HMS Queen Elizabeth

[mikal83]

Phud said:

mikal83 said:

Jimmy on The Invince had the hots for a Jenny O.....and so did the NBCDO, jealousy hit the fan so NBCDO threw a thunderflash into jimmies cabin and shut the door..........NBCDO was sent over to accompanying RFA to cool off. Orient '92 I think! I could write quite a few pages of the shagging that went on for that trip alone

Watching the boat bays from the aircraft was fun, do you recall snow white? She had 7 in an evening

One of my "ladies" was caught giving a bj to her bf, one of my lads said the port chaff sponson was very popular in the late evenings! And Velcro overalls could be done back up quickly!!!

[silverfoxcc]

Wildcat,

Re your thinking

Wasnt it a few years ago that someone died who had spoken to someone who had fought at Trafalgar, or the Nile? ( or was it their dad?
.

The Matelot was a boy sailor in 1805 say b 1790 and died in 1870. The person he spoke to was born in 1860, and so remembers the conversation

This person married later and fathered a child at age 50 (b1910) This child died either in the late 90's or early 2000

[FourWheelDrift]

silverfoxcc said:

Wildcat,

Re your thinking

Wasnt it a few years ago that someone died who had spoken to someone who had fought at Trafalgar, or the Nile? ( or was it their dad?
.

The Matelot was a boy sailor in 1805 say b 1790 and died in 1870. The person he spoke to was born in 1860, and so remembers the conversation

This person married later and fathered a child at age 50 (b1910) This child died either in the late 90's or early 2000

Joseph Sutherland was the last British survivor of Trafalgar he died in 1890, last French survivor Emmanuel Louis Cartigny died in 1892, the very last Trafalgar survivor Pedro Martínez died in 1898. Someone (born around ~1880) could have met one of these and told their son/daughter (born ~1920) who could still be alive today. And that's still only using a fathered age of 40!

[HarryW]

Caught up with the series earlier tonight, very candid. I think all parties came out in the good light.

[hidetheelephants]

Nanook said:

hidetheelephants said:

Nanook said:

They did retain fully electric drive for QEC though, which was a big feature of T45, with QEC's GTs being housed under the islands, but for T26 they've reverted to a CODLOG set up.

Back to the future with the all-new T23 T26! Strikes me as odd that you'd go to the trouble of having gas turbines for sprinting but switch off the electric motors. Perhaps the clutching technology doesn't like the competition.

It's not exactly an unusual layout in naval ships of this size.

When you've got a 40MW GT running, that'll take you to 30+ knots, why do you want to be running the diesels as well?

If sprinting is going on everything is likely to be lit up, so surplus power left over once hotel loads are dealt with might as well go to propulsion?

[Halmyre]

Nanook said:

hidetheelephants said:

Nanook said:

hidetheelephants said:

Nanook said:

They did retain fully electric drive for QEC though, which was a big feature of T45, with QEC's GTs being housed under the islands, but for T26 they've reverted to a CODLOG set up.

Back to the future with the all-new T23 T26! Strikes me as odd that you'd go to the trouble of having gas turbines for sprinting but switch off the electric motors. Perhaps the clutching technology doesn't like the competition.

It's not exactly an unusual layout in naval ships of this size.

When you've got a 40MW GT running, that'll take you to 30+ knots, why do you want to be running the diesels as well?

If sprinting is going on everything is likely to be lit up, so surplus power left over once hotel loads are dealt with might as well go to propulsion?

No, there'll never be all the engines running at once. And the amount you'd have left from running a couple of the diesel generators to run the hotel load, to add into the drive, would pale into insignificance next to the 40MW the GT is making.

Reminds me of an old joke about an elderly British frigate on a NATO exercise. Noting that it was struggling to keep up his American counterpart signalled "Suggest you hook up washing machines in addition to engines to maintain speed". Back came the terse reply "Am running on washing machines. Keeping engines in reserve".

[swanny71]

wal 45 said:

Bit disappointed with some of the dits above regarding life onboard and would have thought that ex members of the Wardroom would know better. These are exactly the sort of things that shouldn't be said in the public domain and it just undermines the Senior Service. It really wouldn't be difficult to work out who the people you're talking about are..........

Fair enough to spin the dits with ex Shipmates on a run ashore but not on a public forum, all in my humble opinion obviously.

[swanny71]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

Do you know this for sure or just thinking about power demand?

It's been almost 20 years but if I remember correctly, at action it was (maybe still is) usual to split the board fwd/aft and port/stbd (assuming 4 gen sets). So that if one generator was lost you'd only momentarily lose 25% of services rather than 50%.
Similar with propulsion on a COGOG ship, at action you'd have all 4 GT's running ready but only one clutched in each side.
Certainly not the most efficient way to run, or very good for the lightly loaded engines but priorities change...

[jkh112]

Nanook said:

swanny71 said:

Do you know this for sure or just thinking about power demand?

It's been almost 20 years but if I remember correctly, at action it was (maybe still is) usual to split the board fwd/aft and port/stbd (assuming 4 gen sets). So that if one generator was lost you'd only momentarily lose 25% of services rather than 50%.
Similar with propulsion on a COGOG ship, at action you'd have all 4 GT's running ready but only one clutched in each side.
Certainly not the most efficient way to run, or very good for the lightly loaded engines but priorities change...

I know from recent experience. Well, the last ten years.

My recent experience is that many modern warships do flash up more generators as readiness states increase. These are also run in various split modes as swanny stated.
For the highest readiness states it is not uncommon for the power system to be designed to have all power plants running so with (for example) 2 GTs and 2 diesels onboard the system, would be configured into 4 island mode.

[Speculatore]

wal 45 said:

Bit disappointed with some of the dits above regarding life onboard and would have thought that ex members of the Wardroom would know better. These are exactly the sort of things that shouldn't be said in the public domain and it just undermines the Senior Service. It really wouldn't be difficult to work out who the people you're talking about are..........

Fair enough to spin the dits with ex Shipmates on a run ashore but not on a public forum, all in my humble opinion obviously.

Of course it is OK to spin dits and tell stories from the lower deck and senior rates mess but as soon as the wardroom is mentioned it becomes an issue.

[jkh112]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I didn’t mention T26. I was replying mainly to swanny who was not referring to a T26 either.
Both Swanny and I were talking about high readiness states which is different to sprint.

Edited by jkh112 on Saturday 5th May 20:31

[Mave]

jkh112 said:

I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I didn’t mention T26. I was replying mainly to swanny who was not referring to a T26 either.
Both Swanny and I were talking about high readiness states which is different to sprint.

Edited by jkh112 on Saturday 5th May 20:31

Are those on systems where the gas turbines are cruise engines or sprint engines? On the type 23 for example it makes sense to have the GTs ready as they provide a significant power boost. If the GT is being used as a cruise engine though, the advantage of having the diesels running as well are less, as you've already got a much higher proportion of your total installed power already available.

[Cold]

She left port at 10 this morning en route to pick up her new flying cargo.

[hairyben]

Cold said:

She left port at 10 this morning en route to pick up her new flying cargo.

why she leaving, wouldn't it be easier to bring the jets to the carrier? Is there a restriction on operating the jets in the port?

[anonymous-user]

hairyben said:

Cold said:

She left port at 10 this morning en route to pick up her new flying cargo.

why she leaving, wouldn't it be easier to bring the jets to the carrier? Is there a restriction on operating the jets in the port?

I'd imagine, exp for the first landings, they'd want a guaranteed headwind to land into, ie ship moving! No to mention the additional 'excitement' resulting from a missed wire and a touch and go in a built up area (cranes, buildings, masts etc!)

[Leonard Stanley]

Cold said:

She left port at 10 this morning en route to pick up her new flying cargo.

Fantastic!

[frodo_monkey]

Missed wire? It isn’t “cat and trap”...

[hairyben]

Max_Torque said:

I'd imagine, exp for the first landings, they'd want a guaranteed headwind to land into, ie ship moving! No to mention the additional 'excitement' resulting from a missed wire and a touch and go in a built up area (cranes, buildings, masts etc!)

erm....

I thought they be using hovver jets...

[MartG]

Noise

F-35Bs are bloody loud !

[Speculatore]

hairyben said:

why she leaving, wouldn't it be easier to bring the jets to the carrier? Is there a restriction on operating the jets in the port?

In '82' we had to get special permission to land harriers while alongside in Portsmouth harbour prior to departing for the Falklands. There were noise regulations and I think something about flying a single engine jet over populated areas but cant be sure.