Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: Geoff on March 07, 2018, 02:16:41 pm
-
As a follow up to Nick's build of his Invincible I have also started building this model.
The plans came from an old source "Sambrook" and are very detailed and are drawn to a scale of 1/192 so standard side. I'm building Invincible as a match for my Iron Duke so the same scale at 1/96 which gives a model length of 72 inches. I said I wouldn't build a bigger model than Iron Duke (78") so its true!
I started using the same building blocks I used for ID so the process is very similar albeit the hull shape is very different which became apparent when planking commenced.
the fundamental difference was that Battlecrusiers were derived from armoured cruisers and not battleships so the hull form is both narrower and has a much easier entry and exit form which is particularly noticeable at the stern where the hull lines are really quite fine.
Progress was the same as with ID albeit once planking was completed I found a distinct twist in the forward port side of the hull which caused a lot of extra work to correct - I still don't know why!
On the basis of a picture tells a thousand words please see attached.
I'll follow up with progress in due course.
Cheers
Geoff
-
More pictures. One of them with all the clamps looks very strange indeed. Also shown are the brass stem and stern pieces using flat brass strip annealed and bent into a "U" shape and further annealed and bent into shape.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Looks good Geoff :-)) :-))
-
Excellent piece of woodworking. She looks very smart.
Following with interest.
ken
-
Geoff: Fantastic so far :-)) I shall be watching this build with great interest, hoping to learn some tips for my own build. I saw your Invincible quite recently and was hugely impressed. I know you will be building in your unique gun fire system, which looks so realistic on HMS Iron Duke.
Thank you for sharing your build sequence, I am looking forward to seeing more progress, O0
-
Hi Geoff
Thanks for starting your build log too, it’ll be great as a comparison of build techniques that we both employ to get two Invincible’s on the water. I can’t believe the amount of detail the Sambrook plans go into and it took me a little while to ensure I picked the correct items for the 1914-5 Falkland fit. The serious lack of photos from this particular era of the ship can be annoying as I have only found 2-3 pictures of any real help for details of the forward superstructure.
Anyway, I’ll speak to you when I return from Cyprus in a couple of weeks regarding the guns, I’ve just been informed by my parents that the thermistors have just turned up yesterday from China! I ordered them when you send me the link!
Keep up the good work :-))
-
Nick,
More pictures to follow shortly. I agree there are very few pictures of Invincible. The book British Battlecruisers by John Roberts (latest addition) has copies of the builders plans of Invincible and the side elevation is draws to 1/192 scale so is a perfect match.
One of the things I'm thinking about is building her after her refit in Malts when the fore funnel was raised by 15 feet but that's a long way in the future.
I've been struggling with the gun turrets as there are two distinct types on Invincible. I spent ages making wooden roofs (for better insulation) but fount I couldn't fit the gun mechanism in once it was insulated so reverted to alloy roofs as they are much thinner and can be bent to shape and are "springy" so when screwed down they fit better. I also gain about 2.5mm which is enough!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Yes, two turrets were from Armstrongs and two were from Vickers (If I recall correctly) all being built with experimental electrical systems rather than all hydraulic, with disappointing if sparky blue results {:-{
It's excellent to see another capital ship build. I can't wait to complete my little ships so I can add an armoured cruiser to the mix.
-
That's a fantastic start to your build - looking on in awe (envy). :embarrassed:
Regards,
Ray.
-
Okay, some more pictures including the one with the bow and stern frames this time!
-
One more brings me virtually up to date. I'll try to post some more pictures of the gun turrets and main engines shortly. The turrets were very challenging to make with their awkward shape. I used 1.5mm ply for this in two layers. the inner layer lower so with the outer layer higher I created a step inboard for the roof to sit in. As mentioned I found the wood roofs took just too much space so replaced them with thin alloy which sits on the outer edge which wasted all the work in creating the ledge in the first place!
We all live and learn.
The next steps are:
1) Build the actual gun components. This is virtually all done but I need to carry out some tests to see then new (different) and somewhat smaller thermistors work okay. So far some experiments have not proved too encouraging!
2) Install the sub decks to carry the turret barbettes - these will be attached to the main deck so it all comes off in one piece.
3) Start plating the hull on the outside with plastic card. As usual I will only be doing the outs-strakes. As it happens the portholes are all in the out-strakes so I will be cutting the holes before I fix the plating. This way if a porthole is not in alignment I just replace the plate.
4) Work out the turret turning mechanism - I'll probably winch them round as per my usual method but I mau only need to turn "P and Q" 90 degrees as it would prove very complex to turn all four turrets to one side due to the geometry of the layout.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Just by way of clarification, I prefer to build large models upright because the deck line and sheer is very important as if wrong its almost impossible to correct at a later date. Any hull imperfections can be sanded and filled. I start the planking with a single continuous plank at the waterline then plank upwards with shorter lengths. This gives rigidity to the whole structure. I then plank downwards for 2 or 3 planks. Then a single plank on the bilge line again for rigidity. This also defines distinct areas to plank using shaped planks.
The deck is a continuous piece where possible with the deck openings partially cut through so the whole still behaves as a single piece which prevents warping and twisting.
Finally I always make sure I have roof to get my hand inside to release the hull from the keel blocks, then turn it upside down and complete the planking - then lots of sanding!
Cheers
Geoff
-
I hope you can get the thermistors to work Geoff. I love those turrets and can see the subtle differences between type.
-
Some progress over the weekend. I have remade the turret roofs in alloy. The two different shapes are readily seen. Also note the turret with the lagging for the heat exchanger.
In the foreground are the thermistors and the heat exchanger units. Note the sideways fluid injection pipes which make the whole unit about 1/5cm shorter which eases installation.
Also visible is the central tube which will carry the wiring downwards beneath the sub deck.
Main engines are two interior car blower motors from an old Talbot Horizon. They are 12/14 volt twelve pole motors which I run on six volts. This is an identical installation to Iron Duke.
The rudder posts (sorry about the feet!)
Cheers
Geoff
-
Nice work Geoff :-))
I’m looking forward to returning home so I can continue with mine. After reading your log so far I’ve realised that we’ll be able to distinguish the two Invincible’s now- I’m going for the short fore funnel whilst you’re going for the raised. It’ll be interesting to see the differences when they are together.
Keep up the good work!
-
Excellent work Geoff. She looks very impressive. Nice workmanship :-))
-
I reckon the two part roofed turrets are more attractive than the others. It is all looking fab Geoff.
-
I'm going to have to start thinking about how I intend to turn the turrets. The basic system will be the same as Iron Duke. A small sail winch pulling the turrets round with fishing line.
The Invincible turret layout caused considerable complications as "P" (port side) can only turn to starboard if "Q" (Starboard side) is in a certain position because of the length of the gun barrels.
It may then only prove practical to fire three guns on any side so how do I control the guns?
"A" and "Y" need to be able to rotate 180 degrees but "P" and "Q" only need 90 degrees so I can probably control these with separate engines and gearboxes and micro switches. However it occurred to me that if I link "A" and "P" together with a single cord then if I turn "A" to port ten "P" will slave but there would then be no way to make "P" return to the centre line unless I used a spring and a cord pulling in the opposite direction.
So as "A" returns to the centre line the rotate cord would be slacken but a spring on the other side would rotate the turret back to the centre line at the same speed as "A". As "A" continues to turn to starboard the pull line would be slack so no rotation of "P" beyond the centre line.
"P" would not "spring back" because the pull line would stop this happening as it would be fed out slowly. The only downsides I can think of is that it would impose additional strain on the sail winch (because of the spring) and if there was any sticking in "P" it could cause a jam or a jerky movement.
Hope that description makes sense! I think I'll have to make a dummy and see if the concept is viable.
Cheers
Geoff
-
You know the real answer (https://www.arduino.cc/) by now, surely? %)
Andy
-
Geoff. If the turrets are not heavy, they should not need a heavy spring to control their return to centre especially as their rotation is on a vertical axis and not a horizontal one. A light spring may even be better as then it isn't pulling on anything to force the pivot towards the force exerted by the spring possibly causing it to stick or force the turret to tilt.
-
Okay by way of an update I now have a number of various PTC Thermistors for trial. The original ones I used in ID were 6cm x 2cm x 0.5cm and were rated for 230 C. I can't purchase these anymore so did some hunting around and found some alternatives:
1) Those shown in the picture next to the turrets 3cm x 2.5cm x 0.5cm rated at 220 C
2) Some older ones which are in a flat sleeve and are 6cm x 1cm x 0.3cm rated at 200 C
3) Some new ones which have just arrived 5cm x 2cm x 0.5cm rated at 230 C
4) The original ones 6cm x 2cm x 0.5cm rated at 230 C
They are all different with different characteristics and cable thicknesses. I've tried out 1) and whilst they certainly get hot it doesn't seem as hot as I would have thought. The trouble is there are various permutations to contend with - current consumption, surface area and rate of heating/time. So I've decided to take the plunge and have ordered a pyrometer to measure the actual temperatures so a series of experiments coming up:
Test the originals as I have one spare and I know these work perfectly. Check the current consumption every 20 seconds, final current consumption, temperature reading every 20 seconds and final temperature.
This should give me some parameters to play with when doing a comparison with the others so I can put this on a spreadsheet to see temperature rate and final temperature, time frame and current consumption.
I can then repeat the experiment with the thermistors strapped to the heat exchanger and measure the temperature of the heat exchanger, current consumption and time.
What I suspect is that whilst the smaller thermistors reach the required temperature the rate of conductivity to the heat exchanger is less as the surface area is less so the rate the heat exchanger heats up will be different. Depending on ambient air temperature its possible the heat exchanger will never get to the right temperature as the heat loss from the exposed surface will exceed the thermistors capacity to provide heat! However this would all be different once there is insulation so may just be a time issue.
I hope to be able to provide some guidelines for which thermistors are best suited to this process.
I'll report back later!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Have the original thermistors disappeared completely, or are they only available in multiple thousands as a commercial order for a distributor?
As an example, My Dad's Stihl chainsaw suffered a cracked silencer about twelve years ago and I could only buy them from China in lots of a thousand! Luckily a friend of mine knew someone who could tig weld and so I did not need to buy enough silencers to build a shed from.
(It was a very old saw that was not available in the UK due to the lack of anti-vibe mountings.)
-
The original thermistors are no longer available - I bought the last four - one reason my build will have four firing turrets out of seven. The other reason being the weight of additional batteries.
I will follow this evaluation with great interest as a workable equivalent could be important to anyone considering this awesome gun fire system.
-
Check this guy out on eBay for a range of thermistors
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/spsemporium/Heaters-/_i.html?_fsub=953396719
Unless you remove the inner part from the outer metal can you can't really see what the size of the actual heater elemement is, the inner element is nearly always much smaller than the outer case
This guy lists 12volt 230 degree @£5.00 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Aluminium-Encased-Compact-PTC-heaters-5V-50-C-12V-60-C-12V-80-C-12V-140-C-/281401112183
C-3PO
-
4 week delivery from amazon
£3.68 - 2 pieces delivered - 12v 220 degree 330x240x40 -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adhere-Fly-Accessories-Applicable-Miniature/dp/B01N7SSYH5/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1521185100&sr=8-4&keywords=ptc+heater+12v&dpID=41RucdfHfJL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Many variants available via the net - lots are long delivery time
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/16/PTC.jpg)
C-3PO
-
Thank you, I searched both e-bay and amazon but couldn't find many that suited once you specify 12 volts. The trouble is having found some that work there are no identifying codes on them to track identical ones down so you are going by appearance.
I did some small testing last night and some almost immediately draw 6-7 amps climbing to 9amps and heat up very quickly. Others which have a higher temperature point draw only 2amps but candidly beyond the point when a drop of water spits on contact I can't tell their actual temperature.
The ones Bob got certainly work but I haven't seen them for sale again - Bob do you have the "address" for those you could post?
Cheers
Geoff
-
Sorry Geoff. I usually file component invoices but I can't find that one.
I know the ID code on the order form was 191953139182, the same as yours, and that it came from China via E-bay.
-
Hi Geoff,
I appreciate you have been working on this for a long time so may be teaching you to suck eggs - sorry!
When searching in Google playing with the search phrase can help - try PTC HEATER 12V or PTC HEATER 230 and then click on the "image" tab in Google
I have several thermistors of varying sizes - all 12 volt
I have found that often the outer slip case may be a different size but the actual element placed inside is the same - i.e. the element does not fill the larger cases.
Have you removed the element of the ones you have had success with? If so what are it's dimensions?
The other thing is you can get physically smaller 220-230 degree 12v so this may be an advantage as they have the same wattage so the same heat output into a smaller chamber may be an advantage.
I guess the other advantage of the smaller size thermistor is that they may be a ble to be used in smaller models/ give you more room to play with...
I am sure you have been through these hoops already
Regards
C-3PO
-
Likewise - I just checked and when I hit the details it just comes up as "IP address no longer recognised or some such"
I guess we just have to buy when we see them. It never actually occurred to me they would not be available in the future - I guess we live and learn. Mind you how many working battleships do I intent to build! Ah , yes, I'd better start searching now!!
-
C-3PO - thank you for your input, I'm just glad for any suggestions on the gunfire mechanism - I'm sure that between us all we can find multiple solutions!
I'm very happy for people to make any suggestions and improvements as the idea it to make this system available to as many modellers as possible - you can't have too many battleships firing at each other on the pond! :-)
-
Geoff,
The innards of a thermistor - you can see the outer case is larger than the element - this is a 12v 230 degree specimen
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/16/ptc2.jpg)
If you wanted you could do away with outer case and simply insert the wrapped electrodes and thermistor directly into your heat block
I think you may find that there are standard sizes of the actual element (small medium etc) that you then see for sale in an assemblled case - if the case looks different from you original purchase the internal element may be the same in others that are available just that the original case was designed for a specific application and that's not available
C-3PO
-
Geoff,
Another term to use when searching is "PTC Aluminum Ceramic Heater"
They are so widely used you won't have a problem finding them (Curling tongs, Hairdryer, glue gun, yoghurt maker, coffee machines etc etc etc) - biggest challenge is finding 12 volt versions - but many exist
This is a manufacturer - I guess they only deal in high volume sales but interesting none the less
http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/ (http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/)
http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/products.html (http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/products.html)
http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/sale-7642081-low-voltage-ptc-ceramic-heater-ptc-thermal-resistor-high-efficiency-with-insulating-film.html (http://www.ptcthermistorheater.com/sale-7642081-low-voltage-ptc-ceramic-heater-ptc-thermal-resistor-high-efficiency-with-insulating-film.html)
C-3PO
-
Thank you for all the responses - yes I have taken one apart and one type I have are only in the plastic sleeve so are readily accessible. I had thought of doing away with the case and in fact you could go further and do away with one of the electrode plates and use the heat exchanger as the earth/negative. A little awkward though if you get a short!
If you take them apart there are typically little ceramic tablets and I guess you could use these in different configurations by adding more of less tablets to create your own. It opens the door to all sorts of experimentation! I think you can purchase just the tablets themselves but I have no idea as to the specifications. Would more tablets create more heat or less?
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff,
Will be fascinating to follow your testing.
The other thought I had was does it make sense to preheat your smoke fluid - if the fluid was already warm/hot would this make a difference with volume of smoke? Maybe worth a try
C-3PO
-
An interesting thought but my suspicion would be that it won't make any real difference as the "action" takes place as it flash vaporises so to preheat the fluid may mean the heat exchanger could be less hot, saving power, but you would use power to preheat the fluid so the same overall dynamic. It will always take a certain amount of power to change the state of a liquid to gas. The only differences will be the time and the temperature of the gas and I guess the ambient temperature of the fluid which would probably only vary by about 1O/15 C.
I've also been looking at 3D printer heater heads/units as they are self contained and operate in the 230 C range to melt the plastic. Without some very complex scientific experiments I think it will be really quite hard to "prove" one way or the other. As above It will always take a certain amount of power to change the state of a liquid to gas.
Lots to think about!
Cheers
Geoff
Fonts Fixed. :-)
-
The last sentence was meant to say "it will always take a certain amount of energy to convert a given volume of liquid to gas at a given temperature in a given time"
-
For those who may not have seen Geoff's HMS Iron Duke in action, here is another photograph from Wicksteed.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/General/i-FK8N2zZ/0/41433f63/M/Iron-Duke-M.jpg) (https://bobkiralfy.smugmug.com/General/i-FK8N2zZ/A)
The original thermistors may have been production over-run for a specific design application, the surplus being sold off on E-Bay.
I am sure Geoff will be able the replicate its superb efficiency once he finds a suitable replacement for his HMS Invincible.
-
Sorry Geoff. I usually file component invoices but I can't find that one.
I know the ID code on the order form was 191953139182, the same as yours, and that it came from China via E-bay.
Hi Bob,
Just a thought - all eBay transactions are in your account history ( which can cause a problem when you share an eBay account!!!) - you should be able to locate your seller there
C-3PO
-
Good idea C-3PO. The seller was "sellerbible (368677)", and I have sent them a message
-
Good idea C-3PO. The seller was "sellerbible (368677)", and I have sent them a message
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/m.html?_odkw=ptc+12+230&_ssn=sellerbible&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=ptc+12v+230&_sacat=0
-
Some more pictures. The turrets have now been completed. The patchy paintwork is just the first coat and I will spay over to get a much better finish. Note the different turret designs with P and Q being wider. The round circles on P and Q are for 4" secondary guns with the strips for foot strips.
The 4" guns on A and Y were re-sighted in the forward superstructure.
P and Q turrets sit on cradles fixed to the underside of the main deck. This was very fiddly work and took hours to do to ensure the turrets has sufficient clearance and aligned with the barbettes. This also gives me a gap below the cradle where I may be able to fit in some batteries.
I carried out some tests over the weekend with the various thermistors and will report back shortly on the results.
Cheers
Geoff
-
As referenced I have been trying some experiments with various thermistors and have now purchased an infra-red temperature reader so I do some more experiments.
Per the attached picture and chart this was the result.
The most unusual result was with the 3D printer heater units. Research showed that most 3D printers operate in the 250c range so I was expecting similar temperatures - well I had to put the fire out when it reached 550c! So I built an alternative design of heat exchanger with the barrel offset to make room for another 6mm diameter hole to take the heater unit.
It does work but I need some more experiments to see how well as whilst the heater unit gets very hot its volume isn't all that big so its ability to heat a block of alloy to 230c is suspect albeit with adequate insulation this may change.
It has the advantage that the unit can be made smaller as no piggy back thermistor but may have a serious disadvantage as how hot will it get? Does anybody know if these heater units are thermistors with a maximum self regulating temperature or do they need to be controlled in some way?
On another note we have speculated that with the Invincible turret layout it would be awkward to get a four gun broadside however now that I have built the turrets it is quite possible provided the P and Q turrets point the other way round. On most pictures Q turret is shown as pointing aft and P pointing forwards. If this is reversed and A and Q linked they can turn to port provided Y and P are pointing fore and aft. These can then be turned to port but to deploy to starboard P and Y must first be turned beck to the centre line then A and Q back to the centre line then P and Y can turn to starboard followed by A and Q.
It sounding complicated but readily doable without using an Arduino. Basically there is just enough clearance for the guns with this method.
P and Q turrets are based on a cradle which is hung from the deck - it took hours to adjust this to give the correct clearance but this does mean there may be room for batteries to slide beneath.
More work needed!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Good idea C-3PO. The seller was "sellerbible (368677)", and I have sent them a message
Well, I received a prompt reply, considering the weekend got in the way.
"Dear Sir. Sorry we no longer sale this item." It was worth trying.
It is now up to Geoff's research into a workable equivalent.
-
Geoff,
The 3d printer heater I think is a traditional coil heater embeded in ceramic in a metal case - sure some Googling will give you the answer...
But they are interesting - the one you have I would guess is 12v 40 watt ( so draws 3amps 'ish ).
You can get 60 watt and 100 watt (long body). ( Google - Dernord Cartridge Heater 12V 100W)
Here's the confusing bit - 3d printers have got temperature control and to do this they use - "a thermistor" - but not as you know it!!!!
The temperature control uses this type of thermistor sensor where different temp = different resistance which you can measure and therefore determine temperature.
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/19/Thermistor.png)
A Controller senses the resistance and can control power to the heater to maintain desired temperature
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/19/3d02fa69d9bbe47dfd97.png)
Another suggestion for your melting pot - could you spray the fog fluid into the heat chamber rather than squirt?
C-3PO
-
Thank you, much as I thought. I'm in the process of "Googling" - indeed you could use a NTC thermistor as a temperature probe so as the heat rises so does the voltage until the "electrickery" shuts the power down or reduces the voltage which would have the same effect. So a feedback circuit is needed to control the heat. A simple bi-metallic switch could also be used via a relay but this would add volume to the apparatus. Hmm how small can bi-metallic switch be these days??
However, much as a cigarette lighters spark is in the region of 1,000c, its capacity to directly heat anything is minuscule. So if I switch the 3d heater on inside an alloy block how hot will the alloy block get. If we had 100% perfect insulation then eventually the alloy block should get to 550c or whatever the maximum temperature the heater unit will get to - time would also be a question. In practice this would all be limited by the rate of heat loss by the alloy block so in practical terms may be self regulating from a gunnery perspective as the firing cycle every 10/20 seconds would reduce the temperature. In theory as time goes by the battery voltage would drop and therefore the ultimate temperature would be reduced/drop/stabilize.
Lots to think about here and I guess I'll just have to build one and test it!
More thoughts welcome!
Cheers
Geoff
-
"a feedback circuit is needed to control the heat"
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/19/A001.png)
or
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/03/19/attiny85.png)
C-3PO
-
Yes, "Electrickery!"
-
Some progress over the Easter break - nothing else to do other than walk in the rain!
Three funnels made and a start on the secondary armament. Six of these need to have the case-mate interior built in and the gun breaches as they will be visible from outside at certain angles. The case-mates for these ships were weather protection only so I believe they would have been open at the rear.
The brass drums are the gun shields which have since been drilled with three oblong slots - central for the gun and one each side for the gun sights which would be visible from outside.
All very awkward as these guns also need to be able to turn (not powered) for realism.
Despite having a copy of the original plans (scale 1/192) I'm having difficulty in interpreting the precise structure between the funnels. I'm not certain its just skid beams or a walkway between the two funnels.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff
See if this picture is of any help. I have tried to find clearer pictures but there are always boats in the way!
Have you seen the amount of tiny mushroom vents on the deck? I’m slowly going mad making hundreds of the little blighters!
(https://thumb.ibb.co/j68kRc/113_D493_D_1_F5_C_4_BE2_93_D3_7_A3248_E76_D9_D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j68kRc)
-
Burt's Battleships of WW1 has drawings of the forward and after boat decks of Invincible on pages 50/51. I can't quite interpret it myself so I don't know if it is any improvement on what you already have. If you don't have the book I can scan the relevant bit.
Colin
-
Colin,
Thank you - I have the book but as you say its difficult to see what you are looking at!
Cheers
Geoff
-
My impression is that it is a steel deck, it is after all labelled 'boat deck' and the crew would have needed to have access all round the boats to lash down covers etc. It is of course almost completely hidden by the hulls of the boats so you are unlikely to be challenged on it. The after arrangements for the boats do show the beams supporting them above the boat deck.
These little details are always interesting. It's also sobering to reflect that all that constructional intricacy was blown to pieces when the ship's magazines exploded.
Colin
-
It echos what is going on on the Warrior class Armoured Cruisers. I will double check my plans but I recall that the structure below the boat deck of Cochrane (Warrior class) is an electric coal hoist shown (one of three or four.)
As Invincible is coal fired, a number, depending in how many boiler rooms there were, would have been fitted depending on disposition of the turrets. Warrior and her younger sisters the Minotaurs didn't have turrets that could fire across the deck, so the issue of where to put hoists and deck houses would be less of an issue.
I was looking on line to check that the Invincibles were indeed coal fired and see that they had an AA armament of Hotchkiss 3Pdrs on Mk Ic HA mountings! It is a Wiki reference but I will look up the Ic mount and see what it looks like. It might use the pintle of the low angle weapon with a cheeks fabricated like the early 6Pdr AA. Invincible mounted them from 1914 to 1917 according to the reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_battlecruiser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_battlecruiser)
A further look suggests the AA weapons are 6Pdrs on Mounting Ic, but I am not sure until I look in the Buxton bible to see if these are the same as the small gun monitors initially carried. Sorry to gibber on your topic Geoff, there is lots of interesting stuff going on!
A quick question Geoff, Do you make your funnels from halves of tube with flat styrene in between? And, are the funnel caps solid or carefully measured ovoids of thin plastic?
-
The funnels are made from plastic tube and flat styrene sheet in between. In practice I found some electrical tube from B&Q a good source but it was still too narrow. I cut a piece lengthwise and forced this over a metal pipe this giving me the correct outside diameter. This was then dropped in a pan of boiling water for 5 mins and then dropped into cold water. The heat and natural spring in the plastic pipe moulded itself to the correct diameter. After cleaning up two layers of flat sheet (one overlapping on the inside) were used to form the side of the funnel.
John Roberts, British Battlecrusiers contains fold out copies of Invincible with the side elevation drawn to 1/192 scale. This gives me details as to where there were ladders between the superstructure decks and therefore deck openings. An interesting discovery was that the leg spacing on the fore and aft tripods are different at the same deck level. In hindsight this is obvious because the fore tripod was used to provide a steady platform for the rangefinder and director firing gear. The aft tripod was a secondary rangefinder position and used for the main derrick - at full boom stretch the weight of a 50 foot steam launch would have been considerable hence the wider leg spacing.
On another note in my quest to figure out if I can get all turrets to fire on the beam - you can if you move them in pairs in the right order provided the starboard turret faces forwards and the port turret faces aft. This is different from most pictures which puzzled me. In building the model if the turrets face this way the clearance at the rear between the turret overhang and the superstructure is quite tight and would have impeded normal crew movement so this was the normal default position. However when going into action I believe it would have been reversed as this would reduce the time it takes for a turret to change deployment.
I have done some more work on the superstructure but progress is slow as its really quite an awkward structure as with the guns in partial case-mates the rears can be seen at certain angles so you have to build out the interior. A difficult thing is to find out the width of the deck above the guns as it does not attach to the funnel. It can't be closed in as the main boiler vents are on that deck so would need access to fresh air. If the case-mates were fully closed there would be no way to get air to the boilers so I have concluded they were really screens (have a look at the aft battery in Lion - fully open at the rear).
Flying deck structure - further examination of various material confirms this was indeed just beams and not a solid deck, but there were narrow walkways between the boats for access. Its all really quite awkward!
I now have the rough tripods balanced in place all in brass. The central strut is 11.1mm in diameter with the legs 9mm - again awkward!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Interesting re the boat support Geoff, must have been tricky to confirm that. I thought that there had to be all round access to the boats though.
I wonder how many other models of this class got that detail right?
Colin
-
Once you have a copy of the original plans you can figure it out. Interestingly some of the walkways are triangular at each end and narrower in the middle so from a direct above view the deck could appear solid. I guess it makes sense as it saves top-weight and gives easy access for water egress when the boats are lifted on.
G
-
I was looking to use suitable model rail for the girders making up the flying deck on Cochrane, but it depends on how easy it is to file the bottom flange to match the width of the rail top. How are you going to make your flying deck Geoff?
-
Hi Geoff
This is my understanding of the boat support areas so far. I think it is very similar to Dreadnoughts layout with regards to walkways. I need to add my thin walkways but this my girder work so far.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/eXXWxH/A0_FFCA79_9_A1_A_4_C4_E_9_D4_C_8_CEC926_DAF13.jpg) (https://ibb.co/eXXWxH) (https://thumb.ibb.co/c9pN4x/F2_CE70_E9_E34_D_4840_B9_BD_466778661744.jpg) (https://ibb.co/c9pN4x) (https://thumb.ibb.co/iTdX4x/12072_CF9_F6_BA_4512_B2_BC_F780297_DABB4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/iTdX4x) (https://thumb.ibb.co/fpNmWc/F22_DB6_BE_26_F9_42_BB_B460_DEFC1_D0_EEDC9.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fpNmWc) (https://thumb.ibb.co/ca0C4x/11084_D65_3_D3_C_42_CD_951_D_F5738_F2_F0_B1_E.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ca0C4x) (https://thumb.ibb.co/n9ZGWc/512_D06_BB_F451_425_D_8_E7_F_46851_F841070.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n9ZGWc)
-
Nick,
Looking good. I see the girder work is in plastrut which is what I was planning on using as well unless I can find a source of 1/8" I section brass as this would be inherently stronger - maybe a mixture of the two?
If I may make an observation, you have painted the decks a leather brown for the courtecine covering which I was also planning on doing. Courtecine was actually glued to the decks and the edges fixed down with brass strip which were riveted to the deck and then hammered down over the edge. It makes a nice addition to detail if this is represented. I did this on Iron Duke using very thin gold self-adhesive pinstripe. I don't know what the maximum size was but one can make an educated guess. It's not difficult to do and adds detail and creates a nice effect particularly as the edges of the deck would then be grey so it frames the whole lot. I then matt varnish over the lot to ensure it all stays in place.
My Invincible is beginning to look like a ship now that I have the rudimentary tripods in place. I'll post some pictures shortly.
Cheers
Geoff
-
I meant to add for the funnels the top and bottom "lips" are made using a shelf of plastic card with the triangular shape then filled with car body filler and sanded to shape.
Geoff
-
Thanks Geoff :-))
-
Hi Geoff
Thanks for the info about the courtecine deck, I was thinking that it looked too 'bland', the brass strips will break it up and be accurate for the ship. I was wondering when you mentioned the non-symmetrical fore-mast tripod where you were measuring from as I had left my copy of British Battlecruisers at home and now I look its massively obvious! Good thing I haven't drilled out my 9mm supporting struts yet!
On my Dreadnought I got my I-beam brass on ebay, if I find the supplier again I will message you with the details. I've just run out of my plastic I-beam strut so I'm looking for some more at the moment but if the brass turns up I'm going to replace it as like you say its a lot stronger and there are a lot of resin boats to sit on them.
Keep up th good work, I'm hopefully having a ballast trial this weekend at Wicksteed if the rain holds off!
-
I hope your test went well Nick?
-
Hi Ian
Unfortunately I didn’t go as I was rather unwell this morning but not due to anything alcoholic! Fingers crossed for next weekend. :-))
I’ve been looking for some brass for the I-beams and I think I’ve found some:
https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/I-beam-profile-milled-brass-section-for-model-making-in-26-sizes-330mm-long/162871318954?var=461914118566&hash=item25ebe319aa:m:m64HADWipYlIvyGimaH2dDQ (https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/I-beam-profile-milled-brass-section-for-model-making-in-26-sizes-330mm-long/162871318954?var=461914118566&hash=item25ebe319aa:m:m64HADWipYlIvyGimaH2dDQ)
-
Hm, a soldered structure will be stronger in the long term than a styrene one, and probably more cost effective in the same period as well.
-
I am humbled to be among you fine craftsmen. Magistic work indeed! Dennis
-
More progress over the weekend - tripods in place and work on forward superstructure and side armour in place.
I have discovered a discrepancy in the plans as the forward bridge is in line with the conning tower on some and a bit aft in others - a puzzle but its clear from the original plans it should be in line but the Sambrook plans show its not!
Cheers
Geoff
-
I should add that all the superstructure has yet to be plated in plastic card to finish off but I'm a long way from that as I have to build out the interior parts that will be visible, ladders and railings etc.
Cutting the forward tripod legs at the top bridge level worked very well. With inserts the tripod can be reassembled and keep everything in line.
Cheers
Geoff
-
She is looking really great Geoff :-))
I reckon you must have had to use a jig to solder/braze those tripod platforms accurately.
-
I did, the jig was the actual base superstructure. The top plate held everything else in place.
It was actually surprisingly easy to do. I used a 6" grinding wheel to chamfer the legs to the correct angle - trial and error then fitted it to the superstructure (protected with cloth) and after cleaning had a go with a gas blowlamp - no real issues other than making sure the top was tight and in alignment.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Nothing much to report by way of an update. I'm still working on the tripods. I was reading a book called Invincible (By Tarrant I think) all about HMS Invincible's life.
In the book there is the usual anecdotal comments about poor gunnery of Both Invincible and Inflexible at the battle of the Falklands against the crack gunnery ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the number of hits obtained. British counts gave many more hits but German survivors show about 22/23 hits on each of their vessels.
This is held out to be proof of the poor gunnery albeit there was a lot of issues with smoke.
Some thoughts to contest this:
1) Invincible was hit 22 times and Inflexible about 3 times so a total of circa 25 (going from memory) so we have "crack German ship"s hitting 25 times and poor British ships hitting about 44/45 times.
2) The range was obviously the same for each side and the Germans were firing at significantly larger targets.
3) Maybe more British hits were obtained at shorter range and by that time the German ships were not firing so effectively due to damage (which they received at longer range!) Sturdee kept his ships at long range to minimise damage and casualties and was criticised by Fisher as a result!
4) The British ships were very low on ammunition at the end of the action but there is also a report that Gneiseau had run out of ammunition!
5) So does this dispel the allegation of poor hitting by the British? For this battle the statistics do not seem to support this?
6) My belief is that what this action really showed was that it was very difficult for any ships to hit each other at long range particularly when manoeuvring as opposed to a straight line course.
I wonder how much of this was Fishers spite against Sturdee as he had been in the Beresford camp before the war (Fisher and Beresford were arch enemies for some reason) and Fisher never forgot it!
Perhaps this battle should be given another appraisal.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Geoff,
Yes, I think you are right in what you are saying. Fisher did detest Sturdee, apparently because he made a hash of planning the earlier Heligoland action.
Also, the fire control arrangements in 1914 and for some time after couldn't keep up with the ranges at which the big guns could fire.
There is also the fact that the RN 12 inch shells weighed 850lb against the 240lb of the German ,8.2s. Armoured cruisers were not built to absorb hits of that calibre.
Colin
-
A point made about ammunition supply is relevant because, while the East Asia Squadron had already used up a lot of their ammunition at Coronel, the Squadron sent to deal with them were fully 'Bombed up'.
-
I seem to recall that in practice the rate of ammunition expenditure in action was much higher than any navy anticipated so there was pressure to increase the stowage of ammunition which, in the battlecrusiers, may have led to overfilling the magazines in some ships with more "ready use" ammunition being stowed in inappropriate places!
In general most ships seemed to have carried 80/100 rounds per gun which means Invincible may have been carrying 800 rounds. Its a lot of ammunition which required a lot of space and a lot of weight - just the shell weight would total 85,000 pounds plus probably half again for the cordite so something in the region of 127,500 pounds!
-
Geoff,
A wonder job!
A comment about plans/research if I may. I have found that ships were often not built in complete accordance with the original plans. Yards were often given leeway to adjust/modify the original design, while likewise the Navy, be it the RN or the USN,, or whatever, often made changes mid-stride during the build. Hence ships often bore differences from the "official" plans. Another observation, which certainly applied to the USN but perhaps not as much to the RN, was that upon completion and acceptance from the civilian yards,, ships were often moved to navy yards for modifications or the addition for weapons or hardware not available to the builders. Photos are most valuable, but for your time frame harder to find.
An interesting reference for the Invincibles is "British Battleships of World War 1" by R A Burt. It includes two profile plans.
Build on!
Jonathan
-
One step forwards and two steps backwards - I spent a lot of last weekend plating the hull of the ship but on examination found that the second outer strake with the second line of portholes just wasn't right and in line with the top strake so had to remove it. The good news was that despite using Evostick the plating readily came off. The bad news was that despite using Evostick it readily came off! It does however stick well enough, I hope! So now I have to make another 60 inches of plating with portholes and have another go to get it all in line.
Also on further examination I had noticed that the brass tripod masts were too wide at the top where the legs meet so I un-soldered the aft mast and ground some more off the legs, made a new top platform and re-soldered and it looks much better - one down one to go!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Disaster, another big step backwards. I had completed the hull plating down to the bilge keels but had left the model in the conservatory on Friday. The heat was sufficient to cause the Evostick to fume again and virtually all the plating was buckled and distorted with blemishes!
So, had to rip all the plating off and then remove old Evostick which was very time consuming. Curiously the armour belt was unaffected, I think because it was twice as thick 50 thou rather than the hull plates which were 25 thou.
Still all very annoying so I have lost about 10 hours work - bah humbug!
The question now is what glue shall I use instead?
Geoff >:-o
-
That’s damn annoying >:-o
I’ve been using thin CA for 0.25 card but obviously you don’t have much time to move it if it isn’t in the right place. I had to remove a piece of the armour belt when I realised that it was approximately 1cm too long- it took me 1.5hours to remove it!
-
Geoff,
Have you considered using waterproof double sided tape? Bryan Young on here used it extensively and successfully on his working models. It comes in all sizes and in different thickness levels to accommodate differeing levels of substrate. After all, its what they use to stick bits on cars. I don't think there is any likelihood of it coming off, especially when overpainted as well.
Just Google waterproof double sided tape and all sorts of options come up.
When fixing you can apply it to each plate individually, cut round it with a scalpel and thn carefully peel off the backing - you do need to get it positioned correctly though as once it is on and pressed down it will be the devil to remove - but then that also applies to cyano which is a lot messier to use. Essentially you are creating self adhesive plates, probably a much nicer way of doing the job.
Colin
-
Cyano- messier and plays havoc with your nose after a while :((
-
After much thought I have gone with superglue (Gorrilla with the brush applicator) which seems to work well and fix the plates firmly. I have only had to remove two so far due to poor positioning.
I have used a different method than before as I used black electricians tape to show the curve of the top streak (bottom edge) as the plates are deeper towards the bow. Then it was a question of cutting the plates to length and marking on the porthole position. I made a small jig to make sure each porthole is the same height from the bottom edge of each plate. By using plates which are a little too deep the plate is glued on using the top edge of the electricians tape thus maintaining the curve. Once try the height is trimmed down to deck edge level.
The second strake uses the same width plates and I used a spacer between the top strake and the lower strake to keep the curve parallel. It seems to have worked okay.
As least with superglue it won't fume in the heat so I should not have any plate distortion.
Just dome down to the waterline and the armour belt so a lot of plating to go!
Cheers
Geoff
-
By way of an update the plating has proceeded okay and at last I'm further forwards than when I had to strip it all off! I'm round the bilge line and am starting the bottom plating with some bits at the stern to finalise.
If I can get it in the car I may bring it to Wickstead possibly on Sunday. I plan to bring Iron Duke on Saturday.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Some progress at long last. The plating has been finished and the first coat of red anti-fouling has been added. I used Humbrol mat red 73 (wine) as I find this gives a good dark red which is not too bright.
Enjoy
Cheers
Geoff
-
I meant to add if anybody ever sees the fifth picture down when I'm sailing I'm in big trouble!!!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Really neat plating Geoff. Your expertise shows in that you did not accept earlier attempts that did not come up to your usual standard. The picture you really want to avoid is just the bow and stern above water.
I am impressed, as always :-))
-
I like the attention to plating detail around the coaling doors (?) It makes sense to reinforce the openings that way and should have caused less spray.
-
Thank you, to clarify the square doors are for ventilation purposes when the ships were in harbour or safe waters. Ventilation for all Dreadnoughts was a major issue as otherwise illness spread rapidly amongst the crew which in turn effected efficiency.
There are multiple coaling scuttles on the decks (circular hatches) that will have to be added. Some of these were steel tubes which led directly to bunkers and others had a canvas tube attached to direct the coal below decks.
It was an absolutely filthy job which involved virtually the whole ship. Maximum stowage was in the region of 2,000 tons! Coal dust everywhere.
If you look at pictures of ships coaling you will see canvass covers over turrets and sensitive instruments. Afterwards the whole ship had to be washed down.
We need to consider that coal dust is explosive and a 12" gun firing would shock the dust into the air and if the concentration was right it could explode albeit I have never heard of any accidents in all my readings.
One of the reasons ships converted to coal and oil and then oil only was that oil gave greater range and speed could be maintained for longer as the stokers otherwise exhausted themselves. The ability to maintain high speed for long periods of time was a significant tactical advantage.
On the other hand a tactical reason for not converting to oil was England had plenty of coal but no direct access to oil so until a reliable oil supply could be guaranteed only a few capital ships used oil only (Queen Elizabeth class) albeit the Royal Sovereign class were converted to oil on the stocks as the benefits so outweighed the drawbacks.
However coal was also part of the protective scheme as a full coal bunker was the equivalent of 1" extra steel.
It was an interesting time in ship development.
Cheers
Geoff
-
So interesting, it has enthralled me for decades. I just hope I can build a few of the ships as models before I depart.
-
Some progress at last - mostly painting and stand building but it all starts to make a difference.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Whilst mentioned in the other Invincible thread, I think I'll do the same here.
I have made 28 torpedo net booms and am looking at fitting them shortly. The rigging plans show multiple bottle screws for adjusting the rigging. I have found what seems to be a good source from a fishing shop "Diamond Eye Match Swivels". These are a size 14 and are just like miniature bottle-screws. They have a loop at each end and a short tube in the middle. At 1/96 scale they work out at 2 feet long (so 1/4") which may be a little large but they really are very small. Cost is £2 for 20 at size 14.
Update, in searching for others I found they go down to a size 22 (Higher the number the smaller) however another manufactures size 20 proved bigger than size 14. The shop I was in explained there are different measurements depending where you are in the world and the Diamond Eye ones were shown as a size 22 last year but are now packaged as size 14!
Either way I have now acquired six packets so total cost £12 for 120 which I think is a fair deal.
Next step is to consider making shackles to the same scale. I'll see how I get on.
Over the weekend I plated the superstructure in plastic card and temporarily mounted the torpedo net booms. They make a huge difference to the appearance of the model and look quite neat.
I need to figure out where all the boom rigging goes - there is quite a lot of it but if done well should look good. I have also found a good source of wire thread - jewellery wire/bead wire. Its very thin and has 7 strands and is a stainless steel colour but would imagine its rust proof as otherwise the sweat/acids from skin would cause all sorts of problems.
I'll try to post some more pictures shortly.
Cheers
Geoff
-
I was wondering how you and Nick were getting on with the builds. I appreciate Nick is overseas but he pops up the odd sitrep on Steve's projects.
-
Don’t worry, my build restarts this Thursday morning after I land in the UK on Wednesday afternoon.
See how far both Invincibles get before next year’s mayhem weekend.
-
It will be fab to have you back even though you keep in touch via the wonders of modern string and cups.
-
I have been working on the net defense and have fitted the parts over the weekend. The rain helped as there was nothing else to do!
I still have an additional line to run parallel at the top to link the ends of each boom together so they could all be pulled out together (on the real ship) this means mi nature bottle screws and cable connectors.
I have now done this and overall with 28 booms I calculate there was somewhere between 400/450 parts including cable joints!
It took quite a long time!
Cheers
Geoff
-
And no doubt dozens of tiny brailling davits too :D
-
In due course, yes! I can hardly wait!
I'll need to start looking at the deck planking soon - must get an order in.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Just ordered some planking material too over the weekend. 0.6x3.0x1000mm lime wood planks which match my Dreadnought to try to recreate that worn teak deck. At least there are not too many annoying cut-ins to do unlike the Dreadnought which has that really annoying curved superstructure!
Are you going to create individual planks or just go for full length strips? I’m in two minds as there is so much empty deck area.
-
Lovely job Geoff. It looks very to scale given you need to make some allowance for materials etc.
Nick. Can you lay whole strips and then score in the divides between scale plank lengths?
-
Can do, I like to use a graphite pencil to create the caulking effect by rubbing the pencil down the sides, perhaps sharping the pencil each time to put in to the cut/score line might work. I’ll do some experiments this weekend to find out if that’ll work.
I like the torpedo net booms too but I’ve got to stick to the Falklands fit other wise there might be problems with identifying them on the water when they eventually sail together!
Lovely work Geoff :-))
-
On ID I used long planks as I was not confident that I could avoid snaking which would really show up. I plan to do the same for Invincible. For the caulking I used black electricians tape. You put 4 or 5 planks on edge and stick the tape to them. Turn them over as a block and use a very sharp knife between each plank and you get a single strip of black plastic on one side of each plank. I have a circular cutter like a pizza wheel so it doesn't drag. I used a very sharp pencil to mark the planks into lengths after finishing the deck.
On pictures of ships it is very hard to pick out the plank cuts but the length always shows up.
Nick, identification on the water will be a problem anyway. I was sailing Canopus with Renown (both Victorian colours) and got totally confused which was which even though Canopus has funnels fore and aft and Renown both side by side!!
Only another 3 years to go!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Thank you for your excellent tips Geoff. I may try your tape method on Agincourt, having previously used black marker pen on the plank edges. Love how you are doing the fittings and deployment rigging on the torpedo nets.
-
That’s what I was worried about too especially on the area around P and Q turrets being very noticeable if it isn’t straight. My Dreadnought was done in the same way but I didn’t put the plank cuts on- something I may rectify later in the year.
At least when they sail together you’ve got the extended funnel top on the fore funnel to help identify them but I know what you mean- I have a V/W class destroyer and my mate has one too- the only difference is the flag position and the pennant number! Very confusing!
-
Some progress pictures as of yesterday. With the secondary armament the 4" embrasures show the sight holes each side of the barrels.
Courtecine (brown) is sued for the decks. These still have to be market out in gold 1mm pinstripes. Real Courtecine was fixed with a glue and brass edging strips round the structures. It all adds to the detail.
Also the finished torpedo net booms and rigging and a couple of davits on the hull for use in port.
Cheers
Geoff
-
A few more shots
Cheers
Geoff
-
Awesome! :-)) And really sad, in a way.
I see that the clearance at the back of P turret is marginal: could a sailor squeeze through the gap?
Andy
-
It's good to see good progress being made Geoff. I assume polishing the brass strips was another activity for the crew to do regularly?
-
In most photographs P turret is facing the other way as is Q. This puzzled me until I realised most pictures are taken during peacetime. In war time or when expecting to engage the enemy I suspect the direction of the turrets were reversed as otherwise for P turret to engage on the starboard side it has to turn 270 degrees whereas if faced the other way it only has to turn 90 degrees.
So, yes, the gap is narrow and the crew could pass through the gap but in peacetime with the turrets facing the opposite direction there is plenty of space as the turret overhang at the rear is the opposite side. This give day to day advantages for crew movement but in action the crew wouldn't be running round on deck anyway.
Also for modelling purposes if I want to fire a four gun broadside I need to link the turrets in pairs, so A & Q facing forwards and P and Y facing aft so I only need to turn each of them 90 degrees each way.
In practice its a little complicated as I need to turn A & Q to port then Q and Y to port as there isn't clearance between the rear of the turrets and the adjacent guns. I suspect in real life they would elevate the guns to give clearance.
The ships were originally designed for 6 guns to fire forwards, 6 on the beam and 6 aft to give all round shooting. In practice neither P or Q could fire within 5 degrees of the centreline due to blast issues so forward aft was really limited to four guns.
There was limited room for P & Q to fire on each side but only if the adjacent turret was out of action. In practice (Falklands) they did give 4-8 gun broadsides but the blast effects were very unpleasant.
Typically ships of the period only fired 50% of their guns at any one time to reduce the firing cycle. A 12" gun can fire 2 rounds a minute but if each turret only fires one round at a time this drops to a salvo every 15 seconds, so a higher rate of fire overall.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Beautiful work Geoff, as always.
I have often been bemused about design compromises in naval architecture around that time. Despite being significantly longer than equivalent battleships the turret layouts of battlecruisers appear to be compromises that do not allow maximisation of all-round fire power. Effectively a six gun broadside (without blast damage), and with both fore and aft ranging limitations. Superfiring turrets would come later, the open rangefinders in turret roofs limited that at the time. However, in the Falklands the principles were very effective.
P & Q turret layouts do make your control system look potentially copmplicated.
I continue to watch your build with great interest :-))
-
Yes, I agree, a lot of quite fascinating compromises around this period. Dreadnought and some subsequent classes (including initially the Lion class BCs) had the foremast mounted behind the fore funnel which could make the spotting top uninhabitable and made director firing very difficult. Apparently the reason for this was that when Jellicoe was on the Board of Admiralty and in charge of ship design he decreed that this should be so as it facilitated mounting a derrick at the rear of the mast to handle the boats. Not one of his better decisions.
When the Lion class were designed Q turret was mounted amidships between boiler rooms which greatly limited its firing arcs. This was remedied in Tiger which had Q turret between the boiler and engine rooms with much improved firing arcs. There were suggestions that Tiger's design owed something to the Japanese Kongo class, designed and built by Vickers but this has not been confirmed. Tiger was a clearly superior ship to the Lions and one does wonder why the earlier design retained the amidships turret when there was a better option.
In addition to Geoff's points re salvo firing above, broadsides tended to be avoided if possible as they put a lot of strain on the ship's structure although this didn't prevent Agincourt enthusiastically firing off full broadsides at Jutland!
Colin
-
She’s coming along nicely :-))
I’m currently at Coningsby rescuing a jet so I’m behind on my Invincible but at least I can see your progress. I must admit that I need to get a move on to take my Invincible to Warwick again, it feels like I’ve achieved very little this year!
-
From my readings all the Battleships and Battlecruisers were quite capable of firing full broadsides if required but sustained firing put a strain on their hydraulic systems.
In British capital ships the turrets were turned and the guns recoil and return/elevating systems were all hydraulic and with higher elevations the systems were often at maximum capacity. By splitting the broadside a higher rate of fire could be achieved and this increased the hydraulic reserve capacity.
With hydraulic systems there was much duplication (for action damage) but essentially there was a pressurised ring main of fluid. As power was taken off the pressure dropped and steam powered (piston) engines automatically increased the flow from the hydraulic pumps so the system was kept in balance. Sustained firing by all guns could lead to some starvation which slowed things down.
Whilst half salvo's increased the rate of fire to as little as every 15 seconds we need to consider that at long range it can take 30 seconds from firing to fall of shot so unless you know you are on target you still have to wait up to 30 seconds for the splashes to show you if correction was needed. Once on target "rapid fire" would be introduced to smother the target. Observation would then show if you were off range or bearing when half salvo's would be introduced to find the target again.
Nick, if you are bringing your Invincible to Warwick, I'll bring mine as well so we can compare notes!
Cheers
Geoff
-
I meant to add that the ammunition supply and transfer were also hydraulic so further demands on the system
G
-
Hi Geoff
Yes, my Invincible will be at Warwick with other WW1 era vessels on the Wicksteed Park stand. I can't wait to see yours, seeing your recent pictures has given me the same idea regarding the tripod masts- hope you don't mind me borrowing your idea. I've rebuilt my conning tower and associated deck as I wasn't 100% happy with my first attempt- good thing it wasn't glued on! See you soon. :-))
-
Hi Geoff
Great to meet up again at Warwick and compare Invincible’s. I was having another look through some my books tonight and found another picture which you may not have seen before as I haven’t- I’ve had the book for years and not seen the picture until now! It’s in the updated version of RA Burt’s British Battleships of World War One showing the refit at Gibraltar in Jan 1915. It appears that there is a tiny gap between the armoured conning tower and the upper casement 4” gun- as we suspected it’s too small for a man to get around. Anyway hope this is of help.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/h4jCHq/606-F52-D9-D926-4-D4-A-844-B-B56-EBFC47-E6-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/h4jCHq)
-
Nick,
Yes, great to catch up and discuss the compexities between pictures and plans. I do like your deck planking, its comming along very well.
Yes, I was aware of the picture and I think that is probably why I left a gap between the 4" gun and conning tower, but again like you had forgotten the picture. Typically structures were not rivited to armour as in drilling the rivet holes it creates significant weaknesses so that may explain the gap.
The Battlecrusier book I mentioned is called:
German Battlecrusiers of World War One - Gary Staff and is £29.25 on Amazon. It has some remarkable pictures and plans of action damage. A very interesting book and one of my favourites. I would definatley recommend this.
Happy modelling!
Cheers
Geoff
-
I wasn't aware of that book Geoff - Lookig at the reviews I'm really tempted.
Colin
-
Its been a while for an update. I finally got the ship yard workers back to work after Christmas and the New Year! Okay some progress I have built the latice framework support structure for the boats aft of the mainmast and between the forward two funnels. I used 4mm brass "I" beams soft soldered together for the main structure and then platicard "I" beams for the fill in pieces. These fit quite neatly inside the "I" with some adjustment - these were superglued in. Both structures are painted but the aft one looks very strange from above as its quite large, but the dimensions are correct.
Also I decised to cut down the forward funnel and re-build the funnel top. I now have three equal height funnels and it looks much better. I decided that with the anti-torpedo nets and tall topmasts I wanted to build it would have been inconsistent to have a tall forward funnel (which was increased in 1915) also there being little evidence the anti-torpedo nets were refited after her return from the Falklands. Photo's also show her with short topmasts at this time.
I'll try to get some pictures posted.
Next step is to order the planking for the deck.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Good news Geoff :-)) Can't wait to some pictures O0
-
Definitly as I have these frames to do on the Armoured cruiser some time in the future.
-
So you’ve succumbed to building a younger Invincible!
I agree that the funnels being the same height do give it a better appearance than her two sisters.
Mine as been laid up since Warwick whilst I finished off the ASRL and some renovations on other models for the upcoming sailing season. Next job is finishing the quarter deck planking.
Looking forward to seeing the pictures.
-
It's been on the books for a few years as I got a set of drawings as a part Chrissy present in 2013.
-
Finally some progress pictures taken this weekend. The major change has been the decking - planked in 3mm x 1.5mm lime. I decided to joggle the planks as well. The basic method was to lay a single centerline plank and all the margin planks. Note that margin planks need to wider on the deck edge and superstructure and barbette areas to allow for the actuall joggling process as quite a bit is cut away during the process.
Joggling is only done where the "snape" is twice the width of the plank - if its less then you don't hjoggle hence some parts of the superstructure arn't joggled and others are - it depends on the angle.
For the barbettes I used a disc of limewood split in two with an extra 3mm plank on the centerline. This gives me wider margin planks each side but normal depth fore and aft.
The caulking is black electricians tape. A number of planks are laid edge on (using a jig) then the tape pressed on. Turned over and each plank cut away so you end up with a 1.5mm black stipe down one side. The ends were simulated with a graphite pencil. I have yet to put in the butt ends so still some work to do.
Cheers
Geoff
-
I meant to add the gold lies represent brass edging strips whuich were used to hold the courtecine down (Think lino). This was used as a non slip surface where crew stood to protect their feet from cold steel. It was glued down in large sheets and held at the edges by"L" shaped brass strip riveted to the deck which was then hammered down. It all adds to the detail.
Geoff
-
As an add on Invincibles rangefinder appears to be fixed in the foretop - maybe that's why they lengthened the foretop. In the aft position it was on semi circular tracks so it could be moved around the maintop and locked in position. The rangefinder could then rotate as needed. This arranagement was quite common on lots of early dreadnoughts so I'll need to build this into the model as well.
I'm a bit puzzled as what to do next!
Geoff
-
Maybe starting on the horrid boats might be worth considering! Love the details and planking Geoff.
-
Awesome detailing Geoff. As you know I am a big fan of detail :-))
-
No real progress to report. I have been building the forward breakwater and a good number of mushroom ventialtors to fit on the edge of the ship. I may have a go at detailing the funnels this weekend - caps and rigging etc - one problem is how do I make 30 1/16" pulleys or smaller if I can because 1/16" equals 6 inches at this scale. They are needed for the funnels or do I simulate them with very small beads?
I have also tried to make the anti torpedo nets with a fine grey net from a haberdashery shop. Its perfect but a bot stretchy so its hard to keep a nice tight curve. I wrap is spirally round a thin metal rod and then tie each end and spiral wrap with thread in the opposite direction then slide out the rod - sounds easy but you really need four hands!
Okay a question - satin or matt varnish for the decks?
Cheers
Geoff
-
I have been experimenting making small blocks with coiled brass rod and glue. The benefit of this is that you can incorporate hooks and eyes into the piece making it stronger.
Just loop the rod around round nose pliers leaving a few centimetres either side to make the eyes, hooks or even lengths of rod to represent lengths of cable perhaps with another loop on the end followed by a hook for lifeboats. Then dab glue in the hole, paint or detail if you are going that step further and there you have it.
-
I purchased some excellent stanchions from Cornwall Model Boats RB 074113 they are 11mm high turned brass three ball stanchions. They are superbly crafted with three holes and because they are machined they are not flat like some photo etched fiittings but round. They are perfect for 1/96 scale and do not look at all heavy and in fact are as fine as photo etched. I purchased 200 and may need a few more!
I have spray painted them and intend to use "Beadalon" jewellery wire - this is 7 strand but only 0.3 mm in diameter so readily fits and looks exactly like wire rope, because it is wire rope! (There are various sizes and thicknesses on Amazon and its not too expensive).Its also coated to stop any tarnishing so should be ideal on a model so no rusting.
My original plan was to fix the stanchions and then thread them but I don't think I can get all the holes in alignment so will just thread them off the ship and install them in sections moving the wire along as needed as this will keep them all in the same plane.
Next step is to varnish the deck - I'm going to go for matt 50/50 thinned for a couple of coats and see how it all comes out.
Cheers
Geoff
-
I do admire a perfectionist Geoff. For a ship of that size most of us would have opted for etched stanchions and brass wire. Going for turned three hole stanchions at 38 pence each puts a major dent in the budget, but with the wire rope will give the ultimate appearance. I doff my cap to you Sir :-))
-
Cost all depends on where you make other savings. My two main engines are from a Talbot Horizon dash blower motor. Cost £5 each (alright it was a long time ago but they were cheap even then) so this gives me funds to spend on other areas.
Before I matt varnished the deck I put in all the butt joints using a 3mm wide chisel pressing down to part cut each plank. I have gone for a three butt deck (means the plank ends don't align for a 4 clear plank widths. It was very hard to concentrate and not screw it up. I used a three inch plank marked into 4 parts as a guide. It actually took about 4 hours to mark all the planks.
The first coat of matt varnish thinned 50% with white spirit and disaster as it seemed as all the butts really showed up far more than intended. However as the varnish dried/evaporated it was clear it was an excess of varnish in the butts which gave the effect. Once dry the subtle effect returned much to my relief. The varnish also brought up the grain which was anticipated and my sooper smooth deck became rough! Light sanding followed by another coat of slightly thicker mix, followed by light sanding and another coat (total three so far). I probably have one more thin coat to do followed by light sanding and a clean.
I have also been building the starfish for the masts and putting the rigging on the funnels. Building 1.5mm blockes eluded me so in the end I used minature eyelets and just threaded the wire rope through. (using Beadalon - 7 strand wire rope for jewellery work).
I'll try to post some pictures but I'm not sure how well it will show.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Do you glue or solder the beadalon wire Geoff? I was not sure if the coating was tinning or a polymer. I bought some half hard brass wire for the Monitor and Ready, and it is too springy. I have been considering other materials and the Beadalon sounds intriguing.
-
Its a polymer coating so you can't solder it but its so thin you can't really see it. After tensioning the lines I use a small drop of superglue which is drawn in by capillary action at each end so virtually the whole length is free to allow for differential expansion.
Be sure to get the multi strand jewellery thread as the jewellery wire is solid. The thread can be got in different thicknesses and the most flexible is 14 strands but in practice I find the 7 strands perfectly adequate. Its very flexible but you can bend it or kink it but you can also straighten it. You can get it in "bright" or "satin" finish - either are good and not too shiny. There are other manufacturers makes as well and the price does vary a lot on Amazon.
For joints at the ends I use "crimps" from a fishing shop as they are very small diameter copper tube and if cut in half you make them even smaller. As an alternative rather than crimp I just slide them on with a spot of superglue which works well.
Its a nice source of different thicknesses of thin wire rope!
perfect for our models
Cheers
Geoff
-
Thanks Geoff. That is going on my shopping list in the near future.
-
Making progress and I'll post some picture updates. In the meantime I have been making coal winches and boat winches per the attached.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Lovely work Geoff. Are they a mix of brass and plastic or just well painted plastic?
-
They are a mixture of brass and plastic. Brass being the central barrel with the turned ends and the rest in plastic card. The larger ones used a small brass wood screw for the pinion and plastic gears which came from the spares box. The bras was satin varnished to add some visual interest to the model.
Some of the future fittings will be in brass and paint to the same style.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Finally some progress albeit at this stage she is a large spounge and just absorbes all the detail I can make without seeming to change too much.
I have a question - should I look to put white funnel bands on - one on each funnel. These were painted out in 1914 so I would be correct either way. I've left it a bit late and it will be awkward to do but any opinions please?
Hope the pictures are of interest.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff ... she's looking lovely! The boats on her will add that extra pizzazz!
Funnel bands? I wouldn't bother. She's gorgeous without 'em!
Andy
-
Mmm it’s a bit a dilemma as I know you like to get it right- it’s an awful about of masking if you wanted to paint them. The only alternative I can think of is to use some vinyl tape like the trim tape you used for the brass strips on the superstructure decks.
However she’s looking the part - I need to start to catch up! :-))
-
What I find frustrating at this stage is that I have spent a lot of time and effort in making bits and then it just doesn't look too different. In fact it all looks a bit sparce in the pictures! Yes vinyl strip is what I was considering for the funnel bands. Maybe I'll try the middle funnel first to see how it goes as I can always peel it off.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Geoff, I think you might find problems in getting the vinyl to conform to the vertical ribs/pipes on the funnels. It won't want to stick snugly in the corners and you will curse it!
I don't think it really matters to the appearance whether the stripes are there or not myself, both appearances look good.
I'm not altogether surprised that you think the model looks a bit sparse. The design was quite stark compared with the fussier pamphernalia scattered around earlier ships. What will make a big difference is when you fit the ships boats as they will introduce more colour and texture to the model and bring it to life.
Colin
-
How wide are the white funnel bands? There's lining strips the model railways guys use -waterslide decals which work well if procedure is followed properly. You can also buy a sheet of DIY waterslide decal printer paper and just slice into strips /shapes. Again just follow the instructions but don't do the inkjet printer bit. Not sure if that helps. Details so far look good to me anyway!
-
The usual issue is that you have got it looking good and then you decide to 'improve' it and give yourself a world of grief.
Colin
-
I would leave it until her first refit, and then get the tape and paint out. Enjoy sailing and using her turrets for the time being.
-
Okay, not much progress but I did go for the white funnel bands, They are 5mm self adhesive vinyl tape for model trim and it wasn't too bad. I did a test piece to see if was even possible to get the tape under the guys and it worked okay. Took me about an hour and a half to do all three funnels and I'm pleased by the result.
At the moment I'm working on the removable bridge wings which have to be supported by poles and struts and rigging so is quite complicated to set up. The more I look at it the more bits I have to make. I spend an hour or so drilling four small holes in the forward tripod mast for the supports and inserting small eyelets.
As before its just a large sponge absorbing detail without any apparent progress!
I'll post some pictures soon.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Good oh! Yes, detail just seems endless until it just seems done and then you think, where did all that work and time go to get here!
Good luck with the wings.
-
Whilst time has gone by I still don't really have anything to show for it as she just absorbs time and detail at this stage. One bit of modelers license is the main mast. It has a large boat boom fitted which is fine but I cannot find out where the rope lines finish up. On Invincible there is a raised boat deck grating where the steam launches fit. Below this is where some of the 4" guns reside including two large boat winches. These are set at an angle but I cannot see how the rope gets from them to the boat boom.
So, If the wire rope comes down from near the top of the tripod (which it does) where does it go - so I have fitted two vertical pulleys to the funnel end of the boat deck grating near the centerline and outboard two horizontal pulleys at the same level which in turn lead to two rollers which in turn lead to each of the winches, so the wire rope, comes down does a right angle outwards then another right angle stern-wards (at an angle) to a roller fixed beneath the boat deck grating and then downwards at an angle to the winch itself. This all seems logical but I can't verify the accuracy from either the original drawings or any pictures I have.
By keeping the wire rope above the crews heads it means they won't trip over it so there seems to be some logic.
Before I make all this permanent does anybody have any other suggestions?
Cheers
Geoff
-
Geoff,
If you haven't already done so, check out Norman Ough's drawings and models. There is a drawing Ref: O/D/6 titled 'Main Derrick, Capital Ships'. The accompanying text from Roach's book refers to how it was rigged and operated. The technique didn't change much from Victorian times up until the KGV class of the 1930s according to Ough's text.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WYUTDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=norman+ough+main+derrick&source=bl&ots=BkjB2AfKjr&sig=ACfU3U1AKMYD-_QwiO0DPWsMmAJDwbtw7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZxKPGlr_lAhXjThUIHQy8BrEQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=norman%20ough%20main%20derrick&f=false
This model of Queen Elizabeth, currently in No 1 Smithery at Chatham, was built by Ough and appears to show how the main derrick was rigged.
https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/67373.html
Colin
-
Hi Geoff
Found the image which may help- it’s what Colin has recommended from my copy of The Life and Ship Models of Norman Ough page 87.
-
Thank you for the image - very interesting, but unfortunately whilst very clear as to the rigging it doesn't shed a lot of light on where it goes at deck level, how its tied off and to what points - i.e. the moving rigging and not the standing rigging.
As before I may need to use some modelling license but thank you for posting the image!
Cheers
Geoff
-
What about figure 8 ? oops sorry thats the standing rigging, the moving rigging looks like it connects to a box or winch at the base of the mast.
-
Okay, some further progress but also one large step backwards!
I have been building the three steam pinnaces for Invincible and used the plans from "The Anatomy of the Ship - Dreadnought" as the boats are drawn to 1/96 scale.
All was okay until I went to fix the outer pinnaces on the aft flying deck. Once fitted there wasn't room for the inner two boats. Much checking of measurements ensured and on checking the pinnaces shown on the Sambrook plans and the "Original Plans" (Battlecrusiers by Roberts) showed they are actually much slimmer than those shown in Dreadnought!
Further checking shows that the Dreadnought ones are 11 feet wide and the Invincible ones are 9 feet wide. All this adds up to 1/2 inch less width between the outer boats.
There is a surviving 50 foot steam pinnace at Portsmouth and the web gives dimensions as 50 feet long buy 9 feet wide. Interestingly the specific pinnace was actually mounted on Inflexible (Invincible's sister) for a period of time so I think that confirms the authenticity and measurements.
I can only conclude the Dreadnought plans are either inaccurate or perhaps were distorted during printing giving a wider beam.
Basically the three steam pinnaces are now junk and have to be completely re-made. Measure three times and check all available sources before cutting!!! >:-o
-
On the positive side, you've gained more invaluable experience in the building of the 'scrap' pinnaces and this should make the replacements more of a pleasure to build :-))
Regards,
Ray.
-
Okay some pictures if I can figure out how to re-size them - different software!
Geoff
-
It works, so more pictures. I must admit making and fixing the aft boats and boat deck has taken absolutely ages.
Note the brass pulleys on the mainmast and that one of the steam launches has its doors open!
Geoff
-
Two more. This time the bow area and the guns on the midships turrets - I have two more guns to add.
Geoff
-
Fantastic work Geoff
I’m slowly catching up with you now I’m dedicating Sunday mornings to progress my version.
Glad you’ve sorted out your ships boats on the aft superstructure, I’ve just finished my forward superstructure boats and got the aft ones to look forward to!
Good to see your work again :-))
-
If you need to make oars, as there is a surprising number of them needed (circa 60) may I suggest you use plastic rod (0.88mm) and squeeze 13rd in a smooth jaw vice. It only takes a few seconds to make an oar. It takes longer to paint them!
The vice crushes and spreads the plastic to about twice its width and it stays flat - perfect for an oar.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff
Fantatsic advice, I will get some plastic rod this week and give it a go. Better than carving or making from two parts!
-
You can do the same thing with soft brass wire too. I've not tried the plastic though. I used a hammer rather than a vice.
Colin
-
Hi Colin
That’s interesting to know too, I’ll give both a go and see what I can produce. It’s little fittings like this that make a model and making them less of a chore is always best I think.
-
Nick,
With the brass wire I cut off an oversize length, bash one end with a hammer on a flat metal surface and then trim both ends to size. Very quick when you get the hang of it.
Colin
-
Thanks Colin
Got some thing to try out at work this week- we’ve actually got an anvil at work (which surprises me working on aircraft!). I’ll have a play at work- might get a few funny looks from my mates at work though!
-
I've even wondered if it would work with wood if previously soaked particularly with the right wood. Maybe worth a try as lots of smooth wooden oars would look quite nice.
Completed and fitted the forward boats over the weekend. Whilst built I just have to fit two more boats on the high gantry's on the aft superstructure then that task will be competed and I can't say I'm sorry! 15 boats plus one balsa raft. It all took ages and probably the hardest were the two small dinghies as they are only 5cm long and just very hard to hold.
Next main step is probably to make the 40 coal holes. Ideally I would need miniature raised squares just like manhole covers but I can't find a source so I plan to make some soft copper wire circles and crush then in a vice to make a flat disc frame and then use fine net curtain # pattern and cut out discs and insert inside the circular frame. It should all probably look quite convincing and much better than just circles of plastic card.
In real life these would have been flush with the deck but I'm not confident I can recess the deck accurately enough without splintering so mine will be slightly proud.
A almost started making a list of outstanding items over the weekend but then realized its just too early to even think of such a thing!
Cheers
Geoff
-
One of the tasks before me is to make the manhole coverage for the coal ports. These work out about 7mm in diameter so are quite small. Unfortunately my camera won't focus to show the detail but I have made about 40 of these using the following method:
1) Make copper wire circles about 6mm in diameter by winding thin copper wire round a mandrel
2) Cut them off and soft solder the joints.
3) Crush them in a large smooth jaw vice and they flatten and create very thin perfectly circular washers of 7mm outside diameter then paint in dark grey
4) Purchase some fine net curtain # pattern and paint in dark grey.
5) Make a cutting die and cut out 5.9mm discs - its actually quite easy if you rock and roll the die from side to side in a rotating fashion as this will give you a clean cut.
6) Glue the copper washers onto the deck and paint inside with dark grey and immediately place the # disc inside and stipple with a paint brush.
The effect is quite good as you get a very thin and crisp circular frame with an anti slip tread inside which is just about right. Despite the number of steps its not that time consuming or awkward to produce and gives a far better representation than just a flat disc of plastic card.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff
Definitely going to give this a go, after I’ve built my steam pinnaces- ouch this is a real job, I had hoped to use the vacform hulls from Deans Marine for the Dreadnought kit but as you say the Dreadnought drawings don’t match the Invincible versions. Oh well, got nothing else better to do at the moment!
-
Bloomin boats :(( Still, they are an evil necessity, though I read somewhere (I think) that wartime damage and action reduced the number of boats available and so ships went out with fewer than designed to carry. Small mercy perhaps!
-
Yes, it is notable just how much importance was attached to carrying lots of boats. Many of the early dreadnoughts were designed with the foretop right above the fore funnel which smoked it out just so that the boat handling boom could be conveniently sited at the back of the mast.This policy was apparently down to John Jellicoe who was responsible for construction at the time.
Colin
-
Oh the balancing act between utility and weight.
-
Okay, I can broadly confirm Invincible is now finished, at least externally. I'm now working on installing the turret turning mechanism and the radio control.
Pictures as attached - there are probably still some small bits I'll think of later but essentially its finished. What took a lot of time was the ship ariels. Early Battlecruisers were expected to go hunting enemy armored cruisers hundreds of miles away and in 1910 high topmasts and long ariels were the way to achieve the range. Making these was very fiddly and time consuming. I used nylon single filament thread which is almost invisible and has a little bit of stretch so does not pull the topmasts in. The starfish spreaders are photo-etched JRH stanchions cit down and soldered in the middle.
Hope the pictures come through okay.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Awesome! I love it! :-))
Andy
-
Absolutely brilliant Geoff, mines coming along nicely now- I’ve worked out another way of distinguishing the two on the water together- mine will be missing the foretops on the masts as apparently at the Falklands these were removed and the range finder baffle fitted. It’ll be different and we will be able to tell them apart.
-
Oh she does look beautiful Geoff. The addition of a few crew demonstrates how big these capital ships were. My little house would sit comfortably on that turret!
I spent a few seconds trying to work out how the aerial arrays above the funnels were attached to the rest until I spied the sailing ship in the background partly obscured! The masts were trying to sneak in to your new ship's glory.
I can't wait to see her on a lake in Kettering next year.
-
Thank you for your kind comments. Nick, we will still have trouble telling them apart as the topmasts will disappear when sailing - maybe the funnel bands will help. A few years ago I sailed Canopus with Renown. Both Victorian battleships black hulls white upper-works and buff funnels and masts and we got confused despite Canopus having two fore and aft funnels and Renown with two side by side.
The solution was to play follow my leader and there were a lot of favorable comments but it as still easy to get mixed up.
Its easy to become fixated and you assume there is a radio problem when "your" model turns to port and you are turning the controls to starboard!
If you recall a few years ago at mayhem we sailed about 9 Victorian battleships and we tried formation sailing and it was shambolic but great fun.
Confusion happened in real ships so the developed "follow my leader" doctrine.
The Grand Fleet cruising formation was 5 or 6 columns of 5 or 6 battleships sailing on parallel courses, like a box formation. If action was expected the columns would move further apart such that on command they could all turn to port at a fixed point or to starboard at a fixed point thus forming up in a long line. This was Jellico's brilliance at Jutland (EquaL Speed Charlie London - signal for the fleet to deploy to port) to cross the German T.
It would be nice if we could get a squadron of 1/96 WW1 Dreadnoughts on the lake at the same time but we would need to practice formation sailing!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Great images Geoff, that is an absolutely superb model, right up there with the best. I hope to see her on the water when the current difficulty is over.
Colin
-
To add to the above - what an outstanding model! So many fantastic details in those photos. The ships boats are superb. Fisher would have approved!
James
-
So many words as said before....magnificent :-)) Geoff
Derek
-
Thank you all for your very kind comments, I hope you won't be disappointed when you see her in the flesh as it were. I keep looking at her and thinking, oh, I could add this little bit too. I'm waiting delivery of two servo sized sail winches to winch the turrets round and a few other bits.
Cheers
Geoff
-
The artist has to stop at some point so he can paint his next piece.
-
Too true Ian, problem is that we are always looking to add something to the model!
I’ve already got a couple of planned projects for the future but first I’ll finish some of the models... I almost said that without smiling! ;)
-
Wow!!! :-)) :-)) :-))
-
I think I can now say Invincible is virtually finished as I can't think of anything to add to the deck detail. I had the first basin flotation test a day or so ago. The good news is she floats and doesn't leak. The bad news is that with all the batteries I need she is a little heavy with the water level at the top of the black boot topping but I think I can live with that as ships were often heavily loaded.
I have managed to work out the Turnigy 9XR transmitter and bind the second receiver okay. Its all still rather complicated but I found I could copy all of Iron Dukes functionality over onto another model slot so it gave me a base as the control operations will all be the same. Lots of tiny and frustrating adjustments later and I have all four turrets turning, throttle and rudder, Q and Y gun-fire pumps operating and adjusted. I just have to make the gunfire control unit which consists of four 10amp relays and associated wiring. The relays arrived this morning and hope they will be okay.
A & P turrets are connected using home made bowden cables (Net curtain stretchy wire with mono filament for the internal cable wire). Q & Y turrets uses the same deal with, in each case chocolate box wire connectors which allows you to adjust the outer sheath length and therefore the cable lengths. All enormously time consuming particularly with Y turret as I had to keep removing everything to get to the receiver but its all wired in now and all works.
I only have to:
1) Make up the relay junction box
2) connect up a servo and micro-switch to trigger the relays to power the thermistors in each turret
2) Connect up A & P turret gunfire pumps
And we are done!!
I'll post some pictures shortly
Cheers
Geoff
-
Wow! I only wish that I could hop the pond to see her in person.
-
Okay, some pictures with a bit of luck. Showing Invincible afloat for the first time in the test tank. It's just 6" melamine board screwed together with a couple of support plates flat in the middle and a large plastic sheet taped to keep it in place.
Some of the pictures are a little blurry - camera and camera owner! but show the internal bowden cables used to rotate the beam turrets. Also visible are the connectors - like safety pins as these need to be disconnected to remove the quarterdeck which is a real chore.
Note the chocolate box connectors which allow for fine adjustment of the cable lengths by loosening the screws and pulling the outer sheath which has the effect of lengthening the cable and therefore taking up slack.
Note the brass rings round the turrets and adjustment jacks just visible.
Cheers
Geoff
-
HI Ive just got to say what a fab model you have built :-))
chris
-
I was going to ask what the pulleys and cables are for on her bows, but I see they are for the Crinolines :embarrassed:
Beautiful work Geoff. Very inspiring to see such workmanship.
-
Thank you for all the kind comments. I'm in the process of making the gunfire relay block (one relay needed per firing gun so 4 in all). There is an ever growing amount of wiring inside so to try to keep it orderly I have used hangers beneath the decks. Just a 4mm block of obechi with a copper rung (like a large staple protruding) all super-glued together such the cables are passed through the various copper loops/rungs and held underneath the decks out of the way.
It seems to be working well as you can used different supports for radio wiring and motor wiring and gunfire wiring so at least there is a chance of finding any faults!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Okay, she really is finished now as I have installed all the wiring and test fitted all the batteries. Attached are pictures of the relay structure front and rear. The chocolate box connectors will take power to each turret. The other cabling is from the 12 v batteries to the relays.
Note the "tidy" work station! We all have these and typically work until the debris encroaches so much we can no longer work!
Its all cleared up now and Invincible sits on my dinning room table until I can work out where to store her - she may just end up on the table until Christmas
To be fair I still have some thi ngs to do:
1) Fit 8 spade terminals for the gunfire batteries
2) Figure out a power supply for the radio - weight is now a problem
3) Fully insulate the inside of the turrets and seal the end of the working barrels with high temp silicon to stop moisture bleeding back
4) Final critique and amend any imperfections she really is finished.
5) Steam trials and gunfire trials will have to wait a while.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Good for you Geoff! I bet there is the relief you have got this far and achieved much if not all you wanted to with the project.
-
After much thought and measurement and studying lots of pictures I think I need to move the boot topping up by 4mm as often there is quite a variation of loading. This will make the model look better on the water. I have done this okay but now the boot topping looks too deep so I need to paint over the lower 4mm in red. I bet I get a perfect match - not!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Given that the paint was hand mixed (as per interesting info found in a recent topic) I expect the batches would have varied, and alterations happened in real life as well as in miniature. Tell a story to anyone who gets sniffy about it Geoff and edumacate them :}
-
Good idea. the more I look at it the more uncertain I become - not sure if I have to make any changes. I'll try and get a picture posted and ask for a concensus!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Geoff.....you may well find alternate images with an apparent variation in visual draft or freeboard amidships, however based with the printed references to various load lines relative to bunkers, water, stores, ammunition and manning etc etc.....you just may choose to leave the boot topping where it is
Whilst I understand this certainly could be achieved, it would be a rather large and somewhat daunting task to alter this and still maintain the level of completeness [paint job below the deckline] as she now displays
Derek
-
I agree and after much reflection and sanding the boot topping is now 4mm deeper but I have decided not to try to narrow it from the bottom as its in an awkward line with the plating etc. I can always change it later if it grates too much!
All I want to do now is do a few test sails and I can't. I'm not sure if its allowed and my local pond is all weeded up so need to go further afield and I'm not sure if that park is open. Bah Humbug!!!
Cheers
Geoff
P.S. Just took delivery of the book on Cressey the original builders plans - very nice, now there's an idea!!!
-
Oooh, an armoured cruiser :-) I for one fully approve. You will get your built years before I even start mine!
-
Hi Geoff
I’ve just taken delivery of that particular book too. I can’t deny that they are stunning books and a very helpful source of information. I have managed to buy all of them so far and pre ordered the Cossack book coming out in July. I’m wondering what the next one will be.
-
I have to say one of my favorites is SMS Helgoland as its an unusual subject. HMM something for ID and Invincible to shoot at!!
I sailed Invincible for the first time last Sunday. Something of a very qualified success as whilst she looked good on the water despite charging the propulsion batteries (reading 6.4 odd volts) they lasted 90 seconds on the water. I didn't even get the chance to get up to full speed. Thereinafter a very slow crawl but if I let her drift a little it would pick up a tiny bit. Classic dead batteries. On checking at home they still read 6v but under load the voltage dropped immediately to 3v and 0.88v!
Gunnery trials were also problematical with the effect really quite poor and not up to ID standard at all. I hardly got off half a dozen poor salvo's before they all dropped out. On checking at home under load the master 12v battery which controls all the relays to power the thermistors showed 6v under load! So as the relays need 12v to work I suspect they were cycling. Voltage drop relays switches off, voltage recovers, relay switches on etc so pretty sure I never got the guns up to temperature.
I have a spare 12v battery but ordered four 6v batteries which arrived today. Annoyingly they were not the ones advertised. Normally no issues but the advertised ones come in at 1000g whereas these come in at 1250g so an extra 500g to manage. How much this will effect the ship I don't know so I'll give it a try this Sunday. I suspect I have no choice and the lighter ones are just not available anymore. Oh well if she is a little heavy no probs as the real ship could carry 2,000 tons of coal!!
Ironically the real Invincible's first gunnery trials were a disaster too. They were trying out electrical powered turrets and the reports said every time a switch was used there was a flash of blue flame and the fuses went - the most dangerous trials they ever witnessed!! They converted the turrets to hydraulics in 1913 and conceded electrical turrets were a failure.
I have some pictures but can't re-size them for some reason.
Cheers
Geoff
-
As regards armored cruisers you can get a Kent hull which is only a couple of inches too short - Nick has shown the way in extending his Deans Dreadnought into Invincible, so maybe something to think about!!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Just figured it out!
-
Wicked nice! Were those German geese? :embarrassed:
-
Would one of them be then called the geeseinau %) (gneisenau)
Geese jokes a plenty for fun, can we do ducks as well
Ducktland (deutchland)
-
Oh you punster you!
I am sorry to hear your batteries have been truculent Geoff and wish you a better trial run soon. I ordered a set of plans from the states for Helgoland last year. They came from Loyalhanna. I like the hexagonal turret layout for some reason!
Beautiful work Geoff :-))
-
On second sailing I'm pleased to report all went well. The extra weight really didn't make any difference. Speed was a good scale 26 knots. It actually seemed to get a little faster as the time went by, probably things easing up a little. On two 6v 7.2ah batteries in parallel I sailed for over two hours with no loss in performance so sailing time is easily adequate (particularly as I have two spare batteries as well).
Gunnery trials also proved successful with all four turrets firing. I probably did about 60 salvo's in all and scored numerous hits on small boys!! Much to the amusement of their parents! (It doesn't actually fire anything obviously).
So I think I can confirm Invincible has passed her commissioning trials. No pictures this time but they would look the same as the others.
Observations: The bow wave climbs quite high up the stem. In turning on full rudder I lose about 70% of speed which seems more than Iron Duke. Working the turrets to get a full four gun broadside is complex to avoid the two midships turrets fouling each other! She seems to roll in the turn a little more than Iron Duke. It may be the additional topside weight of the second tripod and taller masts which are in brass tube. Objectively the ariels catch the wind as well.
Overall I was quite pleased.
Ballastanksian - do you have the Kagero 3D book on Helgoland?
Cheers
Geoff
-
Hi Geoff
Great to see your Invincible finished and sailing, I wish I could say mine was but I think I’m still a few months behind. Work certainly hasn’t helped in between shifts!
I presume you mean the Kagero book SMS Posen and the NMM book The Battleship Helgoland, both stunning books and I look forward to seeing a nemesis for the Iron Duke to fire at!
I’ve decided on something smaller this time once Invincible is finished, I’ve got a hull of her nemesis at the Battle of The Falkland Islands- SMS Scharnhorst. Hopefully between us all we will have a Grand Fleet and a High Seas Fleet in a few years time!
-
On second sailing I'm pleased to report all went well. The extra weight really didn't make any difference. Speed was a good scale 26 knots. It actually seemed to get a little faster as the time went by, probably things easing up a little. On two 6v 7.2ah batteries in parallel I sailed for over two hours with no loss in performance so sailing time is easily adequate (particularly as I have two spare batteries as well).
Gunnery trials also proved successful with all four turrets firing. I probably did about 60 salvo's in all and scored numerous hits on small boys!! Much to the amusement of their parents! (It doesn't actually fire anything obviously).
So I think I can confirm Invincible has passed her commissioning trials. No pictures this time but they would look the same as the others.
Observations: The bow wave climbs quite high up the stem. In turning on full rudder I lose about 70% of speed which seems more than Iron Duke. Working the turrets to get a full four gun broadside is complex to avoid the two midships turrets fouling each other! She seems to roll in the turn a little more than Iron Duke. It may be the additional topside weight of the second tripod and taller masts which are in brass tube. Objectively the ariels catch the wind as well.
Overall I was quite pleased.
Ballastanksian - do you have the Kagero 3D book on Helgoland?
Cheers
Geoff
Hi Geoff, great news on your successful trials! Have loads of fun bombarding your local youth while you ponder your next project!
I hadn't begun to do deeper research as I wanted to get other projects further developed and then the Monitor bug kicked in. Really I do not want a workshop full of projects (any more than I currently have now!) to to encourage ennui.
-
After a number of sailings I made modifications to the main engines. The inner shafts are direct drive and the outer "O" ring. Whilst the speed was okay I felt I could be improved so removed the engine unit and reduced the outer pulleys by about 10% and re-installed. Whole thing was more complicated than I thought and took about 3.5 hours in all and very fiddly due to other equipment installed after the engines! Must do more planning!
Sailed her on Sunday and there was a noticeable improvement in speed - its still not excessive and looks pretty scale but just that bit faster for practical sailing. Overall I was well pleased at the result and as anticipated no reduction in sailing time due to the large engines. Total sailing was 2.5 hours and plenty of life left. (two 6v 7ahr lead acid).
Guns worked fine as well particularly given the cooler weather which accentuates the effect.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Ah, that magic word 'Planning'. So often done, and yet something always crops up.
-
A friend took a couple of good pictures yesterday so thought I'd share. It was quite windy and rough for a model boat - taken at Black Park in Slough - great venue.
Cheers
Geoff
-
That model has superb detailing Geoff. The lighting makes it look like the real thing.
-
Some pictures from last weekend at Wicksteed- I took some pictures of Geoff’s Invincible before we got underway with fleet manoeuvres practice. As you would agree she is a work of art and a thing of beauty.
-
Very impressive on the water.
-
One final thought for myself and Geoff (and of course everyone else)- what do you think the covered fitting is in front of the foremast port tripod support? It looks like a searchlight but according to my research there wasn't one fitted in this refit (1914). This picture is from the Gibraltar Jan 1915 refit when the fore funnel was eventually extended upwards. Any ideas?
-
I'll have to check the plans and other pictures but without doubt its a searchlight, port and starboard under canvass covers which was usual.
Cheers
P.S. Thank you for posting the pictures and your kind comments
Geoff
-
I've found another picture without the covers which clearly show they are searchlights. Hmm, interesting. It may be they moved two forwards on a temporary basis which is why they don't show in the as fitted plans.
Interesting - I've pasted the link address below - hope it works! Interestingly the other famous picture with Invincible steaming flat out at the Falklands with copious amounts of smoke doesn't seem to show them however there is no real guarantee that either picture is really what is proposed to be.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.iwm.org.uk%2Fciim5%2F295%2F347%2Flarge_000000.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwm.org.uk%2Fcollections%2Fitem%2Fobject%2F205124074&tbnid=_sL8UDCiSWt6WM&vet=12ahUKEwjs1OKa0OryAhVG0YUKHXRoAqYQMygCegUIARCGAg..i&docid=niEaPuYy3la9eM&w=800&h=587&q=hms%20invincible%20pictures%201914&ved=2ahUKEwjs1OKa0OryAhVG0YUKHXRoAqYQMygCegUIARCGAg
Cheers
Geoff
-
I read your last few comments chaps and recall the diary of modifications made to HMS Cochrane during the war and they were adding and taking things off all the time, and adding more search lights sees to have been popular as well as AA weapons.
-
Geoff,
Excellent article on Invincible in Nov 2021 Model Boats just out. I really enjoyed it.
Colin
-
Geoff,
Excellent article on Invincible in Nov 2021 Model Boats just out. I really enjoyed it.
Colin
I concur, just finished reading the article over my breakfast and really enjoyed it too.
I’ve just got some tulle material for my torpedo nets so I’m going to have fun with booms, wire and netting. :-))