055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
good photo but I believe whoever edited it had made the beam of both ships a bit bigger than they are (though that is difficult to do accurately considering the angle of the photo)
But more importantly i think the length of the 052D is exaggerated a little bit because there is extra "length" at the stern of the 052D making it seem a bit longer than it actually is.

I've edited it a little to I think better account for what the length is

View attachment 46495

Flipped 055 vertically to get the same perspective (the original sat photo had the ships on opposite headings), and rotated 055 2,1 degrees to match 052 a little more.

S85kb6G.png
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
would you please measure L/B
(length to beam ratio) of Type 055?

It is not easy to do that with a degree of accuracy that gives us a proper estimate on the real thing. The satellite perspective is skewed enough to render a good estimate impossible.

From the pic, I get something like 9.2:1, but this can arbitrarily change according to the assumptions you make on the photo with regards to beam extremities.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
Mind you though, the raw estimates from this picture (if you also assume the 052D public dimensions are correct) are:

052D
beam: 17m
length: 157m

055
beam: 19m
length: 175m

As I said above, no idea about how accurate those can be.
 
It is not easy to do that with a degree of accuracy that gives us a proper estimate on the real thing. The satellite perspective is skewed enough to render a good estimate impossible.

From the pic, I get something like 9.2:1, but this can arbitrarily change according to the assumptions you make on the photo with regards to beam extremities.
thanks for trying!

LOL you're new here, so I didn't tell you the background
Jan 6, 2018
OK let's use three significant digits LOL
182/21.1 = 8.63

quickly pulling numbers:
Jul 15, 2017
Jul 16, 2017

EDIT
it seems L/B now "converged" to (two significant digits now LOL) 8.6

anyone?
which in short is I'm curious if L/B is eight or nine when rounded to integer

(it's related to the series of previous measurements posted here)
 
Mind you though, the raw estimates from this picture (if you also assume the 052D public dimensions are correct) are:

052D
beam: 17m
length: 157m

055
beam: 19m
length: 175m

As I said above, no idea about how accurate those can be.
cool

now some other members might want to comment
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Mind you though, the raw estimates from this picture (if you also assume the 052D public dimensions are correct) are:

052D
beam: 17m
length: 157m

055
beam: 19m
length: 175m

As I said above, no idea about how accurate those can be.

I do get a slightly higher estimate for 055, namely a beam of 20m and a length of 177-8m.

It will be interesting to see the GE update for this image to use the distance measuring tool, because using the distance measuring tool on the latest GE update for JN (early 2017 last year) I get a length of 180m for 055.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
I do get a slightly higher estimate for 055, namely a beam of 20m and a length of 177-8m.

It will be interesting to see the GE update for this image to use the distance measuring tool, because using the distance measuring tool on the latest GE update for JN (early 2017 last year) I get a length of 180m for 055.

For my measurements, I used the photo above and measured the beam amidships for both ships, a little forward from the hangars. For 055 length, I also tried to measure it against the 052D in the picture, and a length of 175m (a little less than that actually) holds pretty well.

I used the measuring tools that photoshop has, which are a lot more precise (to the pixel) than any distance measuring tool. The problem is the arbitrary points you have to use, due to the low resolution skewed image.

Interestingly enough, both ships seem to have a L/B ratio of ~9.2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top