| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Ed |
Boilers |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2298 (28-Apr-2008 00:25:01) |
How long does it take to fire up (from cold) and build enough steam to move a BB at 6 knots to clear the harbour? Is the time different for coal fired vs. oil
fired boilers? Would all 3 or 4 engines be used to manuver within the harbour and how many boilers? Once clear of the harbour, how long does it take to get
to a cruising speed of 15 knots? Are these time periods different for different classes, or ships with a class (like the Nevada vs. the Oklahoma)? Could the
USN Fast BBs (NC, SoDak, and Iowa classes), build enough steam to get to cruise speed (15 knots) faster than the standard USN BBs?
|
||
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 999 (28-Apr-2008 02:42:32) |
For the old Japanese Battleships, excepting the Kongos, it took 1 minute to go from 12 to 14 knots, another minute to go to 16 from 14, another two and a half
to get to 18, another two and a half to get to twenty, three minutes to get to 22, three more minutes to get to 24 and four and a half to reach full speed
after that.
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3709 (28-Apr-2008 03:35:52) |
Ed wrote: There probably isn't a single answer, as it would depend on the condition of the boilers and how urgent was the need. I remember reading, in an
article about the Italian Capitani Romani class cruisers that getting the boilers started was about an eight-hour
task, with emergency startup being possible in as little as one.
I suspect that the fast battleships would take longer than the USN standards, as the boilers were likely more complex, thereby more sensitive to rough handling. |
||
Ed |
|||
|
Posts: 2300 (28-Apr-2008 03:54:02) |
Maybe BOBC 59 can give us some of his vast knowledge on this. He worked these babies.
|
||
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1451 (28-Apr-2008 15:28:49) |
emc wrote: The fast BB boilers were identical in design and operation to all the other 600 psi/850 deg F M-type boilers in the USN of the time. They were little different in size to DD boilers (or so they look up close). For these boilers the normal period from cold to ready to cut the boiler into the main steam line is about 3.5 hours. This time period is this long to allow proper warm up of the plant (and all its associated piping). It's not just a boiler thing - the main engines and the generators are in this process. The process can of course be speeded up, but there are risks as a trade off. To answer your question, I think about an hour, maybe two to get to six knots from cold-iron.It gets better if, like all the BBs moored to the "F" moorings at Ford Island on The Day, one is already steaming at least one boiler supplying hotel services. Inter alia, the other boilers are under a steam blanket and thus already warm to a degree. The time line thus to get a main engine(s) warmed up is shorter - note Nevada's performance. I don't know the details, but suspect she was moved on one boiler, with the others lit off and building up to operating pressure. Had she sortied I am guessing she would be ready to answer all bells within the hour. And, backing out of her berth required IMHO both engines; it is hard to back a two shaft ship in a straight line with only one operating shaft. Not impossible, but hard. The difference between the fast BBs (600 psi plants) and say Nevada and her chronological sisters is probably not great. The earlier ships after their big interwar upgrades were probably running 250 psi plants at about 400 deg F (this is a guess). The earlier ships may well have had a shorter time line. BTW, big ships are hardly ever 'cold' except during extended repair periods. To go 'cold' one needs a source of shore power and at least an auxiliary steam source. These services are not that commonly available and for big ships the transition process to and from 'cold' is not trivial. BOBC59 - chime in where you think appropriate - I need a 'check' on 600 lb plants. |
||
Fermi2 |
From Cold? | ||
|
Posts: 3262 (28-Apr-2008 19:44:55) |
Probably 3 to 4 hours. Usually USN Boilers are limited to less than 100 F/Hr heatup rate to protect the tubes. I'd have to look in PINE as it has the
recommended heatup rates for USN Boilers.
Mike |
||
Craiglxviii |
|||
|
Posts: 80 (28-Apr-2008 20:06:58) |
Ed,
a good example for coal fired plants can be found at the Battle of the Falklands Islands, 1914. Invincible, Inflexible, Cornwall, Kent, Glasgow, Bristol & Caernarvon were caught with boilers cold and furnaces extinguished, and I believe Bristol had one of her boilers partially disassembled for cleaning. Upon "Enemy in sight!" being hoisted aboard Canopus via the hill-top spotting station at 0750hrs (and several 12" practice rounds being mailed, postage paid to the East Asiatic Squadron), it took until 0945hrs for Bristol to weigh anchor and proceed to sea, followed by the two battlecruisers at 1000hrs. Thus, it took around 2 hours for a typical sized (for the time, c. 18,000 ton) coal-fired capital ship to close up from coaling to weigh anchor and proceed to sea, marginally less for a typical coal-fired light cruiser of c. 5,000 tons. Source: http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/falkland.html "Faithfully", Craig
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
|
||
Craiglxviii |
|||
|
Posts: 81 (28-Apr-2008 20:15:17) |
Ed,
sorry, forgot to say- the times quoted above involved the engineers forcing the fires. I suspect that normal heatup rates would double the time.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
|
||
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1452 (28-Apr-2008 21:32:37) |
Fermi2 wrote: Sounds about right.. EOSS specs for 1200 ships was about 3+ hours. Lighting off sprayer plates were drill size 32; normal steaming 20. Soooo, if one were
in a bit of hurry, 20s might go in at hour two or so. Probably no log entries, however.
|
||
hoist40 |
|||
|
Posts: 1004 (28-Apr-2008 22:10:28) |
Craigixviii says I wonder if they had all boilers cold, since without any boilers that mean they have no electricity except for batteries, no ventilation, no steam heat or cooking, no way to adjust the anchors, no power to any pump. I can see them having almost all boilers cold but I would think they would keep at least one on line for internal power, especially in wartime. Also the BC's would have needed power to fire those 12 inch shells since the turrets were powered by steam driven hydraulics |
||
SeaTurtle Prince |
|||
|
Posts: 306 (28-Apr-2008 22:17:39) |
The 12" shells came from Canopus, not the BCs. And it was Glasgow that came out first, Bristol did not get going until much later and missed the
engagement, though she did round up some of the German supply ships.
|
||