fv1609 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think this is terrible! Does anyone agree with me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Clive, I am not going to answer this, you will tell me off :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think this is terrible! Does anyone agree with me?/quote] Yep HMS Terrible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yes well done everyone. I'm assuming Richard knew but was holding himself back. I was hoping people might click on the photo name:) Quite an impressive aerial array, assuming that is not rigging! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Clive, I have always had a fascination with these ships bow design, and have never really understood why the backwards sloping shape would have been an advantage. The day before the Turks invaded Cyprus in 1974, I was inPiraeus looking at the warships moored there, the next day they were all gone. We then went on a ferry to an Island and tucked away in a cove we saw a ship with a similar shaped hull, welding work was being done to it. Some American passengers were amazed that the Greeks seemed to be preparing it for war, saying things like "Gee, can't believe they're fixing up that old First World War coal burner, they haven't got a chance!" It certainly looked very old fashioned! PS just spotted Becket :rofl: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This is a beautifull Russian all gun cruiser "Murmansk" ! The last built I believe ! Interesting site with some very moving wreck photos ! The power of nature !:bow::bow::bow::bow: http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/05/shipwrecks-sea-disasters.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War truck Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Incrdible photos. Tim (too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was just looking at it and thinking ' what is terrible about it?' - I like being young and inexperienced! Gritineye - outside, NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was just looking at it and thinking ' what is terrible about it?' - Right click on the photo & look at Properties :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevpol Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 :rofl::rofl::rofl:oh dear, Mark :cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Right click on the photo & look at Properties :cool2: Come on Clive - that isn't fair!! And there was me thinking that everyone was clever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisg Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Come on Clive - that isn't fair!! And there was me thinking that everyone was clever! Just keep thinking that :rofl: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Come on Clive - that isn't fair!! And there was me thinking that everyone was clever! Does that mean I'm not barred from the biscuit tin anymore? :coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bystander Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Clive, I have always had a fascination with these ships bow design, and have never really understood why the backwards sloping shape would have been an advantage. I believe that you will find that the ram bow was designed to sink ships by ramming, which was given an exaggerated importance in the seond half of the Nineteenth Century following the events of the Battle of Lissa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Clive was that ship pictured here......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I've got some nice snaps of a wrecked trawler near Falmouth in 1980 and also the arson victim SS Old Caledonia paddle steamer pub on the Thames Embankment in 1979 or so. I used to be a photographer in those days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think this is terrible! Does anyone agree with me? Was it powerful?:cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Terrible_(1895) Close bracket after 1895 if link fails Take a look at the extra power required to gain a small amount in speed, I suspect CW can confirm if that is the norm. Edited January 15, 2009 by radiomike7 Link not working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) Propulsion: 2 shafts 4 cylinder VTE steam engines 48 Bellville type water tube boilers 25,000 hp Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h) Range: 7000 nm (13000 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h) 3000 tons coal Does this mean that after 4 hours at full power = 25,513 ihp (19,025 kW) = 21.9 knots (40.6 km/h) those poor stokers would have shoveled 3000 tons of coal into 48 fires? :sweat:62.5 tons each boiler! :shake: Edited January 15, 2009 by gritineye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I should imagine it was like hell on Earth in the boiler rooms when travelling flat out ! Tough blokes those old stokers ! :bow::bow::bow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I believe that you will find that the ram bow was designed to sink ships by ramming, which was given an exaggerated importance in the seond half of the Nineteenth Century following the events of the Battle of Lissa. Thanks Bystander, I had thought ramming went out of fashion a long time before then, should have thought of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) Propulsion: 2 shafts4 cylinder VTE steam engines 48 Bellville type water tube boilers 25,000 hp Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h) Range: 7000 nm (13000 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h) 3000 tons coal Does this mean that after 4 hours at full power = 25,513 ihp (19,025 kW) = 21.9 knots (40.6 km/h) those poor stokers would have shoveled 3000 tons of coal into 48 fires? :sweat:62.5 tons each boiler! :shake: No! Assuming: 14knots requires 5750ihp Coal used per ihp is constant (as greater steam demand was met by lighting more boilers this may well be true) Range at 21.9knots = 7000 x 5750/25513 = 1578nm Distance at max speed for 4 hours = 87.6nm Coal used ----------''-------------=87.6/1578x3000=166tons Or 41.6 tons/hour:coffee: Edited January 15, 2009 by radiomike7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Ah Bach!! this assumes good Welsh Steam Coal look you boyo!:cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Propulsion: 2 shafts4 cylinder VTE steam engines 48 Bellville type water tube boilers 25,000 hp Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h) Range: 7000 nm (13000 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h) 3000 tons coal Does this mean that after 4 hours at full power = 25,513 ihp (19,025 kW) = 21.9 knots (40.6 km/h) those poor stokers would have shoveled 3000 tons of coal into 48 fires? :sweat:62.5 tons each boiler! :shake: I think 3,000 tons would have been the bunker capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I think 3,000 tons would have been the bunker capacity. You said that with a straight face Degsy, I think I'll stick to logarithms, infinitesimal calculus, slide rules, and mental interstellar navigation stuff in future, this simple maths eludes me, :cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.