HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Timothy Collinson (10 May 2018 14:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (10 May 2018 19:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Timothy Collinson (10 May 2018 22:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Michael Houghton (10 May 2018 20:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Timothy Collinson (10 May 2018 22:43 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Cheng Tseng (11 May 2018 03:49 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Timothy Collinson (11 May 2018 05:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Thomas RUX (11 May 2018 13:52 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Phil Pugliese (11 May 2018 17:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Phil Pugliese (11 May 2018 17:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Postmark (11 May 2018 23:10 UTC)
Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Cheng Tseng (12 May 2018 03:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Phil Pugliese (12 May 2018 21:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Rupert Boleyn (13 May 2018 00:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (15 May 2018 02:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Rupert Boleyn (15 May 2018 22:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (16 May 2018 01:28 UTC)
Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Cheng Tseng (16 May 2018 03:25 UTC)
Re: Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (16 May 2018 03:50 UTC)
Re: Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Graham Donald (16 May 2018 06:32 UTC)
Re: Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Phil Pugliese (16 May 2018 19:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Rupert Boleyn (18 May 2018 11:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Phil Pugliese (18 May 2018 20:13 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (19 May 2018 02:32 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Cheng Tseng (19 May 2018 03:26 UTC)
Visible lunar detonation Tim (19 May 2018 04:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] Visible lunar detonation Jeffrey Schwartz (04 Jun 2018 15:44 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] Visible lunar detonation Cheng Tseng (05 Jun 2018 03:08 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] Visible lunar detonation Catherine Berry (05 Jun 2018 04:18 UTC)
Re: [Spam] Re: [TML] Visible lunar detonation Kelly St. Clair (05 Jun 2018 06:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Jeff Zeitlin (19 May 2018 15:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Richard Aiken (20 May 2018 23:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Rupert Boleyn (12 May 2018 11:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Catherine Berry (10 May 2018 20:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier shadow97218@xxxxxx (11 May 2018 15:35 UTC)

Re[2]: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier Cheng Tseng 12 May 2018 03:48 UTC

Note that SOUTH CAROLINA and MICHIGAN were laid-down BEFORE HMS Dreadnought, where the choice of turbines was part of the gamble of building her.  Also note that the first class of German dreadnought battleships after Dreadnought used reciprocating engines. 
The reversions on TEXAS and NEW YORK was a Josephus Daniels' special, due to his irritation at the substandard turbine offers available from domestic sources.

C.T.
-----Original Message-----
> From: "Postmark (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
> To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> Date: 05/11/18 19:11
> Subject: Re: [TML] HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier
>
> On 11 May 2018, at 18:06, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
> >
> > According to several books I read some decades ago & as best I remember;
> >
> > When the USN began building Dreadnoughts it also began an evaluation of propulsion schemes by building pairs of ships (classes) w/ differing propulsion;
> >
> > #1 reciprocating vs turbine  (YES, the USN actually built early Dreadnaughts w/ reciprocating engines!)
> >      the turbines won so;
> >
> > #2 turbine vs turbine (2 competing turbine designs. I believe that one was named 'Parsons')
> >      one design was selected & then;
> >
> > #3 conventional turbo propulsion vs turbo-electric
>
> According to my copy of Janes:
>
> South Carolina and Michigan : both triple expansion with coal fuel
>
> Delaware : triple expansion coal, vs North Dakota : turbine (Curtis, replaced by Parsons) coal
>
> Utah and Florida : Parsons turbine coal
>
> Arkansas and Wyoming : Parsons turbine coal
>
> New York and Texas : both triple expansion (the offered turbines were not deemed suitable) coal
>
> Oklahoma : triple expansion oil vs Nevada : Curtis turbine oil
>
> Pennsylvania : Curtis turbine oil vs Arizona : Parsons turbine oil
>
> New Mexico : GE turbine oil fuel and electric reduction gear vs Idaho : Parsons turbine oil fuel vs Mississippi : Curtis turbine oil fuel
>
> Phil Kitching
> -----
> The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=L2x9CJZlzb5ljIZFjFYkYFyPQhZcNWtB