Shipbucket

The plan was for them to have to land angle wise to the deck, but yes, after some quick measurements I figure the deck needs another ten or so feet to safely do that as it currently sits at around 65 feet right now.

Landing at an angle seems like a hilariously dangerous activity.
Landing on a moving ship is hard enough already without having to fly around at weird angle

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

US Navy does it all the time.




The long white diagonal line is the the guide they use to aid them in landing off of center and if you think coming in at an angle is dangerous you should see them coming in at 90 degrees.

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/files/2014/ ... 86-116.jpg

On very big and spacious flat tops with nice clean air space.
Not in the dirty air behind a massive superstructure on a smallish landing pad.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

One would think, but in practice this is not so.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... cation.jpg

http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/c ... 134701.jpg

http://www.logbookmag.com/images/dload/ ... 20copy.jpg

This is a Flight I Burke deck marking chart. Note the CH-46 wheel marks aligned with the diagonal pilot's alignment reference.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd ... age176.gif

Huh, I stand corrected then.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

It is not so diagonal that it actually is worth much in flight deck length though IMO: the clearances around the rotor remain much the same. So yeah, I would look at the british Type 45 destroyer for flight deck size.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Very true, on something like the CH-46 (and in the same vein the CH-47) with two rotors the advantages are limited. It works on the Burkes because the flight deck is right at the back, but with this arrangement it doesn't work as well (especially with the ships that have the Mk-26). The angled approach is more useful with a smaller rotor area but something else that extends past it like a tail rotor. So useful with squeezing in a SH-60 or even a CH-53, but not really a CH-46, so larger flight deck it is!

Well it she's coming along, really really good getting to see it in color even if its not perfect. Solved the flight deck issue and managed to keep the overall length the same. All it took was slicing off a 17 foot section of the bow and giving it to the aft section. Funny enough I actually think it looks more balanced now. So game plan from here is aside from finishing adding color and working on the shading is to start adding all the major details. Also in addition to working on one of the Flight II VLS armed ships I also want to try my hand at doing a top down view of both. Should be fun.

Anyways, back to work for me. Thanks again for the help guys, I really do appreciate it.

Very nice cruiser and very balanced design. However, I think that 4 quad Harpoon launchers in back-to-back are enough for a US ship. Only US ship with triple quad Harpoon I can think of is the CSGN concept (that from the old archive).