CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

[Confusionism]

I though you are implying that there must be something wrong with Liaoning spewing smoke

No, I'm not, I'm just saying that the cause of the black smoke cannot be reasoned so simply.
Also, even if I imply that there is something wrong with the Liaoning somewhere, you can't dismiss it with a bunch of pictures of it without black smoke, just like when your car breaks down on the road, you can't use a video of your car driving normally before to convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Confusionism]

Your photo is irrelevant if the ship has already attained cruising speed i.e. turbines have already been ramped up, boilers have already been fired, fuel mix is already optimal, hence no black smoke.

Read mine and others' comments carefully instead of rebutting willy-nilly. The carrier doesn't wait "until mid-takeoff" to fire up boilers. Boilers were already in process of firing up, turbines already in process of revving up, and as they do so the boat picks up speed. Then what happens? Black smoke spews out.

As she picks up speed and once she attains the desired wind speed over deck e.g. 30-40kn, aircraft gets to launch.

So here's an easy explanation, not hard at all - Likely scenario where the boat was already at 20kn but wind speed dropped from 10kn to 5kn, so she needed the extra juice to conduct flight ops. What happens then? Additional boilers are fired up. Here's your black smoke.

And as it happens we pass 30kn and birdie gets to fly. So the air boss says "Go!" without delay. Mind you the boat is still speeding up, as the boilers were still firing up and black smoke getting photographed for this back-and-forth debate. Why? They got the speed, speed is good to go, bird goes. What else they gonna wait for?

Calling someone's opinion a willy-nilly rebutting doesn't add to the validity of your opinion.

You can design a very reasonable scenario for your theory, but it's just a theory you have, and it doesn't negate the possibility of other theories with one possible explanation.
All we have in our hands is a photo, neither the actual speed of the ship at that time nor the actual data of the engine work, all we can do is all kinds of speculations. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm just saying "hard to say" because there are always other, more complex possibilities.

 

[Intrepid]

As people who have served on aircraft carriers tell you, you can feel it throughout the ship when the turbines rev up and the propellers turn faster. Then you know that flight operations will start in a few minutes.

My favorite video from the golden carrier age (1960th):

You see two carriers turning into the wind for the launch of aircraft.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Calling someone's opinion a willy-nilly rebutting doesn't add to the validity of your opinion.

You can design a very reasonable scenario for your theory, but it's just a theory you have, and it doesn't negate the possibility of other theories with one possible explanation.
All we have in our hands is a photo, neither the actual speed of the ship at that time nor the actual data of the engine work, all we can do is all kinds of speculations. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm just saying "hard to say" because there are always other, more complex possibilities.

Why is your "theory" more possible compared to the other members of this forum that argue otherwise? Is it because you tend to believe your own expertise, assumptions? And by any chance you have served on an aircraft carrier which gives more credence to your observation? Just wanting to know your rationale and persistent belief in almost Rumsfield like fashion which is the theory of Known Unknowns: "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."

 

[Helius]

Calling someone's opinion a willy-nilly rebutting doesn't add to the validity of your opinion.

You can design a very reasonable scenario for your theory, but it's just a theory you have, and it doesn't negate the possibility of other theories with one possible explanation.
All we have in our hands is a photo, neither the actual speed of the ship at that time nor the actual data of the engine work, all we can do is all kinds of speculations. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm just saying "hard to say" because there are always other, more complex possibilities.

Except you don't actually have an opinion -

"hard to say"

So all you've been doing is in fact rebutting others' replies without a reasonable and believable scenario of your own while questioning the validity of others' at the same time.

For someone who professes they don't know what the deal is with some black smoke coming out of some aircraft carrier's smoke stack, you sure have a lot of "opinion" rebutting repeatedly explanations other people have already given you, again without any credible counters of your own.

If this silly back-and-forth is what you seem to be playing at like it's a game, I suggest you take it somewhere else and stop derailing this thread.

 

[Intrepid]

Aircraft carriers only need a portion of their boilers to maintain cruising speed. This is how the long ranges of 15,000 to 20,000 nautical miles were calculated.

In fact, all boilers are often kept on fire in order to be able to increase the speed immediately and in the shortest possible time. As a result, the actual range fell below 5,000 nautical miles because the boilers are then operated uneconomically and a lot of energy is wasted.

 

[Confusionism]

Why is your "theory" more possible compared to the other members of this forum that argue otherwise? Is it because you tend to believe your own expertise, assumptions? And by any chance you have served on an aircraft carrier which gives more credence to your observation? Just wanting to know your rationale and persistent belief in almost Rumsfield like fashion which is the theory of Known Unknowns: "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."

First of all, I did not say that any of my theories are more likely than others, I just said "hard to say" and that is to be dismissed.
Although I am not an engine engineer on an aircraft carrier, I do believe that there can't be only two scenarios of "black smoke" in the Liaoning's operations manual.

 

[Intrepid]

Black smoke is usually not a sign of a technical defect.

 

[Confusionism]

Except you don't actually have an opinion -

So all you've been doing is in fact rebutting others' replies without a reasonable and believable scenario of your own while questioning the validity of others' at the same time.

For someone who professes they don't know what the deal is with some black smoke coming out of some aircraft carrier's smoke stack, you sure have a lot of "opinion" rebutting repeatedly explanations other people have already given you, again without any credible counters of your own.

If this silly back-and-forth is what you seem to be playing at like it's a game, I suggest you take it somewhere else and stop derailing this thread.

No, I didn't derail any thread, I just said "hard to say". And your arbitrary and rude way of rejecting any opinion that disagrees with you, for reasons I don't understand, is what is most likely to derail a thread.

 

[Helius]

As people who have served on aircraft carriers tell you, you can feel it throughout the ship when the turbines rev up and the propellers turn faster. Then you know that flight operations will start in a few minutes.

My favorite video from the golden carrier age (1960th):

You see two carriers turning into the wind for the launch of aircraft.

Here's an on-topic vid of a young female helms(wo)man turning Liaoning Shangdong precisely to maintain wind speed so the plane could land safely -