[AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel/Battleship NC

Mon May 9 19:30:26 PDT 2011

Charlie,

Keep the USS NC's website checked.  They usually do the "Hidden Battleship" tour in the fall/winter.  They've added a "Firepower" program now that takes you through the operation of all the weapons systems on board.  The best part about it is it's not self guided. At least two people come along to explain what you're seeing.

My wife and I have done the tour twice. She and I did it, (she was the only woman in our group but she was a real good sport and was the "star" of our group, apparently she was the only one that would have been small enough to clean the boilers!) and then last year we took her dad on it.  It was expensive but as you say with the Biltmore, well worth it.

If I had any spare time I would love to volunteer at the ship. Again I have absolutely, positively no maritime or naval experience, but I'm awestruck evertime I am coming down 421 and first catch a glimpse of the ship.  Coming aboard is really something else.

Al

-----Original Message-----
>From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
>Sent: May 9, 2011 6:39 AM
>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel/Battleship NC
>
>Hi Al,  I had forgotten until you mentioned it but yes there was some coffer 
>dam work in that bid document.   I had no intention of bidding any of the 
>work so I didn't read the plans and specs.  I only looked at the bid 
>solicitation.  There are actually some pretty capable ship builders and 
>marine contractors down there in Wilmington.  I'm sure they can get it done.
>
>I'll have to plan to take that behind the scenes tour.  I did that at the 
>Biltmore House in Asheville.  I don't remember what it cost.  I remember 
>thinking at the time it was expensive but looking back it was well worth the 
>cost.
>
>Charlie
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Al Jones
>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 10:19 PM
>To: Antique tractor email discussion group
>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel/Battleship NC
>
>The original plan was to tow her to Norfolk for the hull repairs--last time 
>anything was done was in the early '50s.  At the end of my tour a couple 
>years ago I asked the guy some questions about it and as of '09 they 
>estimated it would cost at least 50 million.  Plus, she is too tall to go 
>under the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge without some torch work!!
>
>>From what I have been able to read, they have the technology to do what 
>>needs to be done by building a cofferdam around it, and what that doesn't 
>>"dry out" can be done under water.  Sounds like the good news is, besides 
>>being able to stay home, and besides the much cheaper pricetag, she will 
>>float when this is done.  I think they did something similar to the USS 
>>Alabama but this job will be more extensive.  When I was asking our guide 
>>back in '09 about moving the ship to Norfolk, it didn't take long to tell 
>>that he was worried about what might happen to some of the artifacts they 
>>had on board, once the 'yardbirds' went to work on her.
>
>It was fascinating the first time I saw the ship in the '80s.  Now I am old 
>enough to understand what I am looking at.  There are parts of the ship that 
>are literally untouched since it was de-commissioned in 1947. When we did 
>the "hidden battleship" tour, we saw unbelievable stuff. There were battle 
>bills, safety instructions, and other documents posted that were dated 
>during the war itself--lots of stuff had 1944 on them.  There were stacks 
>and stacks of documents and forms in the print shop, spare parts, tools, and 
>other materials on shelves, many dipped in cosmoline.  Many parts of the 
>ship are like the world's biggest time capsule.  We went to the lowest 
>compartment, at the most foward part of the ship, and we went to the very 
>tallest point of the ship, in the 16" gun director at the top of the conning 
>tower/foremast. I don't know jack about Navy life or any kind of vessel--not 
>even a canoe--but man, it was something to see.  I end up going about once a 
>year to take the!
>  "normal" tour and I never get tired of seeing it.  What a thrill it must 
>have been to see it in operation!
>
>Al
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
>>Sent: May 8, 2011 1:21 PM
>>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>
>>Bill,  there was just recently a project out for bid to remove part of the
>>plating on the bow and replace it.  Seems it had gotten a bit rusty and 
>>they
>>are putting her back in shape.  She got a new paint job a few years ago.
>>I'm really surprised it has been kept up as well as it has in the past
>>years.   I haven't been on her in probably 30 years.  I guess I need to go
>>again.   I did get a chance to go aboard the Enterprise a few years ago in
>>Norfolk.   My cousin was retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer and they
>>had his retirement ceremony in one of the aircraft hangers.  Then they let
>>us go down through the galley to the ships store.  The boat was fully
>>staffed except for the flight crews and aircraft and they were serving 
>>meals
>>in the galley as we passed through so we had to dodge sailors with trays of
>>food.
>>I bought 3 or 4 caps in the ships store including one with the scrambled
>>eggs on the bill.
>>
>>That was a fascinating day.  That is one huge boat!
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>-----Original Message----- 
>>From: Bill Bruer
>>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 1:00 PM
>>To: Antique tractor email discussion group
>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>
>>There is no conversion to the engines at all, only to the boilers & fuel
>>handling equipment that feed the boilers.  Steam is still steam, which is
>>what the engines - turbines - get.  Now, during the WW II era they switched
>>from 600 psi steam to 1200 psi superheated steam.
>>
>>I didn't know they took equipment off the NC but am not surprised.  I don't
>>remember whether she had a 600 or 1200 psi plant but would not be surprised
>>if it is 1200 given the time of construction.  It is not unusual that such
>>machinery would have been "recycled" - it was extremely expensive when 
>>first
>>manufactured, specially designed & built for naval use by ship type, mostly
>>by GE.  They may have taken the reduction gears as well.  It is not the 
>>same
>>equipment as used in commercial ships.  Many mothballed & all scrapped 
>>ships
>>have had major equipment removed as part of demilitarization if for no 
>>other
>>reason.  In fact, such items - pumps, engines, gears, etc - were routinely
>>reused in new construction as older ships were taken out of service.  That
>>may not be the case anymore due to the use of gas turbines for main
>>propulsion.
>>
>>I only got to visit the USS NC once, back about 1981.  I got to go down 
>>into
>>one of the engine rooms then.  At that time I could still have lit off the
>>engines - engine-room side, not boilers.  There is a lot more to getting a
>>steam-driven ship underway than lighting a fire in a boiler.  Best time I
>>ever heard of was 1 1/2 hours and that is in emergency conditions that
>>justify risking major damage to the power plant.
>>
>>I hope they have managed to keep the NC in good shape.  I worry about her
>>every time there is a big storm through there.  At the time of my visit she
>>was in remarkably good condition and looked as if she could have been
>>manned, provisioned, and put to sea immediately.  It sounds as if their
>>marketing people are taking lessons from Biltmore House with the
>>behind-the-scenes tour.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>>To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:36 AM
>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>
>>
>>I wonder how much did they have to change the engines/turbines to convert?
>>Reason I ask is when they were re-activating them in the 80's, they took
>>tons and tons of equipment off the North Carolina.  I got to go on a 
>>"behind
>>the scenes tour" a couple years ago (NC list members it's called "Hidden
>>Battleship" and it's well worth the price.  Guides take you into spaces on
>>the ship that haven't been touched since 1947) and they showed us one of 
>>the
>>engine rooms where the big turbine had been removed.  Didn't say which ship
>>it went to but it was one of the Iowa BB's.  My point is, the fact they got
>>one off the NC might give a clue to whether or not they had been converted.
>>
>>One of the tourguides actually demonstrated how a boiler was lit.  Pretty
>>fascinating. I forget how fast but it was amazing how fast they could get a
>>dead cold boiler online.
>>
>>Al
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bill Bruer <bill_bru at bellsouth.net>
>>>Sent: May 8, 2011 9:56 AM
>>>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>>
>>>Hadn't thought about it & really don't know.  Given the extensive refits 
>>>in
>>>other departments, my guess would be that they did convert them to JP5.
>>>
>>>I was told that the reasons for converting to JP5 were to avoid some of 
>>>the
>>>problems associated with black oil already mentioned like the need for
>>>preheating.  That made it faster to "light off" the boilers & get 
>>>underway.
>>>It burns cleaner which reduces boiler maintenance etc.  It is much lighter
>>>&
>>>is easier to handle.  Those points mean it can use lighter pumps in the
>>>boiler rooms and lighter equipment for underway replenishment.  A
>>>"drawback"
>>>to that is a definite difference in ship's ballasting - it changes the
>>>ship's handling characteristics especially in rough water.  The online
>>>histories I am aware of don't go into such mundane issues.
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>>>To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" 
>>><at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:11 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting.  What did the Iowa class battleships use when they were
>>>re-activated in the '80s?  Black oil or JP5?
>>>
>>>Al
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Bill Bruer <bill_bru at bellsouth.net>
>>>>Sent: May 7, 2011 10:16 AM
>>>>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>>>
>>>>Yes, that is the old black oil but it's use didn't end with WW II.  When 
>>>>I
>>>>reported aboard the USS Wainwright DLG-28 in September of 1971 they had
>>>>just
>>>>finished converting from black oil to JP5 - kerosene.  Wainwright was 
>>>>laid
>>>>down in 1962 and commissioned in 1966.  Black oil was used in virtually
>>>>all
>>>>the steam turbine-driven ships (except nukes, of course) from WW II 
>>>>onward
>>>>until the early 1970's.  I doubt that any of the WW II era ships were 
>>>>ever
>>>>converted before being sold, scrapped, or given away.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Bruer
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>>>>To: "Antique tractor email discussion group"
>>>><at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:40 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was going to ask about #5---is it what the Navy used for ships during
>>>>WWII?  I think I have read somewhere (of course I can't remember exactly
>>>>which book, but it would almost have to be about the USS North Carolina)
>>>>they used something called "Navy special black fuel oil."
>>>>
>>>>Al
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>AT mailing list
>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>AT mailing list
>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT mailing list
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at 
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT mailing list
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at