Jump to content


crash

Member Since 08 Mar 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 05:07 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Discarded- Rescuing a Tartan 33

Yesterday, 03:51 PM

Probably a combination of deeper keel, so nominally point better upwind, and masthead chute, so more hp downwind.  


In Topic: The Discarded- Rescuing a Tartan 33

Yesterday, 03:47 AM

The CS 34 and Jeanneau SO are good boat to benchmark yourself against.  The Bene is to far away on PHRF rating to really be a good comparison.  With boats of your size and displacement, I would tell you a good crew should gain 10 secs a mile on a good singlehander on every tack.  So it if was a 3 tack race, they did ok.  I suspect there were more than 3 tacks in the race....

 

Plus the advantage they have from righting moment...another 6 or 12 secs a mile, depending on windspeed...

 

So if I were the skipper of the CS or the Jeanneau, I'd be asking myself, who the hell was that on the T-33?  And looking very critically at my own crew work...

 

The message is, of course, you have to set realistic goals.

 

You done good Ajax!


In Topic: Just bought a new boat!

24 April 2017 - 06:38 PM

another lesson learned to stick in your bag of tricks.  Watch out for "get-home-itis."  Your way better off stopping at some point and coming back to get the boat later than you are up on the rocks with your friends hurt or dead.  Before you make the jump from Soo locks, make sure you've got a good forecast and 2-3 times the weather window you want.  Make sure everyone it warm and rested and ready to go...

 

You have the good basics of a plan.  But many plans don't survive "first contact with the enemy."  Don't be afraid to change the plan if needed...


In Topic: Dave's perfect sailboat

22 April 2017 - 04:29 PM

Dave,

While its too bad you didn't get to build your perfect sailboat, its good to see you're gonna be able to get pretty close.  There are lessons to be learned, even in dreams not realized, and I suspect there are some here as well.  Don't let the experience leave a bad taste in your mouth, which could impact the planned future cruising...

 

I spent 12 years as a Defense Consultant and did a lot of work on Program requirements in support of program acquisition...and as you might well know, the Military frequently has similar challenges...and either ends up accepting less capability or cancelling a program for cost just like you did...despite many, many people trying very hard to make it work...it's something of the nature of the beast, and to some degree, "unavoidable"...so I would tell you not to "blame yourself" because it did.

 

Finally, I want to thank you for letting us all in on your journey/experience.  Many of us learned many valuable and interesting things.  Things we might not have learned or been exposed to had it not been for you (and Bob) letting us in.  So please accept my heartfelt thanks, and please keep us up on the purchase and cruises as well.

Crash


In Topic: F-35 Porn

22 April 2017 - 04:51 AM

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

 

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump.  I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier.  Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults?  Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

 

Dilli,

Get the timing wrong on a catapult launch in big seas can be eye opening too!  Because the USN has conventional large deck carriers to do its power projection missions with aircraft, it can, from a roles and missions standpoint, allow the big deck Helo ships to be optimized for Helo / Tiltrotor ops.  They can carry F-35s, but they are not intended to be the "kick down the door" force against a adversary with decent air force.  The F-35s on the LHD/LHA class ships are there for lower intensity ops and to provide limited air support to troops.  Again, if you need lots of firepower from the air, that's the mission of the CVN.  The real misson of the LHD/LHAs is to land the Marines so the extra helo spot or two can make a big difference in the number of troops you can offload

 

A ski jump is a great way to enable heavier mission load outs on STOVL aircraft.  As can be seen by the proliferation of ski jumps on smaller carriers. But even the new Queen Elizabeth - which is a pretty big ship at 65000-75000 tons can't match the sortie generation rate of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier with 4 catapults and arrested landing gear.

Crash