"King Haarahld VI"-class, paint art

Dilandu wrote:Well, there she is: "King Haarahld VI", fast battleship/superiority demonstrator as i could describe her.



Full version:

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/ ... 81e9mw.png

http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/use ... ser/KH.png

http://dilandu.deviantart.com/art/King- ... a_recent=1

Cool! You're still putting the main battery in turrets, though; they're in barbets with shields to save top weight. Also, bear in mind that they're using water tube boilers, not fire tube, which means they aren't going to need as many boilers as you might think. And, finally, they have a transom stern and a forward-angled straight bow. No one in Charis sees any reason to make them look any more like something from the 1890s than works with their requirements. They have a single military mast forward of the funnels (because the after position would be smoked out pretty badly even with only three funnels. And as I think I pointed out, the speed listed is their top speed, to be maintained for no more than 8 hours at a time.

Aside from that, this is great!

runsforcelery wrote:
Cool!

Thanks!

runsforcelery wrote: You're still putting the main battery in turrets, though; they're in barbets with shields to save top weight.

Er, no: they are barbettes with cylindrical shields, like 1890th US monitors.

runsforcelery wrote:
Also, bear in mind that they're using water tube boilers, not fire tube, which means they aren't going to need as many boilers as you might think.

And so? All french armoured cruisers used fire-tube boilers; and they have pleny of boilers. To reach 24 knots on the only two screws and triple-expancion machines even temporarely, you need A LOT OF boilers. Especially if they are first boilers even build in more than thousand years, on the industry, build for less than two years. Better to put more of them just in case that you workers - who never ever build something like that -may made a mistake.

runsforcelery wrote:And, finally, they have a transom stern and a forward-angled straight bow.

Without ram? For the civilisation that just discover steam and it's mobility advantages? It's just impossible: especially for the navy, that have galleys as a main unit just a decade ago.

runsforcelery wrote:No one in Charis sees any reason to make them look any more like something from the 1890s than works with their requirements.

No one in Charis have any reason to build them, first of all. Exept for the demonstration of technological superiority and gaining the expirience to the shipyards. So they may include some elements that maybe not ideal, but gave a engineers and construction crews a great expirience of "how to do" or "how NOT to do" somethings.

runsforcelery wrote: They have a single military mast forward of the funnels

And if it would be hit and destroyed? Two mast is the rational minimum for observation and battle control, especially without electricity. But ok, i could replace the rear mast with something loghter...

May use water tube boilers that can use sea water, you think bunkerage for coal is a problem burkerage for fresh boiler water will dwarf it. Even with condensers you lose fresh water. Also high pressure steam reduces the size of the engine considerably for the same Dragon Power

Poker

Hi Pokermind,

No, the steam engines will use fresh water condensed via the steam engine's heat and powerful pumps if they want the engines to last very long.

One of the great things about the steam sailing ships is that steam powered condensers that enabled the crews to avoid running out of drinkable water, thus considerably increasing their operating range, and Safehold already had iron water tanks aboard its galleons before the jihad, as mentioned during Dennys's return to Tellesburg in OAR.

From the MTaT description, the KH VII's triple expansion engines will indeed be rather smaller than those of Terra around 1890, so kudos again.

I believe the French tumble home designs didn't have much blue water time since hey were kept close to home since there expected to be used against Britain first, before conceding the German Navy's superiority in design and numbers, not that they were that much of a threat to the RN in the first place, given the Jeune Ecole's preferences, NTM the politicians, for cheaper solutions than building one for one with the RN.

L

pokermind wrote:May use water tube boilers that can use sea water, you think bunkerage for coal is a problem burkerage for fresh boiler water will dwarf it. Even with condensers you lose fresh water. Also high pressure steam reduces the size of the engine considerably for the same Dragon Power

Poker

lyonheart wrote:not that they were that much of a threat to the RN in the first place, given the Jeune Ecole's preferences, NTM the politicians, for cheaper solutions than building one for one with the RN.

Well, actually they were stronger than Royal Navy in 1898. Their guns have longer barrels and could be reloaded in any train angle, their shells were filled with more powerfull explosives, their tactic were greatly superior and they could put all avaliable ships in sea for 48 hours (in 1896, the Royal Navy needed more than a month to mobilise just the part of reserve). And their torpedo tactics... well, they have torpedo tactics. RN haven't.

Sea water using boilers may be short lived, but will not effect the engines. The higher the pressure the smaller the piston needed to provide the same force it's a direct part of the equation IE F = P x A re-arranging A = F / P thus the higher the P the smaller the Area of the piston needed In a closed system you lose water, the crew drinks it, the whistle vents steam to the atmosphere, leaking stuffing boxes on piston rods vent steam to the atmosphere etc. Provision to clean out tubes will increase the useful life of a sea water using boiler.

Poker

pokermind wrote:Sea water using boilers may be short lived, but will not effect the engines. The higher the pressure the smaller the piston needed to provide the same force it's a direct part of the equation IE F = P x A re-arranging A = F / P thus the higher the P the smaller the Area of the piston needed In a closed system you lose water, the crew drinks it, the whistle vents steam to the atmosphere, leaking stuffing boxes on piston rods vent steam to the atmosphere etc. Provision to clean out tubes will increase the useful life of a sea water using boiler.

Poker

It may be true for British Empire, that have a sufficient repair capabilites on Malta, Canada, India, Australia and Hong Kong. But for Charis, who haven't ANY forward industrial base sufficient to this kind of machinery, it would be pretty hard to replace or even simply repair the boilers out of Delthak.

The condensers served two purposes, they turned the steam back to water to be reused and they created a vacuum that enabled the engines to extract much more energy from the system. One shaft of the Titantic was powered by a turbine that recieved the steam from the two triple expansion reciprocating engines at 9 psi and developed 16000 hp from a pressure drop between 9 psi and about 28 inches of vacuum. The evaperators made fresh water from salt water to replenish losses in the system and provide water for the crew.

It's just appeared to me: the KH's are expetrimental ships, after all?

So, it's quite possible that this definite unit (on the art) is the second, or third ship of the class, with certain differences from the original. That's why it have six smoke stacks, two masts and others. After all, even if the Inner Circle IS convinced that they build the optimal design, the simple sea engineers and officers couldn't knew that.

So, it is pretty possible that the KH's would be really different from each other "in hope to find the optimal solution".

Dilandu wrote:

pokermind wrote:Sea water using boilers may be short lived, but will not effect the engines. The higher the pressure the smaller the piston needed to provide the same force it's a direct part of the equation IE F = P x A re-arranging A = F / P thus the higher the P the smaller the Area of the piston needed In a closed system you lose water, the crew drinks it, the whistle vents steam to the atmosphere, leaking stuffing boxes on piston rods vent steam to the atmosphere etc. Provision to clean out tubes will increase the useful life of a sea water using boiler.

Poker

It may be true for British Empire, that have a sufficient repair capabilites on Malta, Canada, India, Australia and Hong Kong. But for Charis, who haven't ANY forward industrial base sufficient to this kind of machinery, it would be pretty hard to replace or even simply repair the boilers out of Delthak.

Condensing steam engines deliver more power for the same fuel consumption because the exhaust pressure from the low pressure cylinder approximates a hard vacuum as opposed to the atmospheric pressure (at best) that a non condensing engine can manage. If you have a heat sink like the ocean then going condensing is a no-brainer. Condensing engines provide a steady supply of recycled fresh water so feeding fresh water back to the boiler is equally good sense. A for make up water, if you want to make long ocean voyages then you need fresh water for the crew if no-one else, so you either have a large water tank (which weighs a lot - a couple of tonnes of water a day for a typical crew) or a small flash boiler and condenser (even if you don't have a steam engine - these were integrated with the stoves on the 1700's sailing ships).
Fresh water lets you use carbon steel for boiler tubes as opposed to the Admiralty Bronze or stainless steels you need for a salt water charged boiler.
Salt water also has a higher boiling point than fresh water so uses more energy to boil and the resulting brine left in the boiler must he continuously dumped overboard through the mud drum drain (with the loss of heat in this path as well). So unless you are making table salt as a byline, salt water boilers in marine use are rare for good reason.