 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:12:29 -0700, Calif Bill penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg You want fast? The USS New Jersey made good with 35.2 knots on 27 March 1968.... and that is for 51,000 tons... not some wimpy little foreign aluminium can. Fuel consumption? 187 gallons per minute at flank speed....... Fun Read: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/bbma/index.htm That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:51:25 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:12:29 -0700, Calif Bill penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCj4L160Slg You want fast? The USS New Jersey made good with 35.2 knots on 27 March 1968.... and that is for 51,000 tons... not some wimpy little foreign aluminium can. Fuel consumption? 187 gallons per minute at flank speed....... Fun Read: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/bbma/index.htm That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic My youngest son recently left the Navy after 4 years. He was attached to an air squadron that in turn was attached to the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. Indeed, top speed is excess of 35 knots. 1 nautical mile per rem. Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic My youngest son recently left the Navy after 4 years. He was attached to an air squadron that in turn was attached to the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. Indeed, top speed is excess of 35 knots. 1 nautical mile per rem. What's "rem?" Or is that secret? --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic My youngest son recently left the Navy after 4 years. He was attached to an air squadron that in turn was attached to the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. Indeed, top speed is excess of 35 knots. 1 nautical mile per rem. What's "rem?" Or is that secret? --Vic A rem is a measurement of radioactivity. I made up the "1 nautical mile per rem". Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:26:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
A rem is a measurement of radioactivity. I made up the "1 nautical mile per rem". Hehe, I'm denser than U-235. --Vic |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:31:19 -0500, Vic Smith penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic My youngest son recently left the Navy after 4 years. He was attached to an air squadron that in turn was attached to the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. Indeed, top speed is excess of 35 knots. 1 nautical mile per rem. What's "rem?" Or is that secret? --Vic Think about ..... MPG.... doesn't really fit for a nukular powered vessel. Gallons? A rem is a Röntgen equivalent man (or a dose of radiation, please check your dosimeter before proceeding......) 1 rem = 1cSv and Sievert is the new unit. That's OK, I still use Hertz and Gauss.... screw 'em..... Seems like the wrong unit to describe efficiency, but I don't know. It was a joke anyway .... Eisboch |
A fast 44 gallons a minute
Eisboch wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:31:19 -0500, Vic Smith penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: That's probably the best "non-technical" read about a warship engineering system I've ever seen. Covers a lot of territory. BTW, current nuke carriers (CVN) are @97,000 tons. Top speed? Secret. But it's faster than 35 knots. I'd love to see a near water video of that prop wash! --Vic My youngest son recently left the Navy after 4 years. He was attached to an air squadron that in turn was attached to the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. Indeed, top speed is excess of 35 knots. 1 nautical mile per rem. What's "rem?" Or is that secret? --Vic Think about ..... MPG.... doesn't really fit for a nukular powered vessel. Gallons? A rem is a Röntgen equivalent man (or a dose of radiation, please check your dosimeter before proceeding......) 1 rem = 1cSv and Sievert is the new unit. That's OK, I still use Hertz and Gauss.... screw 'em..... Seems like the wrong unit to describe efficiency, but I don't know. It was a joke anyway .... Eisboch Just so you don't feel as if you are in outer space somewhere, Eisboch... I got the "rem" joke the first time. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com