SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films
Forget password? Reset here

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-03-16, 05:38 PM   #1
Rosencrantz
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 758
Downloads: 78
Uploads: 0
Default Official Fleet submarine ranges are far from the truth?

Has anyone else here ever checked the official ranges given to the Fleet type submarines? I'm asking, because when I made some calculations for both Porpoise and Gato classes, I started to get weird results. A short, simplified example of my calculations:

Class: Late Porpoise (Perch and later)
Fuel oil load: 89 945 gals
Weight of fuel: 647 604 lbs (7.2 lbs/gal)
Assumed consumption: 0.46 lbs/BHP/hr
Overall lenght of the submarine: 301 feet
Waterline lenght of the submarine: 288 feet
Displacement, official: 1 350 - 1 370 tons surfaced
Estimated displacement, surfaced, diving trim: 1 634 tons
Range at 10 knots, official: 11 000 nm
Calculated SHP need for 10.25 knots, propeller: 665 shp
Calculated KW need for 10.25 knots, generator: 515 KW
Calculated BHP need for 10.25 knots, engine: 735 BHP

735 BHP x 0.46 lbs/BHP/hr = 338.1 lbs/hr = 47 gals/hr
89 945 gals/47 gals/hr = 1913 hr
1900 hr at 10 knots = 19 000 nm

0.46 lbs/hr shoud be more than enough for diesel-electric drive of those days. Geared systems used fuel even less and straight systems even less than geared. So 0.46 lbs/hr should be really enough. Steam turbines used typically 0.66 lbs/hr on those days. Now, if we take the official range of
11 000 nm at 10 knots, we get 1 100 hour endurance at 10 knots.

=> 89 945 gals/1 100 hrs = 81.77 gals/hr = 588.7 lbs/hr

588.7 lbs/735 BHP = 0.80 lbs/hr

Conclusion: either Wintons, GM's and FBM's used by the US Navy were very thirsty to the extreme levels (getting even steam turbines behind) or official ranges for fleet boats are either:

1.) Intentionally misleading (which I doubt - any qualified naval engineer is able to make pretty good estimates based on the previous details)
2.) Meant to be used as aid for operational planning like: "the boat is able to proceed about 5 000 nm to the area of interests, stay there about 30 days and make it back without refuelling".


Calculations for Gato gave exactly the very same directions. Official ranges seem to be about 40 - 45 % off. Any thoughts? Please, if you did find a mistake, report it.

Greetings,
Rosie

Last edited by Rosencrantz; 08-04-16 at 12:57 AM.
Rosencrantz is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.