Fuel consumption Bismarck

Propulsion systems, machinery, turbines, boilers, propellers, fuel consumption, etc.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:33 pm

additional Iowa and KGV class (howe)

seem the US ships show relatively better performance within part load (Teillastbereich)
(Charts doesnt consider varying quantities of fuel and different calorific valus of fuel)
Attachments
BB-Speed-Range chart.jpg
BB-Speed-Range chart.jpg (35.85 KiB) Viewed 2096 times
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Herr Nilsson » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:46 pm

From my primary sources:

Range BS.jpg
Range BS.jpg (79.45 KiB) Viewed 2088 times
Regards

Marc

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:47 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:additional Iowa and KGV class (howe)

seem the US ships show relatively better performance within part load (Teillastbereich)
(Charts doesnt consider varying quantities of fuel and different calorific valus of fuel)


Where did you get the data for Howe?

Also your data for North Carolina included more fuel than she would have normally carried in a combat zone, since it degraded her TDS:

NOTE: Fueling beyond the radius oil capacity increases radius at the expense of resistance to underwater damage.
This table is made available to the commander as a supplement to table I for use when increased radius and
decreased resistance to underwater damage are factors in a decision.


not to mention her seakeeping.

Here's the calculated range for Howe (in black) using her late war, clean bottom temperate water fuel consumption figures with 3850 tons of fuel:

Image

Early war, ( IE in May 1941) RN ships used a superior grade of lower viscosity fuel, that gave considerably better specific fuel consumption.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:31 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:From my primary sources:



So this is the range in nm with one, two or 3 shafts in operation?

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Herr Nilsson » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:54 pm

Yes, for normal pressure and for 7700 cubic meter fuel.
Regards

Marc

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:17 pm

dunmunro wrote:Where did you get the data for Howe?



From the piece you posted at the ship model forum
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:33 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
dunmunro wrote:Where did you get the data for Howe?



From the piece you posted at the ship model forum


OK, but you have to use the fuel consumption per hour figures, because the endurance numbers have a built in reserve.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:28 pm

Marc does the primary source has a document name and date?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charts doesnt consider varying quantities of fuel and different calorific valus of fuel)


Bismarck at 28 knots consumption per day 960m³=806 metric tons light fuel oil(density ~0,84metric tons/m³) = 793 standard tons
793/24=33 tons/hour (not corrected for calorific value - light fuel oil has a higher calorific value per ton +~8%)
so
35,64 tons/hour at 28 kn corrected for calorific value.

KGV
KGV at 27 knots 36 tons/hour

if my assumptions about density and calorific value are correct
Notes always welcome
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Herr Nilsson » Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:37 pm

It's called:

"Fahrttabellen der Schlachtschiffe Bismarck und Tirpitz"
it's an appendix on an elaboration of Oberbaurat Krux about the wartime experiences with the battleship type Bismarck/Tirpitz. No date. The elaboration is writen after the destruction of Tirpitz.
Regards

Marc

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:05 pm

as 7,700 m³ were approx 6,468 metric ton
s

this 6468 t almost exactly fits the

3226t+3226t =6452 t fuel oil mentioned in the weight calculation of Bismarck

it seems the 1009 t resp ~2000t Ölsonderzuladung was unconsidered in this calculation.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:52 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:Marc does the primary source has a document name and date?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charts doesnt consider varying quantities of fuel and different calorific valus of fuel)


Bismarck at 28 knots consumption per day 960m³=806 metric tons light fuel oil(density ~0,84metric tons/m³) = 793 standard tons
793/24=33 tons/hour (not corrected for calorific value - light fuel oil has a higher calorific value per ton +~8%)
so
35,64 tons/hour at 28 kn corrected for calorific value.

KGV
KGV at 27 knots 36 tons/hour

if my assumptions about density and calorific value are correct
Notes always welcome
s

It is difficult to draw exact comparisons because we need to compare at the same SHP. The data on Howe implies that 27 knots = 114000 SHP (remember that these are late war figures when Howe displaced ~45000 tons). Howe ran trials with 27.5 knots at 112,930 shp (114,496 mhp) at displacement of
42,530 tons (43,213 mt) acccording to D&G and that seems consistent with these results for Howe as well:

Image

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:43 pm

Howe ran trials with 27.5 knots at 112,930 shp (114,496 mhp


this figure is really interesting as Bismarcks(calculated) construction speed at construction shp (115,500 shp) was also 27,5 kn / 28 kn
(Akte Allgemeine Konstruktionsunterlagen Überwasserschiffe available at the Marinearchiv Freiburg)
displacement according Akte... seem 42.360 metric tons and 250 rpm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

some of the Howe date seem unclear as they gave different fuel consumptions for the same timeperiod and same shp
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Herr Nilsson » Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:14 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:this figure is really interesting as Bismarcks(calculated) construction speed at construction shp (115,500 shp) was also 27,5 kn / 28 kn
(Akte Allgemeine Konstruktionsunterlagen Überwasserschiffe available at the Marinearchiv Freiburg)
displacement according Akte... seem 42.360 metric tons and 250 rpm


If you refer to the document, you got from me a while ago, than it's not quite right. You will find it at my home. Only you got a digital copy and 3 other persons.

Thorsten Wahl wrote:german ships use light fuel oil - density approx 0,82-0,86 metric tons per m³
so 7,700 m³ ~ 6,468 metric tons


That's not quite right. The density of fuel oil in Bismarck's weight calculation is 0.927. (I know only one exception in case of Bismarck with a density of 0.95.) "Treiböl" had a density of 0.85, but that was only used by the Diesel-engines. "Schmieröl" had a density of 0.92. Take a look at the M-Boot weight calculation. You can find it on page 11 of the document mentioned above. There you can see a K-Amt form with the standard densities. The same form you can find for an Gneisenau calculation on page 39 with the same densities.
Regards

Marc

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:30 pm

:oops: thanks for the hints

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
this figure is really interesting as Bismarcks(calculated) construction speed at construction shp (115,500 shp) was also 27,5 kn / 28 kn
(Akte Allgemeine Konstruktionsunterlagen Überwasserschiffe available at the Marinearchiv Freiburg)
displacement according Akte... seem 42.360 metric tons and 250 rpm

Sorry seems I looked at the wrong column should be 4,000 tons more

german ships use light fuel oil - density approx 0,82-0,86 metric tons per m³
so 7,700 m³ ~ 6,468 metric tons

That's not quite right


using density 0,927 t/m³
fuel weight should be then
7,700 m³ ~ 7,138 t
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Fuel consumption Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:01 am

Further on Howe and KGV class fuel consumption and power output:

Howe's fuel consumption versus SHP, implies that 27 knots = 114000shp and fuel consumption = 36 tons/hr. This gives us a specific fuel consumption of .7074

Maximum fuel flow in KGV is 6 tons/hr per boiler or 48 tons/hr. 48 tons /.7074 lb/shp/hr = 152,000shp.

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the KGV entry in the 1940 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships:

Machinery: Parsons geared turbines. 4 shafts. S.H.P.: 152,000 = over 30 knots.


Return to “Naval Propulsion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest