Carriers side by side:
Bottom to top: CdG, Admiral Kun, Kitty Hawk, Stennis, Wasp. All in the same scale.
Carrier comparison in minature
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 seasick |
Carrier comparison in minature |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 4726 ( 6-Jun-2008 04:05:19) |
Visit Smart Ship Development Lab on the Naval Fiction Board, new episodes weekly.
Last Edited By: seasick 6-Jun-2008 05:14:45.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
|
Gunnersmate04 |
Um.... | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 176 ( 6-Jun-2008 16:48:43) |
And why aren't you in your pool playing with these??!!
I admit I'd be....! 
GUNS |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3651 ( 6-Jun-2008 23:07:20) |
VERY nice!!!!
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2972 ( 8-Jun-2008 08:50:21) |
And the perspective of the photos distorts their relative size nicely. Bravo.
The right-hand column has the same ships, in the same order, drawn to the same scale. 
|
||
|
boblaurabyu |
|||
|
Posts: 5 ( 8-Jun-2008 23:02:07) |
way cool, are they 1-700 scale? if so where did you get the french cv ? I want one too.......
|
||
|
seasick |
Kits | ||
|
Posts: 4738 ( 9-Jun-2008 00:20:53) |
All the ships are in 1/700 scale.
HP Models is avalible in the USA from Pacific Front Models. http://www.pacificfront.com
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4739 ( 9-Jun-2008 00:22:54) |
Badger:
Its hard not to distort perspective. The graphic is from Global Security? Anyone else interested in my creations follow the LINK.
Last Edited By: seasick
9-Jun-2008 00:26:23.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 265 ( 9-Jun-2008 10:54:43) |
Last year I had a go at updating the Global Security chart to in clude current and future CVs:
http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q36/ObiWanRussell/?action=view¤t=carriersoriginal01.gif Hope the link works... Great model work. I used to do a lot of ship models back in the 80s myself. Seeing these pictures brings back a lot of happy memories. |
||
|
robertf2 |
|||
|
Posts: 326 ( 9-Jun-2008 12:10:25) |
seasick wrote: 50mm "equivalent focal length" (uncropped) is usually considered to give a "natural" perspective. BTW nice models
Last Edited By: robertf2
9-Jun-2008 12:12:46.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2974 (10-Jun-2008 06:09:30) |
Photo angle makes a big difference too. The only way to show them without distorting perspective is to have them all at the same distance from the camera,
which means they are:
1. stacked on top of each other (side view close), 2. bow to stern (side view, all small), 3. side by side (top view, like the comparison charts). None of these are aesthetically pleasing, like the ones Seasick posted are. His are nicer to look at, but can fool the casual observer as to relative sizes. Nice chart update, Obi Wan, but last I heard, the RAN was not paying to modify the BPE design to remove the ski jump, so shouldn't they have it too? |
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 271 (10-Jun-2008 12:20:36) |
I did the chart last year and at the time the only reference pic was of a model without the ski jump. I'll give it a tweak soon....
Interesting how they's managed to get the ships with ski jumps and sold the idea to the politicians that it is cheaper this way? Now if only we could get those guys to convince our politicians that the CVFs would be a lot cheaper with catapults and arrestor gear... |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2979 (10-Jun-2008 20:49:25) |
Well, the ski jump on the BPE design is an integral part of the bow structure, and is not superstructure.
Thus, the upper bow area would need to be redesigned... just to save a few hundred tons of steel and salve a few political minds. Yes, that has been done before, but the PTB decided to do the cheapest thing... despite it allowing for future F-35B use. |
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 21 (11-Jun-2008 11:54:30) |
bager1968 wrote:
I'm fairly sure that i have seen images around of UAV's being launched off the Ski jumps of the Canberra class, even if they are only used for launching UAV's, it would probably be worth keeping the ski jump even if it hadn't been part of the hull. |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2985 (11-Jun-2008 21:30:02) |
For UAVs to be practically operated from the Canberra class, they would need to be able to land without arresting gear, and any aircraft that can land without
that can take off without a ramp (but the ramp does increase max t/o weight).
Yes, the ramp allows for more deck to be occupied during take-off, but most of the deck would need to be free during landing, regardless.... unless you have a STOVL UAV, in which case the Harrier example takes precedence. The total payload increase a Harrier sees using a ski-jump vs a flat-deck take-off is about the same as the total weight from it being a manned aircraft (pilot, ejection seat, instruments/controls, oxygen system, airframe to enclose all that). Thus, a UAV of the same performance as a Harrier could fly from an Invincible-class CVL without a ski jump just fine, with the same payload. The ramp is most useful with a manned aircraft. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
