Drydocking New Jersey Priority Project: Propeller Shaft Seals
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2023
- In the third episode of our series on drydocking Battleship New Jersey, we're looking at one of the most pressing reasons we need to go to drydock, the propeller shaft glad seals.
For the playlist of other videos in this series:
• Drydocking New Jersey
To support the battleship's efforts to drydock, go to:
63691.blackbaudhosting.com/63...
To get a piece of the ship's deck: www.battleshipnewjersey.org/p...
For more information on the Historic Naval Ship's Association's conference:
www.hnsa.org/annual-conferences
For the most recent updates to the project, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/t...
Unless it is critical for the preservation of the ship as a whole, I think they should stay on. You’ve spent so much time adding equipment back to make her whole it would be a shame to loose them.
My thoughts exactly.
Agreed as well
Absolutely agree
Best to leave on, which also raises another engineering possibility. Instead of using the original sealant material in repair, perhaps modern materials science can provide for an alternate that could be installed in the form of a removable collar that provides for better long term protection in the static conditions of display, while still maintaining the ability to retrofit to original working condition.
@@thomasgoodwin2648 I would also hope during the drydocking, that the berth is dredged out to prevent the propellers from hitting the bottom. Although river silt will fill in the lowest spot and that might not help over a 20-30 year time period until the next drydocking.
Props on. Once they are off - they will inevitably be lost or damaged over time. Bolted to the prop shaft - their condition and whereabouts will always be known.
It does feel like a ship without propellers would be like a classic car up on blocks without wheels.
yes, and as Ryan stated, a unnecessary expense. @@sometimesleela5947
As a veteran please keep her whole She has earned it and she deserves to be all in one piece.
As a man who supports our servicemen and women I would like to personally thank you for your service and I would furthermore agree with you she's a piece the United States history she's been reactivated more times than any other Iowa class Battleship she deserves her propellers
I agree to keep the ship whole. When I become President, my plan is to reactivate 2 of these. You're welcome.
I worked on high pressure marine equipment. Since the shaft are not turning a static seal like an omega seal can be welded on. It has enough flex to accommodate small thermal and flex changes. 100 percent water tight.
Good suggestion
I like this. Also Ryan mentioned the shaft's weight compresses the rope seal. maybe jack the shaft up so that it sits concentric to the bore before new rope and omega seal and tightening everything down.
I hope you keep the propellers in place and maintain the Big J intact. Socking down the gland seals have proven effective thus far. Replace them and do the same, and you're good for another 20 years or more. Also, I tend to think that if you distribute the propellers around the state, they will ultimately languish and eventually get scrapped.
In my opinion replace the shaft seals but retain the props in place as this is the way the Navy mothballed all four Iowa class ships and for many years did not degrade either shafts or props as they found out when all four were reactivated in the 1980's.
Theres no point theres no chance ever it will be reactivated its a museum ship
@@willpugh8865 they still have it in contact to keep them in close to running condition in case they do want to reactivate them
@@willpugh8865We can dream though…
@@willpugh8865He isn't stating for the purpose of reactivation. People just want to keep her as one piece.
Keep the ship in one piece and leave the props in place unless there's a compelling reason to remove them. The ship, as an historical artifact should stay as complete and as closely as possible to how she was built to preserve its historic fabric. With an Iowa class prop already out of the water there's no reason to have any others as display pieces either there or scattered anywhere else - where you know somehow, someday, something will happen to them. Keep her as complete and original as is feasible!
Well, you already know that cranking the gland seals down tight (since you're not actually running the props) is a reliable way to be leak free. I'd be surprised if the weight of the prop put an appreciable load on the gland seal since the shaft is supported by the bearings. The situation with Midway grounding out on her props and rudders is an engineering failure of her berth/mooring plan. Removing the props and rudders is a bandaid and duct tape fix for a problem that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Stick with what long experience shows you works.
Replacing the gland material will need to happen at some point in the maintenance life cycle, but usually that comes after finishing the maximum seal compression.
Monitoring the seal is probably the primary task.
Going beyond that level is probably unnecessary for the lifespan of the hull till the exterior seal mounts decay.
But the packing material doesn't decay when wet appreciably. The packing material always has to support the weight regardless of rotation, which is presumably part of the 20 year wear life expectancy.
I'd love to retain the propellers so long as it isn't causing corrosive decay.
I agree. I don't know why Midway just didn't use a suction dredge to give the stern gear some more space at her berth.
@TyphoonVstrom Depends on what the bottom of the berth is like. Could be mud, could be rock.
Why not leave them in place and weld and plate over the gap between the shaft and the hull if the water can’t get to the packaging gland it can’t leak replacing the packaging as well would add a layer of extra protection as if the plating corroded through the packaging would be there to seal as it normally would without the plate
@@chrishughson9587 Apropos of nothing specific, I'd suspect there might be something suboptimal about casually welding to the shaft. There'd also be a challenge to cover whatever structure is involved to the sea side of the gland seal (It's not just a simple gap between the shaft and bare hull). The risk is doing something irreversible to an essentially irreplaceable part.
As someone who does project management for a living, the right answer is wait until she's out of the water and that area can be inspected to make a decision but have all the plans in place ready to execute. If you don't have funding for one or more of the plans at that point, decisions are easier.
No
Corrosion should definitely be the drinking game word on this channel. 🍻
One thing Ryan didn't mention was that if the propellers were removed the ship wold have to be re-trimmed which would mean adding ballast. There are several ways of adding said ballast including filling trim tanks, pouring concrete, large lumps of metal - each of these has its advantages and disadvantages, but none is without risk.
According to another video he did about needing to remove things so the air height would allow the ship to pass under a bridge, she's out of trim significantly from bow to stern (while both are lighter than normal load and thus are drawing less water than usual, the bow is more so) and will need to take on ballast to be moved. Based on that, wouldn't removing the props in fact move the trim back in the direction of level?
It would be reducing the differences between the mass in the forward part of the ship (which is considerably reduced due to things such as not having ammo and propellant for the 6 main guns) and the aft section which, while less than normal load of course, is closer to what it would normally be.
Just a thought.
Cheers
He didn't mention it because it's not true. The screws don't weigh enough to require being replaced with ballast. The missing ammunition, powder, fuel, water and stores weighed a lot more, and did not require the addition of ballast. The bow is several feet higher above the waterline than when the ship was in service. If the screws were removed, the stern would ride just a little higher.
When I was a marine engineer, we would often times have our plain steel salt water mains coated in an epoxy rubber coating. Since the shaft seals don’t rotate, you could coat the external shaft penetration and shaft area with an expoxy rubber coating on the sea side. It will fail eventually but will keep your stern tube dry for a long time.
Or just weld them solid.
I've removed those shafts and props before. Pretty good job. Probably a 5 day job with all of the interference removed from the engine room. A Hytorc is your best friend on that inboard coupling. We typically autographed the machined surface once its exposed. Hopefully others have autographed yours. I guess we'll see.
That is so cool 😎 Thanks for sharing!
@@mm3mm3 yes Sir. Civil Service Marine Machinery Mechanic
Bolted quite a few shaft flanges together on Arleigh Burke class destroyers. A bit different than a Iowa class in that it has a controllable pitch prop system with pressurized oil running through the inside diameter of the shaft. I think that I would have been fired for scribing my name on the flange face. Not that I really think it would have mattered or caused a leak if I had. Pretty cool artifact of history that machinists got to do that in the past. I almost hope that they have to split those shafts and find some.
Very cool story about the autographing!
@@rickjames8317 The fact that the Arleigh Burkes have adjustable pitch props is mind boggling to me.
You should try to keep all the props mounted and in place. One of the attractions is the fantasy of the Iowas being able to be re-activated. In reality we all know they won't but, in the back of everyone's mind is the fantasy desire to see them back in service again. Maintaining the props and even promoting the fact they are still in place would (IMO) be a great draw for future visitors.
I'd go for option 3. Install a blanking ring around the shaft on the outside of the gland, welded to both the shaft and the hull. You now have a solid, waterproof steel covering that is impervious to the effects of crushing and settling. In the interest of galvanic reaction it may be possible to mitigate that by covering the props and their connection to the shafts with a layer of epoxy, if you can prevent the electolyte (water) from reaching the less reactive metal then there is no electron exchange and no corrosion. So, for the record, I'm a props on supporter.
If there is one thing I've learned from yours and Drach's videos is that warships are infinitely more complex than just guns on a floating, self-powered hull. You look at the crew requirements of a ship and ask why so many people needed, and then you get into the depths of the workings and realize that, baring a few things that have become less manpower-heavy, that real live people are absolutely needed to keep these things going from target A to target B. Props to those who lived and maintained these beauties in the active days, and all our hopes and well-wishes to you who keep them alive in their retirement years.
AS a ship yard worker you can change or add a turn of packing without a dry dock. a diver seals off the prop and the rope guard. you will still get a little wet.
That's amazing and fascinating.
Flex Seal. As seen on TV. 20% off bulk orders.
5:09 on the subject of the anodes, i make a strong case to develop a mounting system that allows a diver to periodically change these anodes without the need of welding them on the boat. On commercial boats, there's several variants of this. They aren't as effective (as the tab and weld type), and would require maintenance, but i've personally thought that something that can easily be maintained is better than something that requires complicated action on behalf of the maintainer.
The problem is, their anodes are not working. They have zinc anodes that are used in saltwater. The ship docked in Sweetwater and they need to replace them with aluminum anodes.
@@mammutMK2 they're pointing out that having a modern, non-welded system in parallel would require less involved maintinence in the future, to the point where even swapping anode type would not have to wait for drydocking like it does now.
You can spin the shaft with the shaft jacking gear back by the reduction gears. It is customary to jack the shaft when in port on an active ship. It will reduce the tendency to bend the shaft under the weight of the shaft aft of those last bearings,
EXACTLY !!!!! Problem solved !!! I was aboard the USS Norton Sound AVM-1 as a MM for awhile. When we docked & it was for awhile. We would tighten up the packing for minimal leakage. Engage the electric motor to rotate shaft ever so slowly. Then when getting ready to go under way. Loosen the packing plate for more leakage for cooling the packing material They could fasten a none corrosive container with a cheap sump pump attached to a garden hose and pump it out automatically....
@Soapy1898 one of its function is to rotate the turbine for uniform cooldown of the turbine. It also aids in maintaining a lubricating film on the bearing journals of the shaft, turbine, reduction gear and thrust bearings. It turns the shaft at about 0.1 RPM (1 rev per 10 minutes).
the gear engages and disengages at the end of the turbine shaft, or only one in the case of twin shafts. One turbine shaft is the high pressure shaft and the other is the low pressure and reversing shaft.
Just as it maintains a lubricating film of oil on the bearings, it will maintain a lubricating film of water on the hull penetration gland.
So in summary, yes the turbine and reduction gears are rotated. and the turbine "windmill" while in operation at low static air pressure.
You said it yourself, Ryan. Leave them on the ship "like they're supposed to be". I know that she'll never sail under her own power again but something about keeping the propellers on it lets me imagine her under power. Taking the proposed off would be like clipping the wings off a butterfly.
I would try my best to keep the propellers in place. As Ryan stated, they are a major piece of the ship and should stay on. A cool thing would be to build a glass-bottomed observation deck that folks could see them in place. This would obscure the stern somewhat, at least how I envision it, but would be a "must see" on any tour of the "Big J".
or a reverse periscope
A underwater structure surrounding the propellers and shafts that has glass walls (j)
Similar to the Queen Mary's propeller room? it's proper eerie being able to see a prop like that
The water is filthy there and you wouldn't be able to see them underwater.
Hey! As a former Air Force Museum volunteer who is a commercially licensed pilot and loves history, KEEP THE PROPS if you can. Seal them in blocks of epoxy if you have to, but the ship deserves her propellers like anything else she has. Corrosion control is important, but the propellers and the guns (IMHO) just cannot part ways. Thank ya’ll for all of your hard work and I hope to get to visit someday. Ya’ll are keeping history alive, and that means so much to everyone. Historical value makes gold seem cheap. 👍
I think maintaining the integrity of the artifact is the most important objective.
I believe you should keep them on unless it’s 100% necessary to remove them. It’s always neat to see museum ships that still have them.
I'm keen to see the propellers stay on the ship, I think the benefits of keeping them attached outweigh the costs
I know it seems sacrilegious, but removing the props would likely aid in the overall long term preservation of the ship. Definitely a sacrifice that preserves the ship for generations far beyond us. The ship is an artifact, and we should do what must be done so that future people can visit her. Harsh realities need level headed people to make decisions for the future. I trust Ryan and the crew's eventual decision. I'm still incredibly happy for the New Jersey to get dry docked. Best of luck to all involved!
Disagree, we need this thing as close to ready for action as possible with the Chinese getting all uppity.
@@evanl8656I agree with the sentiment. But we have FAR more advanced methods of warfare now. I love the battleship, but she's well past her service life. Gotta keep her for the kids.
@@SamPanamaOfficial I know lol I'm just joking, whatever keeps the ship around longest is what they should do.
@@evanl8656 I feel ya. Lol.
@@evanl8656 She's never going to see action ever again. It would be a disservice to any person serving to be sent on a ship that's this old and out of touch. That's how the muscovians ate it. Their navy isn't even worth putting in a museum, they're that rust jacked. And don't worry about the Chinese so much, their navy is just on paper. No actual experience, no actual good offensive numbers. Most of their "vast" fleet are just placeholders.
Part of the joy of these ships is the imagination of them sailing the seas. Removing the props is another step in breaking that fantasy and would, to some degree, lessen people's love of the ship. I think of a little kid holding a model ship and spinning around imagining it in action... Thankfully we never really grow out of that and I think the props have a value in that respect that needs to be weighed appropriately.
Just bought a medium size of teak. Now i own a piece from Missouri and New Jersey😊
I think leaving the propellers in place makes the most sense. I agree with Ryan that if they are removed, the problem of displaying or distributing them is an expensive risk. Also retaining the propellers in their positions leaves the possibility of “potential” reactivation down the road, even though seeing the ship in active service again is highly unlikely in todays world.
And the chances (if they reactive 4 Iowa class BBs) of the navy removing one of the 16"/50 Mk-7 is likely. So I would rather have them decommissioned.
@@Commander_Koyke The space from those mounts would make one heck of a VLS forrest
@@acsxfan1 Found a plan where the DP guns of the Iowa are removed and replaced by VLS cells. Only 4 5"/38 cal guns are left. 2 on each side. And yes, the 16" guns are untouched except for the DP guns.
I love that all the Iowas still have all their props installed and I would do whatever necessary to keep them on the ship but If there were no other options and the props absolutely needed to be removed then I'd recommend distributing them between the Iowas, then each ship could have one to display on site and while they may not be under your direct control, they would still be controlled by your fellow museum curators and well supervised, rather than being displayed in some other random location such as a park or a rest stop on the Turnpike. Also they could be transported by ship directly from the yard to the other ships, which would likely be significantly easier than trying to transport them over land.
Ryan, I'm glad that it's YOU AND YOURS that will see the battleship through this. I know she'll come through as good as she can and not turn into an Intrepid.
If you could get those propellers up on deck, go for it. They are a masterpiece of craftsmanship.
I would certainly go with keeping them on if at all possible. You mentioned loss of control if they are placed off site. A steam loco in the UK had this happen to it. It was dismantled for overhaul then through a variety of circumstances beyond the owners control the storage site was sold and major parts were sold for scrap. It can happen so easily. Plus, Manganese bronze is emi gently stealable. A Henry Moor artwork in Branze was stolen one night in the UK from a sculpture park. Fortunately it was found in a scrap yard.
I know I want to go on the dry dock tour when this grand lady is in dry dock
Keeping that proud lady as intact as possible should always be your goal. Keep them screws where they belong.
Hey Ryan, bravo to you too for sharing these little precious nuggets and insights into the Gem of the Battleship NJ. Your efforts are also bring in the funding to keep this Lady well preserved.
I would say that while you have the tail shafts pulled - since you're gonna have to do that either way - assess the condition of the gland seals and what damage from sitting they've received over the past 30 years, use that data to make your decision to repack or remove/plate over. If it looks good, keep it, serious issues, don't.
The shafts do not have to be replaced in order to repack the seal.
Keeping the shaft through the hull seems like an essential aspect of the museum goal of keeping the form of the ship.
Excellent explainer. Touching on the curation philosophy and issues is good stuff. As an old history major, game designer, and WW2 history geek, I have had little exposure to the historiography surrounding museum ships, unlike battlefields, for example. The topic is pertinent and illustrative of issues driving the preservation of our naval history. Thank you!
Definitely try to keep them in place. The money that would be spent to remove them could go towards more effective cathodic protection. Another question I have is if they could be rigged to turn a bit to distribute the weight evenly on the packing.
My thinking is to keep them attached to the ship. Maintains originality.
And keeps the chance for reactivation
@@keithv708Sadly she’ll be about as useful as the USS Constitution in actual combat
Nobody can even see the propellers from the ship. Can't you keep the props stored on the ship somewhere? I know it would have to be topside. There is alot of weight between the shafts and the props. I don't care if it is designed for it, that much weight constantly just being there has to be pushing down on the membrane.
SO glad you do this! I live in Fall River MA, the home of the Battleship Massachusetts (BB59) and they do not offer or do anything like this with that ship.. shameful. Thank You!
Definitely some things to consider. Great update. I wish the USS Texas released updates as often as you.
I have a lifetime solution, that is archival in nature, does no damage to the ship outside minor cosmetic damage (where it is welded - which may be optional, to be determined by an actual engineer) and is 100% reversible:
In the idea of keeping the props on the ship, what i'd do is remove all the packing, support all the weight of the shafts so they're centered and have a stainless steel collar machined (in halves) which are then introduced in the exterior portion of the seal, sticking out of the ship's tubes. An expensive affair, to be sure, but a life time one, i doubt any amount of time would degrade this. Those would then get welded on the outside and on the inside, regular packing can be introduced, which will be safeguarded from the weight of the props pulling the shaft down by the stainless steel acting as a spacer bushing.
If they're machined with grooves to put a long lasting seal implement against the shaft itself, they could also double as a seal. Rubber would age, so probably something akin to a plastic, perhaps a stable resin would be introduced from the exterior (to be read, once installed and welded) using a hole that reaches that cavity between the shaft and the stainless steel collar. None of this would be permanent, so it would not affect the nature of the boat, merely cosmetic damages would be made and it would all be reversible, in the true spirit of an archival, museum oriented action.
Bonus point: this would have one massive benefit aside from the fact that it will not allow the seals to be crushed, and that's the fact that should any water make its way in, service could be rendered to the packing when the boat would be in the water. With the outer part welded (to the hull tube - proper name escapes me) and the inner packing of choice stopping most of the water leaking from the shaft (the only gaps being the join of the two haves which is where water may seep in) the flow of water would be minimal and a competent team of packers would have no issues dealing with it.
Missouri was in mothballs for 30 years and her prop shafts were fine when reactivated.
Packing glands are the same from a small pump to those propeller shafts. I think I would invest some time finding the right packing material to seal a non rotating shaft as most are designed to drip as the shaft rotates. At my work the last packing material we used was kevlar based and very durable which is what I think Ryan showed an example of. Perhaps it could be a combination of wraps to support the weight and wraps to create a seal as there will be several layers stacked up like washers on a bolt.
The question - keep or remove the prop? The correct answer is " Which option is the BEST for the entire ship."
As someone who recently visited the ship from Australia, one option if they have to be removed is perhaps turn them on their sides, raise them up and put chairs and tables under them using them as makeshift sun roofs, it gives more seating area for people to gather and perhaps have food and would make for an interesting art piece and allows you guys to keep control of them.
Heck of a sunshade, very cool idea!
Keep her intact as much as possible. What would be a huge fundraising
Plan would be to wake her up and get her fired up for a day and charge admission to see her running producing the great muscle she has.
Fire of a few blanks. Get people excited in her again. People need to see hear and feel she is a living machine that fought for our country and freedom. I guarantee there are people out there who would pay a good price to see her awake and well. People need to feel she is more than an old steel ship. America needs to remind people of these majestic ladies and what they truly stand for. Its great these ships are saved but they can do so much more to excite visitors.
Looking at the situation as it exists today, so far, you've experienced some minor leakage. Replacing the packing will certainly address leakage around the prop shafts in the near term, but eventually, you'll be right back to where you started. For long-term preservation, I recommend that you remove the props and the last removable portion of the prop shafts and display them alongside the ship in a manner that reflects how they would look in situ. Then blank the shaft ports with heavy-duty, high-quality steel blanks that will protect the interior of the ship from future water intrusion. It will also limit additional hull deterioration by removing any shaft flexing that occurs due to the static positioning of the ship's props and will eliminate another potential source of dissimilar metal corrosion, and asymmetrical component wear over time.
Of course, this is predicated on the availability of funding. It is a fine line between what is necessary and what is nice to have.
Use synthetics for the shaft seals. Since there is no plan for rotating the props, you can retain the look and the water protection.
Was just reading about the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales (53). The first torpedo hit took out a propeller and the flooding blew back the entire length of the shaft. A very important piece to maintain for sure!
Props on! Blank the prop shaft to the hull in situ AND repack for maximum leak proof, epoxy coat the props to reduce galvanic action! Not only will removing props lead to their inevitable damage or loss, but it will put the ship out of trim.
It seems a little strange that the weight of the shaft would be compressing that packing because you have a stern tube bearing and an inboard bearing supporting the shaft on either side of the stern tube seal. If it really is propeller shaft static deflection that is causing the packing to become compressed at the bottom perhaps you could install some additional shaft support immediately adjacent to the stern tube seal that would eliminate any movement of the shaft. You could simply weld a heavy duty bracket between the shaft and the hull structure so the load of the shaft is transferred to the hull structure instead of to the packing in the stern tube seal.
The drive shafts were designed for stiffness because of the vibration and force in service, that means they're more than strong enough.
Knowing nothing about ship engineering the idea of adding additional support sounds logical.
Since the props will never turn again, is there a more "permanent" alternative to the packing technique to seal out water & provide additional structural support for the weight of the shaft & propeller? This would keep all the artifacts together and become a one and done for future of New Jersey.
Great video showing the difficult decisions museums must make a when dealing with corrosion and wear from outside display. I am a deputy director of an aviation museum and we have to make these same decisions in order for our aircraft to survive over the long term. Once corrosion takes hold, everything changes. We have added aircraft from other museums that were simply left to rot. Now we have to triage those aircraft and start replacing and fabricating parts while stripping everything out of it to remove the cancer. Otherwise, the patient dies and the aircraft gets scrapped. My call on the props? Remove them and display them on site. Of course, that is dependent on the what they look like in drydock.
Bismarck class to me is the best for appearances really nailing that “balanced” look
After you replace the gland seals, build a rubberized sump below each through-hull opening with a moisture alarm and an automated pump when the water reaches a couple of inches in the sump. Add an additional alarm when the pump activates. This would keep you from having a surprise of several feet of river water intruding into your shaft alley. This project should be able to do fairly cheaply.
Keep the props in place if at all possible. Would have to see them separated from the ship and potentially lost in the future. This may be a dumb question but I am
wondering if it is mechanically possible to use oak cribbing or some other material to help support the weight of the propeller/shafts to try and minimize the weight on the bottom portion of the shaft seals??
HI RYAN WE PRAY IT DOESNT LEAK ,, BRINGING THE SHIP TO DRY DOCK AND SEEING THE CONDITION OF THE STERN IT WOULD BE GREAT TO KEEP EVERY THING ON ,,IN PLACE AND BACK HOME TO N.J. THANKS..
Please keep the props on the ship, As they say you just never know. Always best to have the ship intact.
if you remove them and the ends of the shaft, it would be great for you to mock up the lower back end of the ship on shore with the original shafts and propellers.
Leave the props in place, it’s the only guarantee that they’ll never be lost. I feel that keeping the ship in as complete status as possible maintains more of the history. Through hull maintenance is almost a guarantee so keeping the shafts on the list is no different than what has been needed over the past 33 years.
*IF* you have room dock side I'd pull that last section of shaft and the props and store/display them right there next to the ship. You'd have to pay one time costs but nothing for storage and you could keep track of them. Barring that I'd leave them in place. Thanks for sharing.
as a EOOW and M division Officer on USS Midway CV 41 I find your talk interesting and very correct. Fyi, I changed out a line shaft bearing on the USS Midway and had to discorrect the shaft . LCdr/LDO
Paul USN ret
Would "barring over" the shafts at certain intervals help with the packing longevity? Can the shafts even be barred over at this point?
My vote is to keep the props in place.
(\If drydocked, anything is possible, including replacing the engines/gear with electric motors and generators, mmaking the ship mobile under her owe power again, without steam. As it's a museum ship, that's cost prohibitive, and pointless. I'd prefer seeing welded in boxes, seal welded to the hull, and also welded to the prop shaft, and even add in some supports for the prop shaft, so the weight isn't an issue.
The jacking gear on the main reduction gear should be able to accomplish the suggested action. Cost as it would mean putting lube oil back in the gear set, all four gear sets.
@@ravenbarsrepairs5594I know it wouldn't be easy, but I wonder if some sort of bouyancy could be added to the propellers or the very ends of the shaft (where it meets the propeller) as a way to take some weight off the shaft, but not in a way that would require attaching supports to the hull (supports anchored to the river bed just won't work without being more complicated than necessary).
Could you weld a metal 'boot' around the shaft to the hull? Yeah, it would be a bit more of a complex shape than a flat blank would be, but would help seal the opening more permanently while keeping the props in place like the other Iowa's.
That’s what I was thinking also. They could have a contest. Imagine the letter. Congratulations you have won a propeller.!! Shipping is not provided. Congratulations 😂
create some sort of seal that could be more easily maintained by the museum staff even if its a rubber gasket or another compression fitting of some type
Please keep them on and fix them up! USS New jersey deserves to keep as much of herself as possible!
I’m a maintenance mechanic and I deal with some pretty large pieces of gear on the daily, but holy cow the size and scale of some of this ship born gear is impressive. The weight of those prop shafts alone spinning is enough to bend your Mind and the sheer amount of torque and power it takes to not only move a chunk of metal that size, but to also propel a tens of thousands of tons ship across the water…engineers make the world go round.
As a ship builder of more than fourty years my two cents says, try and determine what the shafts are made of, stainless, monel, or ?
Fabricate similar metal split rings and weld to the shaft on the outside and if you are lucky weld to the aft end of the stern tube where it will be mild steel (worst case cast) in which case you may be able to drill/tap into it and fasten the dissimilar metals. The main worry with this fix is the possible galvanic action. Two solutions first is a fast sandblast of the area to begin, and again upon completion. A very good epoxy coating (Imron) and bolt on anodes on proper stainless steel bossings that a diver can change as required. Make the rings 3/4 thick the very worst case a weld may crack and water ingress would be very minor. This is a VERY economical fix and keeps this fine lump of history whole ! GOOD LUCK from Canada
Remove the propellers to mitigate water entry in the long term, and display all four propellers near New Jersey to provide context and a really interesting interactive exhibit.
Are you "allowed" to just glue and seal these gaskets, or does it have to still remain spinnable?
Preservation of the entire ship including the propellers must take priority!!
Props to the dry dock progress!
Keep them on just in case you need to fire up the boilers and fight off alien invaders!
Keep on Keeping On !
Bought some teak because of this channel, love the content
Great video series! I cannot wait to see the ship in dry dock.
You and the team that follows you 10, 20 years from now will regret removing them and the regret will be on many levels.
Ricky from IBM
LOVE these journeys deep into the bowels of the ship❣️ Please keep these videos coming Ryan.
HI RYAN,, GREAT VIDEO!!!
Our history is a crucial part of who we are. WWII was a defining moment and 100 years or more from now I hope people will still be able to see it as it was. I say keep the ship intact as is.
I think that the purpose of a museum, especially in relation to military artifacts are to keep them as close to a representative whole as possible, to that end, I think the propellers should stay on. You and your staff and the board have done a great job of restoring and even returning/reinstalling equipment back to where and how it should be and if the propellers are removed, they're the kind of part you will never find another if in 20, 30 or 40 years another curator decides they want the propellers back. As you said too, if they leave the site you lose control and odds are no one will look after them like you or other members of the Historical Navy Ships Association would.
If they HAVE to be removed for maintenance reasons I think keeping them on site would be best. Here's a crazy idea, if you remove them, keep them on site but use them as the posts for a shade-sail arrangement over a garden area and maybe have a cafe or something operate underneath it so it becomes an interesting, hopefully additionally revenue-raising part of the site.
Keep it all together
Keep the props on the ship for the fears you mentioned. Overtime they will be lost. Shes been in the water almost 100 years with them.
So Wise Thank You .
Wait until you see the results of 30 years. If it’s bad, plant some New Jersey palm trees around the welcome center. Remove them at the shaft joint you pointed out, blank over the hole, treat the end of the shafts heavily with sealant, and stick ‘‘em in the ground propeller up. Would make for some very unique shade on site, and it would be easy to keep an eye on them.
In my humble opinion as a science teacher who is related to a materials engineer: blank it off and display the props under cover. The odds of the New Jersey being recommissioned again is next to zero (I teach math as well), and the long term potential for losing her to corrosion increases in direct proportion to the whims of funding (there is never enough funding).
Having said that, the fun answer is to retain the props, refurb the engines, and sell berths for historical(ish) cruises. It'd be a wonderful learning opportunity to spend a few days on a Iowa class at sea. That's a pie-in-the-sky dream though.
Must keep the propellers on the ship ❤❤❤
Props on.. keep it whole.
Leave screws in place.
Great videos!
Happy to contribute, to drydocking and teak. From what I'm reading here, of course make a final decision when you see the condition of the hull/props/shafts. However, I would say, unless extremely damaged, keep them attached, for the reasons others have stated.
I would never take them off.
you never know if we have to put her in service.
There will be still be a very valuable asset in case we need herald we can make a crew to put her in service in case of needed
thank you Ryan enjoy all of your videos
This ship will never be returned to service. It would be cheaper and better to just build a new one.
Please 🙏 keep em on! She's more authentic with them on!
Wow, I was part of the SS American Victory restoration. Our USN unit gave us time and temp duty to work on it. It was the first time I ever got down to shaft alley. Wish you luck. I wish at times I still lived up there.
Having a really cool display with FIVE giant propellers could be really cool
I had expected the shaft seals on a battleship to be a complex design but, surprisingly, they are the same simple design that I have on my little 38' sailboat. Even the weave pattern and color of the packing is the same; probably the same material.
Love the channel.
If you find you have to remove the props, I would suggest the time honoured tradition of bolting them down to the quarter deck. Would make great displays and close to where you host functions, so even more of a useful display. Once props leave the ship, they never come back.
Keep her props on. Others have suggested coating them with epoxy. Check with DoD for any surplus CARC paint, see if they can transfer it to you. Worked great on the tanks and APCs I worked with back in the day ( we transitioned from enamel to epoxy starting in 1982-83) it should last longer than other coating, even submerged.