00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

And what's the current explanation - or even conclusion - on the second pat that looks like a stack?

That stack-like structure to the rear is definitely not part of the newly-built mockup island superstructure which is meant for a CVN. This is what I can be absolutely certain of.

At this point, all I can say is that it's either just an office block (which is moved to its new location and left standing due to its utility), or (per some suggestions which I've seen on Weibo) part of what could be a new, improved conventionally-powered carrier island superstructure mockup.

 

[Deino]

That stack-like structure to the rear is definitely not part of the newly-built mockup island superstructure meant for a CVN. This is what I can be absolutely certain of.

At this point, all I can say is that it's either just an office block (which is moved to its new location and left standing due to its utility), or (per some suggestions which I've seen on Weibo) part of what could be a new, improved conventionally-powered carrier island superstructure mockup.

Well ... in fact a very strange explanation!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Well ... in fact a very strange explanation!

Well, for the case of the front island superstructure mockup, I believe that's pretty much a settled case at this point. 20 meters of length in the tender document certainly doesn't fit with what we've seen, if we take front + rear structures as one singular structure.

As for the rear "stack-like" structure - I think we can only wait until (the latest) next month to find out what it actually is.

 

[lcloo]

This video is not about 004. It is about USS Kitty Hawk. The purpose of my posting is for any member who wants to refer to the hull or structure of Kitty Hawk, and try to see if that hull in Dalian drydock might have any ressemblance to it.

You can see many cut away structure of the ship, peculiar to aircraft carrier. And you can try to match them to the modules in Dalian drydock.

 

[Expert1324]

No..testing engines on the fantail/balcony has no effect on the speed of the ship.

Do you even physics bro?

I mean im obviously half joking with that cartoon-esq scenario, but regardless, attaching jet engine directly to the ship (instead of being on wheels) will definitely have an effect on the ship's speed. Its basic law of physics

 

[JimmyMcFoob]

Do you even physics bro?

I mean im obviously half joking with that cartoon-esq scenario, but regardless, attaching jet engine directly to the ship (instead of being on wheels) will definitely have an effect on the ship's speed. Its basic law of physics

Do you realize how massive supercarriers are? A few kN of thrust is meaningless to over a hundred thousand tons of steel and hundreds of thousands of shaft horsepower from the reactors. It's the basic laws of physics.

 

[Racek49]

Connecting one WS 10 engine means about 10 tons of thrust or the equivalent of about 30 to 40 thousand horsepower. Which is not exactly a small amount.
This power estimate is only a very rough one, it is based on the power of turbines that are created on the basis of aircraft engines.

 

[Tomboy]

Connecting one WS 10 engine meanspowert 10 tons of thrust or the equivalent of about 30 to 40 thousand horsepower. Which is not exactly a small amount.
This power estimate is only a very rough one, it is based on the power of turbines that are created on the basis of aircraft engines.

That's not how it works lmao, a rough general rule of thumb is that 1 hp equals to around 20lbf of thrust from a ships propeller. Aircraft carriers have up to 200,000hp installed power so a very rough estimate would be 20MN of thrust, now compare it to a WS-10's 140kN or 0.14MN. If a single WS-10 could equal the propulsive power of a actual 40000hp engine connected to a propeller than aircraft carrier these days would be propelled by like 3 jet engines strapped together. It'll be so much more fuel efficient, screw nuclear cause with a full carrier's tank of gas you would effectively get infinite range anyways. I can't believe people here are seriously considering the fact that strapping a jet engine to a carrier will meaningfully increase it's speed.

 

[HailingTX20]

Connecting one WS 10 engine means about 10 tons of thrust or the equivalent of about 30 to 40 thousand horsepower. Which is not exactly a small amount.
This power estimate is only a very rough one, it is based on the power of turbines that are created on the basis of aircraft engines.

This is absolutely ridiculous and has absolutely no bearing in reality. The engine testing balcony is for engine testing and nothing else. Tomboy is absolutely correct.

 

[lcloo]

Do you even physics bro?

I mean im obviously half joking with that cartoon-esq scenario, but regardless, attaching jet engine directly to the ship (instead of being on wheels) will definitely have an effect on the ship's speed. Its basic law of physics

Bp Popeye is a retired ex-US navy serviceman served on US Navy aircraft carrier, he knows better. He posted a lot on aircraft carrier thread for the last 2 decades on this forum.