Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: bfgstew on May 19, 2018, 09:56:05 pm
-
I have always loved Hood, as a kid building Airfix kits, she was my favourite.
I have always admired and wondered at the larger scale models in museums and on here. I have battled to say to myself, no, not yet, don't do it, you're not good enough...........well I haven't listened, bought 'Anatomy of a Battlecruiser' and am now in the throws of drawing up the hull lines for a 1/72 scale model.
It may take quite a few years to get done but I am in no rush.
Hope to have it with fully firing guns and all the bells and whistles that can be fitted to her.
All being well, and it is time consuming, the plans will be 'full scale'. This gives me the chance to iron out any flaws with the conversion from the book to AutoCad. I can then scale down to any size I want. Will do a 3D model as well to get her as accurate as possible.
Must be my mid life crisis, would be cheaper to get a motorcycle or an open topped sports car.
I must say the book is worth every penny, the detail is superb.
Soon as I have anything worth showing I will post up for approval..............👍
And no, i am not mad, my mother had me tested.......insane but not mad.
-
And here is a very special relic in the National Museum of the Royal Navy at Portsmouth. HMS Hood's bell recovered from her wreck. Something which inspires much respect.
Colin
-
Couldn't agree more Colin, I remember seeing the first attempt at its recovery and was downhearted when it failed. So glad they did recover it and it looks splendid. A fitting tribute to those lost.
-
Nice one Stewart what a challenge :-)) Get a build log going I'll be watching it mate and I'm sure you'll do a lovely job too.
-
A long way to yet Mark. Getting the plans scaled up and accurate are the biggest challenge. Would like to submit to the H.M.S. Hood association to get their blessing before even thinking of making a start on cutting any timber. But thanks for the thumbs up.... ok2
-
Ooh, this will be interesting to follow. Which era will you build her for? As built or just prior to her sinking?
She will be 3612mm long when complete, so it will be interesting to see your ideas and plans for storage and transport etc :-)) :-))
-
Sorry for a late reply Stan.
All good questions, yet to be answered, mainly because I don't know yet.
My main task is firstly is to transpose the plans out of the book and into autoCAD, this is taking a long time as each when cross referenced with another drawing is out? So it is a constant battle to decipher which plan is good and go from there. The plans are being done full scale, then scaled down to whichever scale you want. Latest breakthrough is getting the deck plan correct, this can now be transposed back to the body plan which can then be adjusted accordingly. Hard, time consuming work, but worth it.
It will have to be a split hull, 3.6M is far too big to handle in one go. Plank on frame, fibreglass, metal, plastic........not decided on material yet, but a lot of ideas floating about in my head. Once I have made some headway, will post an update.
ps, maybe worth seeing how much body plan from NMM is, that will clarify any vagueness in other plans?
Any one had dealings with NMM?
Stewart
-
I'm fascinated by extra-large models. The thing that interests me is managing the huge weight.
A 12 foot model is going to be incredibly heavy so any point-loads will probably break something - like accidentally resting it on a pebble on the grass while preparing for launch - it will just puncture through the hull.
Even just picking it up - if the construction method is not beefy enough, then it will sag in the middle and fracture the centre joint of the hull. I'm very interested in how the problems are solved.
Looking around shows, it seems most people build up to a manageable 6 feet - something that will go into a car - so how many people build really big models?
-
From my experience with a 4.5m long hull for a 1/32nd Type 42, weight wasn't the main problem as about 1/2 of the final weight on the water was ballast which I made removeable by using gravel in polythene milk containers. I make a 1/72nd model of a 40,000 ton original about 110kg - about the same as the T42. Overall size did mean I needed at least one helper to move the hull around. Transportation was on a car roof rack most of the time.
More challenging I suspect will be the power drive as this would need quite high power if you want to replicate the full 32ish knots Hood could manage. Perhaps have a look at the A Team's Type 45 arrangements some years back on this forum?
On NMM plans you can e-mail them and ask what they have available but from my recent dealings with them it is £50 per high definition JPG file.
-
I have seen 2 methods used.1 on a 3.6 metre USS Missouri, a solid bread and butter hull ballasted with everything from lead weights to bricks.2 a QM2 with water ballast from the lake. Emptied with a 12 v. electric pump
-
48th scale
-
Didnt somebody start a build on here of the hood in 1/72 or 1/48??
I am sure it was somebody called Martin......no not that martin %%
-
HMS Hood was easily your most beautiful ship. Long lean clean lines. No clutter. Fast. In 1/72 a fantastic build. I wonder if her lean lines might interfere with the milk jug ballast approach. That said, there are several gents on this site who has chosen the flood down approach and managed it quite successfully. I expect there will be some math involved to get it right, and I am not the one ask about THAT. Please post a lot of picture as your build progresses.
-
The first of many hurdles has been crossed........1st basic 3D skeleton has been rendered in AutoCad. Now to see if I can get a skin on the skeleton then double check measurements. Even the reference book has thrown up a few anomolies causing horrible ripples along the freeboard edges and an odd height discepency on the stern. But looking at it now, it all looks fairly good.
Still lots to do but a happy start to see it emerging into a 3D ship, albeit on a computer screen......... %)
-
Have a look at Bob K's Agincourt build Stew. He used telescopic stainless steel tubes both as locators and joining pins with a toggle catch to keep the two halves locked together.
http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,58070.0.html Pages 3,4, 8 and 9 have relevant info.
On helping him to join the hulls at Wicksteed last weekend, it was found that weak tables or uneven surfaces hinder the joining process, and I recommended having a cradle for each half hull made so they hold them at the same height so you can slide the halves together with less distortion. Bob also found that the tubes need to be dust/grit free to prevent jamming as the tubes are a snug fit.
At the scale you are building to, you could use even bigger tubes.
-
http://taskforce72.org/2016/05/02/fb-gulf-waters/
-
Thanks Ian......Bobs Agincourt build is a gold mine for info for 'the larger build'.
The biggest problem is getting these plans correct, at this scale any discrepancy is shown up and I want this to be as accurate as possible mainly as a mark of respect to the men who served and lost their lives on her. So it is going to be a long haul before any building is going to start. But ideas are welcome.......going to need plenty of them...... :-))
I have heard of 'Task Force 72'.......long way for a sail but good to have a point of contact for fellow 72 scale builders, cheers.
Stewart
-
APS Models in Australia make a 1/72 scale semi-kit of her so might have scaled up plans in 1/72.
Bob
-
Can I ask for some guidance please.
I have got the CAD drawing 90% completed but the trouble I am having is deciphering measurements off the HMS Hood association website and from the book 'Anotomy of Hood'.
I have taken a pic of a side view of her. The length is correct (overall, waterline and between perpendiculars). I have added the 3 levels of waterline, deep, mean and light. The vertical line is midships.
The problem i have is the freeboard measurements. On the associations website, 3 dimensions are given, fore, mid and aft.......how and where are these measured? For the life of me i can get nowhere near what they say.
If someone can kindly mark on the image the position to measure the 3 freeboard points i will be very grateful.
Many thanks in advance
Stewart.
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/06/17/20180617_093940.jpg)
-
Don't forget keep her away from "Bismark"
-
I believe that these marks are taken at the most forward point of the hull, the lowest point of the sheer midships and the stern most point of the hull. This Wiki entry explains the midships freeboard while the other two are logical by way of being the extremes of the hull in a normal ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeboard_%28nautical%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeboard_%28nautical%29)
For ships like the Campbelltown (USS Bellona) and many other warships, Offshore support ships and Tugs, there is the complication of a raised section hull at some point, but this should not affect your build. As long as your draught is accurate this should provide the waterline and thus a good point to measure upwards to get your freeboard extremities.
-
Thanks Ian, I eventually came to the same conclusion after searching 'Tinterweb most of the afternoon.
Looks like some more alterations on the cards. Seems during printing the body plan has got distorted slightly...........the joys of scratch building.
-
You'll get there Stew. She will be the mother of all planking projects %%
-
After many hours going over all info I had and could source off the web I think I have finally come to a satisfactory conclusion on Hood at her last known configuration. The deep water line and low freeboard measurements threw me for a while and it seems the body plan in the book is slightly out. Anywho, I am finally happy with the way she looks, I have decided, for ease of drawing, to overlook the different armour plates over the torpedo bulges, it really was causing a massive headache, so she is smooth on paper but can easily be added once into the building stage, which is a long way off at the moment. I may have got this far in drawing her, now to get the frames drawn up and start to think about internal configurations of motor mounts, prop shafts, batteries, turrets etc etc.
Still a very small step along a very long path but at last I am going in the right direction.
(http://modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2018/07/08/20180708_160236.jpg)
-
Still working away, little by little.
Big question I need to ask......Hood's props at 1/72 scale are going to 65mm.......4 of them, what would be considered the 'better' motors to swing these to give a realistic scale speed and a 'bit' more for emergencies. With a model this size it will be running off SLA batteries 1 for each motor. The reason for asking is while I am in the planning stage, I would like to know what I need to get it running and how and where it can fit, I would like to run as silent as possible, so brushless 'whinning', or clunky gears are out.......suggestions fellow modellers please........ :-))
Stewart
-
Stewart,
You will probably find that that you don't need as much power as you think so, with that in mind I would probably use a Mabuchi 555 motor running on 12 volts if this is not enough then the voltage can be increased to 18 or even 24 volts. I would also consider using a single 12 volt battery and perhaps a smaller one as well if you require the extra power. For couplings I would use the rubber insert ones from Model Boat Bits.
Don't forget also that the props turn outboard when running ahead.
LB
-
Stewart,
I believe Phil aka kiwimedic on another forum used
Buehler motors for his 1/72 Bismarck.
I think they where 4400 Rpm.
So maybe you could use
Bosch car fan motors Similar to these
http://engel-modellbau.eu/shop/en/Electric-Motors/E-Motors-Brushed/High-Torque-Electric-Motor-EPX-1236-12-36V.html (http://engel-modellbau.eu/shop/en/Electric-Motors/E-Motors-Brushed/High-Torque-Electric-Motor-EPX-1236-12-36V.html)
-
I can't help with the motors but I'm finding this build absolutely fascinating. Loads of research and planning which shows some real tenacity and dedication. Keep the updates coming :-))
-
Stewart,
You will probably find that that you don't need as much power as you think so, with that in mind I would probably use a Mabuchi 555 motor running on 12 volts if this is not enough then the voltage can be increased to 18 or even 24 volts. I would also consider using a single 12 volt battery and perhaps a smaller one as well if you require the extra power. For couplings I would use the rubber insert ones from Model Boat Bits.
Don't forget also that the props turn outboard when running ahead. looking from bow, inboard from stern, inboard more efficient for slow moving warships and is prototypical for most. :}
LB
-
At 140+ inches long i think there is more than sufficient space for Sla batteries
In parallel or if you need more power in series
If the speed is too much throttle back.
-
Tenacity and dedication.......more like lunacy and stupidity.......... %% %% %% %% %%
Looks like the 555's are getting the thumbs up, good as they fairly cheap. May have them set as direct drive, just need to figure out how to mount them as the plans show a 2° inward angle (bow to stern) and 1° downward angle on the shafts. Looks like making an Aluminium mounting plate then bolt that to an appropriate bulkhead....on ward ti the drawing board.
Cheers for the help guys, much appriciated
Stewart
-
Toothed belt drive might be a good option. Gives you more flexibility in mounting the motors, much quieter than gears but allows the motors to run more efficiently with a lower power consumption for the same speed.
Colin
-
On the real ship the propellers turned outboard (the top of the blade is turning away from the centre line.) when the ship was running ahead, whether your standing at the stern, or the bow for that matter. see: http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs3.htm
In fact this applies to all, or virtually all, ships built for the Royal Navy since the mid 1890's, as well as most merchants vessels with multiple shaft arrangements apart from the Lusitania and Mauritania, which had a combination of both, until fairly recently.
As for mounting the motors at the correct angle. If you are unable to mount the motors and maintain the correct angle at the same time in the conventional manor, then a simpler method then using a belt drive might be to mount them upside-down; a simpler method still would be to extend the shaft into the hull until you can mount them correctly.
Other notes that maybe of interest can be found here: http://www.hmshood.com/ship/handlingnotes.htm & http://www.hmshood.com/reference/written/asnejournal32.htm
LB
-
Have a look at my HMS Invincible- The First Battlecruiser build regarding a toothed belt drive. The are smooth and very quiet when running. I got some made by SHG Models, all they need to know is the distance between shaft centres to get a belt and ‘cogs’ made.
My system would be very similar to what Hood requires if you go that route.
-
Thanks guys, invaluable info as always.
Nick, I like your set up, very nifty.
My thoughts though are having 4 motors, direct drive, motors mounted 'nose first'......may have to make my own prop tubes due to the length of them. This has to be 'right first time' as therd will be no way of getting to these tubes once installed.........will get my inventors hat on, got a few ideas!
This is such a mad idea.............but fun.
Cheers again guys.
Stewart
-
On the real ship the propellers turned outboard (the top of the blade is turning away from the centre line.) when the ship was running ahead, whether your standing at the stern, or the bow for that matter. see: http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs3.htm (http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs3.htm)
In fact this applies to all, or virtually all, ships built for the Royal Navy since the mid 1890's, as well as most merchants vessels with multiple shaft arrangements apart from the Lusitania and Mauritania, which had a combination of both, until fairly recently.
As for mounting the motors at the correct angle. If you are unable to mount the motors and maintain the correct angle at the same time in the conventional manor, then a simpler method then using a belt drive might be to mount them upside-down; a simpler method still would be to extend the shaft into the hull until you can mount them correctly.
Other notes that maybe of interest can be found here: http://www.hmshood.com/ship/handlingnotes.htm (http://www.hmshood.com/ship/handlingnotes.htm) & http://www.hmshood.com/reference/written/asnejournal32.htm (http://www.hmshood.com/reference/written/asnejournal32.htm)
LB still disagree with you on prop rotation, my Bristol's turn inboard as do all my warships, better handling quality at the speeds expected from grey funnel, outboard give better handling at high speeds, this from ships manuals. By upside down motors I assume you mean if it has a base, if not then not sure how you mount a round motor upside down :D I am going to go the belt drive way as although it is 10 foot it is split at centre so cant extend shafts..
Bob
BTW prop rotation has gone on and one for younks, don't want a war of words, it works for me and boy can she shift if she has to, fastest ship in fleet at one time
-
Hood is one of the few ships were you don't have to worry about the length of stuffing tubes as you have a lot of hull to play with!
Even the electrics will be dwarfed by the sheer capacity of her. I hate to think what her ballast will have to weigh. Even having four 12 volt car batteries may not be enough %%
-
It's beginning to dawn on me Ian.......gulp!
-
You may have an ideal opportunity to design water ballast tanks based on the drawings you have done for the hull which will save hours of CAD (Cardboard Aided Design :)
-
Just an idea, drill holes on the bottom of frames and fit lengths of 25mm conduit, cast some lengths of lead to fit in tubes these can then be removed for transport. 1.4M length of 20mm dia lead is equal to 10lb, got to see how many I can get fitted.
Looks like the hull will have to be in 2 halves, 12+ feet long is just far to big to transport and build...... :embarrassed:
-
Just to get some appreciation of the numbers we are dealing with here,
At 1/72 scale this model will be 3.64 meters long, almost 12 feet.
Even cut in half that is around 6 feet per section.
See the build of my 7 ft HMS Agincourt on how to build a very large ship in two halves.
Next you need to calculate the displacement for the model.
47,340 tons x the cube of 1/72, then convert answer (in tons) to kilos.
Be prepared for a shock!
Next you are going to have to figure how to lift that weight.
Suggest use pumped water ballast for as much as you can, which will define where the bulkheads go.
-
290Lbs..........131kgs
-
Sir, you are a brave man %%
(That's 100kg more than mine, and I thought that was pushing my luck)
I shall continue to follow this with interest. :-))
-
Daft......not brave!
-
290Lbs..........131kgs
And that will be awkward to carry too so fumbling hands will likely damage the detail work every time.
-
It will be broken down.
Superstructure off.
4 main guns off.
4 SLA batteries out.
Ballast out.
Hull in 2 halves.
Probably get it down to an acceptable amount for transport, handling.
-
But how often will you actually want to take the boat out given all the assembly, disassembly and transport procedures? And it will take up a lot of storage space as well.
Colin
-
On a positive note ok2 If you know what you are going to end up with you will be able to prepare at each stage-pretty much like you are with your sub assembly breakdown, hull split and consideration of ballast required. As mentioned before, you will have loads of space to plan and set out your ballasting requirements, even if you try out Geoff and Bob K'C3PO's T.A.R.G.E.T system. You could do novel weight additions such as making the very bottom of your turret 'Handling rooms' out of lead, as you know you will be removing them and so know where some ballast is placed and located.
It will be a challenge, it will be a bruiser, but by golly your Hood will be a sight to see on the lake when complete. Please bring her to Wicksteed when done :-))
-
Stewart,
I know you have done your research and that you have selected 1/72
But just in case you decide the 1/72 is too big
MTB Hulls Gibraltar
Lists in there 1/96 coming soon
Hood and Kgv
-
Batfish.........seen that on their website when researching, not sure how much longer that will be. Same with DeansMarine, there were rumours of a large Hood hull. A Massive commitment on their part to produce huge hulls that not many will be willing to build. Hence this build, but never say never, still a long way off cutting any timber for a while yet.
Ian, the old saying, fail to plan, plan to fail. The beauty of CAD is seeing how it will look, you can model it, change it, adapt it, build it, before spending hard earned and it going 'orribly wrong........ :-))
-
At 1/96 scales that would come out at 2.73M, almost 9 feet.
Would still be a huge model, but perhaps more practical to actually build.
-
With regards to Deans marine
I’ve contacted them several times over the last 3 years
Regarding hood, the answer I get is we will continue to work on the master when time allows.
They are to busy with other projects.
If memory serves they did have a Hood hull and it was stollen years ago.
Regarding Christian at Mtb Hulls
It might be worth contacting him and asking.
At least with his hull it’s already cut in half by him
For transporting/courier.
You could maybe ask for a heavier Grp layup and then do your own type of join using the precut hull.
Hood would come in at 110 inch x 13 inch
Being 1/96 would also open up the option of perhaps using deans marine turrets
and then detail them as much as you would like.
On the subject of Allan pew oz
His 1/72 Hood,
Was scaled up from an Airfix kit.
There was two Hulls produced one for Allan and one for his friend.
He does not produce a Hood kit however he might produce suitable fittings??
Could be expensive though with importing?
-
Stewart,
Got the engel motors for HMS Victorious which at 10 foot long needs a bit of ommph. They are brilliant and very quiet in operation
Bob
I believe Phil aka kiwimedic on another forum used
Buehler motors for his 1/72 Bismarck.
I think they where 4400 Rpm.
So maybe you could use
Bosch car fan motors Similar to these
http://engel-modellbau.eu/shop/en/Electric-Motors/E-Motors-Brushed/High-Torque-Electric-Motor-EPX-1236-12-36V.html (http://engel-modellbau.eu/shop/en/Electric-Motors/E-Motors-Brushed/High-Torque-Electric-Motor-EPX-1236-12-36V.html)
-
Well I got myself into a proper state over the last month or so fretting over how to build her. I went down the 'mould your own' avenue........far far to expensive and complex for me, so aborted those plans. Back to the drawing board (computer), full length hull........no, far to big, prone to distortion, difficult to store, handle, launch, transport etc etc. So, going down the 2 halves route, plank on frame, glass in and out. This lead me to redraw the plans, again. 75mm between each frame, 9mm ply frames. 18mm ply bulkheads at joint to allow for jointing bolts. Going to use 10mm threaded pipe that is used on lamp fittings, this will go several frames deep into each half, locked onto each frame with washers and locknuts, this will allow an 8mm threaded rod to be passed down each tube and this will bolt on the inside of the opposite end bulkhead of each hull half. Along with lengths of 20mm plastic conduit fitted into the bottom of each frame for as long as possible in each half, these will be bonded in place to allow lengths of 16mm stainless bar to be inserted before each half is bolted together, this should act as both ballast and support for the full hull when joined. Hope you can follow my ramblings, pics will follow when available.
Questions now.
On planking, would it be better to double plank it? What thickness would be best for a beast this size? If doubke planking, does it need sealing after first layer?
Deck thickness is next, there is a slight camber on her deck, albeit 1.8mm, call it 2mm for arguments sake. Thin ply 1.6mm? There will be plenty of support. Or thicker, if so, how thick.
Sorry for so many questions and delays but I want to get this right.
-
My thoughts:
Your stainless bar is probably unnecessary: once you've built the hull you've made yourself a monocoque 'gutter' which will be extremely unlikely to hog, warp, twist, whatever.
6mm ply is enough for your frames.
No need to double-plank the hull if it's going to be glassed later. I planked my Dreadnought in 3mm balsa (easy to work), glassed within, and added cartridge paper plating before a final soaking with an acrylic resin. It's solid.
Your ply deck sounds about right - give it lots of support - it can be a subdeck to 'proper' deck planking.
Do think long and hard about access now. Can you get to the rudder, motors and couplings? You will need to!
Andy
-
Thanks for your advice Andy. I always think the worse case scenario, makes me go back and start again. Must stay focused on the positive side.
As for access, once I have finished getting the hull lines completed in AutoCad, that will be the next stage, battery placement, motor mounting etc etc.......still a long road to travel.
-
This 10mm threaded pipe you mention [from light fittings] is a metric fine threaded light Carbon Steel tube section.......these are used universally throughout the world and are zinc coated & sometimes yellow phosphated however are never designed for contact with water as the zinc coating :o is only a few Micron in depth
In fact, anyone who lives in close proximity to the sea would find internal corrosion by Zinc salt formation within their light fitting tubes
The only long term solution is to use AISI Grade 316 stainless material.. O0.....[pretty sure Bob K used this for his two piece hull]
Grade 316 stainless rod spears sliding in close toleranced plastic bushes sounds worthy of consideration.......the design is near limitless....stainless rods with a welded centre washer spigot, totally removable from each hull 1/2, with the hull halves having glassed in counter bores for the washers??
These whilst permanent fitment, are only for accurate alignment of the hull halves prior to the mechanical clamping by other means ...the weight of the Stainless rods will be negligible
Derek
-
I hear what you are saying regarding the threaded tube Derek and am aware of the corrosion threat. As a length of threaded bar is to pass through these an occasional spray of WD40 or other silicon based lub should stave off any unwanted oxidization.
As for the st/st bars,they are going to be used mainly for ballast and for a 1 meter length of 16mm dia 300 grade = 9lbs, there is room to get nearly 20 meters in the bilges. Not that I need that much, I hope! The lengths will be faced off, centre drilled and tapped to 10mm, then a length of studding inserted in one end and loctited in place, then joined together when assembling boat. Each tube will have a counterbore in the bulkhead for a neoprene 'O' ring along with the threaded rods, plus an outer groove for a neoprene gasket around the edge of the bulkhead. The 2 main joining bulkheads will be matched pairs with 2 female/male spigots secured in them for exact alignment.
Always good to have an experienced eye cast over your work, no matter how good you think you are, you miss things......thanks for the input chaps, much appreciated.
-
Stew.....I was only offering a few thoughts....however :o
a. 1000 mm of 16 diameter steel is ~~1.6kg or 3.5 Pounds.......not sure how you calculate ~~ 9 Pounds?
b. Neoprene elastomer in O-ring format was never designed <*< to seal against a thread form
Derek
-
Stew: Just a thought: My Agincourt is "only" 2.4 m long, far too big for my car. I used 3 positions of one inch stainless tubing (fixed in each hull half) with 3 x 900 mm long 7/8" stainless tubes which nicely telescope inside the one inch tubes. At the lake I slide the tubes into the hull, then lock the two halves together with a toggle latch.
Works very well, with no water ingress whilst sailing.
You will need one tube near to the keel C/L, then two 2/3 the way up the hull. Make sure the bottom fixed ones are full sealed at the ends.
-
Derek, you are quite correct....1M is 3.5lbs......never trust the internet!
Neoprene O rings will not be sealing against threads, they will be seated in an O ring groove around it, to seal against the opposite face.
Thank you for your input, much appreciated.
BobK.........I keep dipping into your Agincourt build log to pick up tips........as much as it would be easy to copy your idea, I am confident of my idea, so far!!!!!! Never say never, it may all go belly up. I know where to come if it does....... :-))
Thanks again all.
-
With all the concern about corrosion of steel tubes why not use the method used by large scale model flyers. They use aluminium or carbon tubes as wing joiners in often resin based tubes. They are used in wings which can be 8 foot span or more and in aerobatic models will need to take a high G load so need to be stiff and strong.
Jim
-
A nice idea Jim and did think of it, but the idea of the threaded tube is that it can be locked onto each frame with locknuts to give a solid fix rather than glueing a tube to the frames which when overloaded can break.
Thanks for the input though.