PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.


Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
Does 003 use steam or gas turbines? Is the steam turbine confirmed?

Yes, the company that made the steam turbines for 003 helpfully labeled what they were and which ship they were intended for on a celebratory banner used in the hand over ceremony. The photos of the ceremony was then released to the public.
 

Matheus S

New Member
Registered Member
Yes, the company that made the steam turbines for 003 helpfully labeled what they were and which ship they were intended for on a celebratory banner used in the hand over ceremony. The photos of the ceremony was then released to the public.
Right. Thanks for the answer. I can't go into too much detail otherwise we'll be getting off topic. I'll search.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I found a source that says the overall efficiency of EMALS is 15%, pretty much what nlalyst reported.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Says the following: "
1.2 Features of electromagnetic ejection system
...
   Compared with the steam catapult, the electromagnetic catapult is more efficient, more flexible, more stable, and more practical. Specifically: First, high efficiency. The efficiency of the American steam catapult is 4%-6%, and a single ejection consumes 614 kg of steam. The total efficiency of the electromagnetic catapult is 15%, which is about 3 times that of the former. The equivalent of a single ejection consumes about 200 kg of steam. In the fully closed state, it takes less than 15 minutes for the electromagnetic catapult to reach the ready-to-eject state from activation, while it takes several hours for the steam catapult to reach the ready-ejected state from the start. The second is that the weight and volume are small, and the volume and weight of electromagnetic ejection are about half of that of steam ejection. The third is more stable performance and easy maintenance. The steam catapult "average non-critical failure usage times" is 405 times, and the electromagnetic catapult is expected to target 1,300 times. At the same time, because the steam catapult does not have a closed-loop control system, the average peak-to-average ratio of the thrust of the carrier aircraft during ejection is 1.25, and the maximum can reach 2.0. The electromagnetic catapult can continuously correct the thrust deviation during the ejection process, and the peak-to-average ratio The ratio is controlled within 1.05. The fourth is a wider range of catapult models. The maximum ejection energy of the steam catapult is about 102MJ, and the electromagnetic ejection system can reach 122MJ, which enables the aircraft carrier to carry more and heavier models while ejecting small and light drones. The fifth is to comply with the trend of full electrification of ships. Electromagnetic catapults use electricity, which is more suitable for the full electrification of aircraft carriers in the future."
I would be careful of quoting this source. The article is a research report from a stock trading house. Unless we know where this figure is quoted from, my attitude is "It says so, I hear it."

That said, if we take it at its face value, 15% against 4-5% is a big efficiency advantage.
 
Last edited:

Matheus S

New Member
Registered Member
I would be careful of quoting this source. The article is a research report from a stock trading house. Unless we know where this figure is quoted from, my attitude is "It says so, I hear it."

That said, if we take it at its face value, 15% against 4-5% is a big efficiency advantage.
The point I can prove is how efficient the EMALS catapult is compared to the steam catapult. It is not possible that the technology has been researched for more than 20 years and even then there is no reliable information on how efficient it is. The fact is that the media that puts it as 90% efficiency has already proven to be truly incorrect. So it doesn't make sense to compare 90% efficiency of the EMALS catapult with 5% efficiency of the steam catapult.

What I can prove is nothing more than the overall efficiency of the EMALS catapult and make the comparison with the steam catapult.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
The point I can prove is how efficient the EMALS catapult is compared to the steam catapult. It is not possible that the technology has been researched for more than 20 years and even then there is no reliable information on how efficient it is. The fact is that the media that puts it as 90% efficiency has already proven to be truly incorrect. So it doesn't make sense to compare 90% efficiency of the EMALS catapult with 5% efficiency of the steam catapult.

What I can prove is nothing more than the overall efficiency of the EMALS catapult and make the comparison with the steam catapult.
agreed.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
I would be careful of quoting this source. The article is a research report from a stock trading house. Unless we know where this figure is quoted from, my attitude is "It says so, I hear it."

That said, if we take it at its face value, 15% against 4-5% is a big efficiency advantage.

You would expect a huge efficiency advantage for EMALs over Steam catapults.

Come to think of it, you can probably do the efficiency calculation for the US Navy catapults based on publicly available information.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
You would expect a huge efficiency advantage for EMALs over Steam catapults.

Come to think of it, you can probably do the efficiency calculation for the US Navy catapults based on publicly available information.
I always believe that EMALS is more efficient than steam based on principles, just never bothered to get to the specific figures.
 

Top