View Full Version : Nimitz Class Carrier Tour discussion

12-05-2006, 05:55 PM
This is a discussion thread for the following file:<br><br><b><a href=http://www.googleearthhacks.com/dlfile22757/Nimitz-Class-Carrier-Tour.htm>Nimitz Class Carrier Tour</a></b><br><br>This isn't a tour of visible Nimitz class aircraft carriers around the world. This is a tour of just ONE such carrier, used as an example focusing on showing the various deck structures, weapons/countermeasures, and other details about how an aircraft carrier functions.<br />
<br />
Given the number of placemarks, it will probably be preferrable if you use the layer list to navigate and also turn off things you're not looking at to clear the view a little.<br><br><img src=http://www.googleearthhacks.com/images/new/080505/120353Clipboard09.jpg>

Captain Hornblower
12-05-2006, 06:00 PM
The conversion of the measurements of a Nimitz-Class carrier to the metric system went wrong:

Length 1092 ft (171.7 m)
Beam 252 ft (16.8 m)
Speed 30+ knots
Range 6,000 miles @ 20 knots
The length is 332.8 m, the beam 76.8 m. The range is (theoretically) unlimited as it's a nuclear ship.


12-05-2006, 09:28 PM
I thought I'd used Jane's or FAS lists for the measurements. Oh well, that's easy enough to fix.

As for the range, there's no theortical range to the ship at all. It has only so many days it can operate before it has to be reprovisioned with aviation fuel and food. As far as I could tell, the range listed was based on the number of days it could go with one 'set' of provisions and then that time period was multiplied by the speed. I considered if I wanted to put it in at all, especially as I have since read that I think the ship might need aviation fuel before then .. unless the figure excludes aviation fuel, blah blah blah. :) Since they didn't SAY what went into 'range' it's tough to gauge it. It's not the ship's power source which limits the range, of course.

Maybe when I edit the metric listings I'll just wipe that bit. It's too confusing and too much of an unknown as to what they meant.

12-05-2006, 11:13 PM
BAHAHAHAHA <-- me, laughing at myself.

I see what I did now. It was your pointing out the measurements that made me realize it. I SHOULD have caught on when I was proofreading before posting, but I didn't. :) There was a good reason why I couldn't find information on that source for the range .. it doesn't exist. That length looked SO familiar that it bothered me the rest of the day at work. As I was driving home I realized it was the length of a Spruance class destroyer .......

Sure enough, I THOUGHT I had finished editing that placemark ages ago but I never quite finished. The range is from that and the incorrect dimensions are also from the destroyer placemark which I copied and pasted for the format. :)

Well, there's one mystery down and fixed. Thanks, Captain H.

Captain Hornblower
12-06-2006, 05:06 AM
As for the range, there's no theortical range to the ship at all. It has only so many days it can operate before it has to be reprovisioned with aviation fuel and food.
Well, even if you've fixed it already, the range is limited by fuel for propulsion and it's unlimited for nuclear powered vessels. What you mean is the endurance of a ship and this does not depend on the ships speed ;)

12-06-2006, 02:44 PM
No arguement from me there. Even though 'range' and 'endurance' have such similar meanings, the use of the words in this area are exactly as you stated. I'd just been trying to figure out why that data was in the list, when I just needed to realize it was spurious from the start. :) So, yes, good points. :)

Captain Hornblower
12-06-2006, 04:08 PM
One is glad to be of service. :)