Topic: USS Alabama WIP (Read 3368 times)

OlBuzzard · « **on:** December 15, 2005, 11:35:17 pm »

Almost done now ... I noticed I missed a light or two on a pylon .. but we are just about there.

J. Carney · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2005, 11:59:42 pm »

FROM: Chief of Starfleet Operations, San Fransisco, Terra
TO : Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Alabama (NCC-2290)

SUBJ: SHAKEDOWN CRUISE

Shakedown operations for U.S.S. Alabama are canceled.

Proceed at best possible top speed to coordinates GalLat 117D 42.210M GalLong +6D 14.335M DistArbGalCore 240145 L.Y. there to rendevous with U.S.S. Simmes (NCC-1465) and U.S.S. Chickamauga (NCC-2043).

Further instructions to follow at later time.

Sorry, Commodore... guess you'll have to work out your problems en route.

GL/GH.

Fleet Adm. Heihachiro Nogura sends

END TRANSMISSION

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2005, 12:49:16 am »

The textures look good Buzz, but those nacelles look very slim/thin compared to the 'bulk' of this one.

J. Carney · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2005, 12:53:46 am »

I find no fault... 'course, I'm really kinda biased.

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2005, 07:35:32 am »

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 16, 2005, 12:49:16 am

The textures look good Buzz, but those nacelles look very slim/thin compared to the 'bulk' of this one.

Actually ... those are stock nacelles .. I did that to give ya an idea if the size of the ship. The idea of 4 nacelles are not necessarily for the extra power so much as 4 screws to run on (much like the BB's of WWII) .. additional drive stability .. etc

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2005, 11:23:17 am »

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 16, 2005, 07:35:32 am

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 16, 2005, 12:49:16 am
The textures look good Buzz, but those nacelles look very slim/thin compared to the 'bulk' of this one.

Actually ... those are stock nacelles .. I did that to give ya an idea if the size of the ship. The idea of 4 nacelles are not necessarily for the extra power so much as 4 screws to run on (much like the BB's of WWII) .. additional drive stability .. etc

I can respect that, but I still think they're too thin

. Especially compared to the massive saucer and sec hull. Just my $.02

-MP

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2005, 12:02:21 pm »

I think you will like the profile of the Iowa class better. Just as in the case of their WWII counter parts:

South Dakota
Mass
Alabama

these were considerably bigger and faster than their WWI predecessors .. but were still not as sleek, fast and advanced as:

Iowa
Missouri
NJ
Wisconsin

I hope that when you compare the completed Iowa class you will see that it should be about the same length .. and running on 4 screws .. but has a lower profile and is more Tech advanced (stronger shields better warp cores etc). Obviously the Tech side those who choose to use them in game will need to "tweak" that part of the specs accordingly.

At any rate .... that was what I had in mind.

thanks

J. Carney · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2005, 01:51:01 pm »

Hey, OB...

If you REALLY want some stats for the Iowa's that give them the 'biger, better, faster, more' feel, use Heavy Photons for main armament and replace any ph-3's with ph-2's.

That'll give them an almost TNG-ish scale whewn comparing weapons power to the South Dakota.

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2005, 01:57:50 pm »

Actually .. hehehe

that was kinda what I had in mind ...

plus a few G-phs on both models (with 360 mounts). What BB would be complete with out those .. especially with all of those fighters in OP !

Centurus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2005, 02:36:42 pm »

That mound on the dorsal saucer looks a little off at the forward position. It looks either like the saucer raises up at that point, or the mound sinks in at that point.

Rhaz · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2005, 08:35:40 pm »

I really like the secondary hull as a precursor to TNG seconday hulls

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:18:59 am »

TY...

The overall idea is that betwen the Iowa and Alabama you will see elements of TNG ships.

( I was kinda hoping someone would notice )

thanks !

Magnum357 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2005, 04:46:09 pm »

I really like this ship. I feel that this is a better representation of a BB during the TMP era then that ugly Missouri Class some people are talking about in another thread.

Ya, the Engines are just basically the same as a Connie, but I think it helps show how massive this vessel really is. Also, it probably relies on existing technology to build her then the latest thing out there.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:27:40 am »

I agree mags. I believe that this is the type of BB we should have seen with the game - not somthing that is double hulled and UGLY like the current one.

sweet job buzz.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2005, 03:03:23 am »

Nanner, its been a while. NIce to see ya again.

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:35:19 am »

WOW !

you have no idea how flattered I am to have the two of you gents (since you have been a part of the SFC community since .. like the beginning of time I think) .. to speak so highly of any of my work ... (awwwww shucks ... face turns red)

heheh

thanks for the compliments from everyone. We should be getting close to completion ..

thanks

Mackie · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:35:56 pm »

Speaking of the original speaking, I found this great pic worth a show me thinks

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/us_navy/01_15_01_uss_alabama.jpg

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2005, 03:18:47 pm »

I passed up a few opportunities to see the Alabama a few years ago. A large number of my relatives live in Alabama; Florida; and La .. Kinda wished I hadn't now. As I understand it Katrina closed the park.

Good pic though.

thanks

Magnum357 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:11:34 pm »

I notice in that pic that the ship has a Radar Dish. I don't know much about the history of the Alabama, but when was it decommisioned? Looks like it was in service for quite some time if it has advanced radar.

Mr_Tricorder · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:18:14 pm »

According to this website, http://www.ussalabama.com/html/history/index.php it was decomissioned in 1965.

Captain Pierce · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:10:42 pm »

Um... not to nitpick here or anything, but is it just me, or do the aft pair of phaser banks on the primary seem like they have no clear firing arc? The dorsal ones would take out the pylons holding the torpedo deck, and the ventral ones would get the neck...

J. Carney · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:44:33 pm »

Quote from: Magnum357 on December 20, 2005, 07:11:34 pm

I notice in that pic that the ship has a Radar Dish. I don't know much about the history of the Alabama, but when was it decommisioned? Looks like it was in service for quite some time if it has advanced radar.

Quote from: Mr_Tricorder on December 20, 2005, 07:18:14 pm

According to this website, http://www.ussalabama.com/html/history/index.php it was decomissioned in 1965.

Alabama was DECOMISSIONED in 1965, but she was pretty much out of hte game right after the war. I think it was about 47-48 that she was put into mothballs with about 80% of our other WWII vets. She had the most advanced search radar that the US Navy fielded at the time.

1965 was when she was finally taken off the regestry and sold to 'the People of the State of Alabama' for a couple of million dollars... minus the boilers and the Westinghouse reduction gears.

USELESS FACT OF THE DAY: The US Navy didn't actually own the reduction gears in those old ships. They were LEASED from Westinghouse, and were repossessed after the ship's final decomissioning. (according to my Grandfather, a Fireman 2/c on the U.S.S. Toledo CA-133)

J. Carney · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:45:29 pm »

Oh...

I know her well enough to be a tour guide.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:49:28 am »

Repossessed... that just pathetic.

Why did they take out the boilers for her? Ya, I know she's just a museum, but wouldn't it be a wise idea to give her propulsion incase a hurricane or something directly hit her location?

J. Carney · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2005, 01:08:35 am »

Quote from: Magnum357 on December 21, 2005, 12:49:28 am

Repossessed... that just pathetic. Why did they take out the boilers for her? Ya, I know she's just a museum, but wouldn't it be a wise idea to give her propulsion incase a hurricane or something directly hit her location?

I think that they intended to re-use the boilers...

Or, of course, I guess they might have been afraid that George Wallace might get REALLY pissed off, seceed again, and use her to bombard D.C.

Besides, you couldn't get the old girl out away form her moorings with anything short of Divine Intervention these days. The silt has filled in the channel they dredged to bring her in by (it's been almost 50 years) and she's practically sitting on the ground now. Her screws would be so mired that you'd never even get them to turn.

Add to that the fact that she's been practically beached for the last 25 years, and you' wind up with some nasty hull & screw damage... Alabama hasn't been seaworthy enough for even a trip to Pensacola in my lifetime! That's the biggest part of what's wrong with her now... so many hull seems popped when Katrina hit her that she suffered pretty bad flooding and loss of hull integrity. They have been thinking about draging her the 5 miles to the shipyards and patching her hull for a decade or more... perhaps now they'll do it for real- either that or build a cofferdam, drain the water from around her, pour concrete around her hull, and seal things off so the decay will stop.

The latter idea is probably the wisest and cheapest.

News:

Topic: USS Alabama WIP (Read 3368 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: USS Alabama WIP (Read 3368 times)