Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[RichyB]

A few years ago I collected the full set of the Hachette "Titanic" with the intention of building it at some stage.  I still have all the issues and all the parts still sealed and unopened.   I was wondering if this model was suitable for converting to R/C, and if anyone had successfully managed to do this and what problems had to be overcome.  I have heard somewhere (I forget where) that there were stability problems.  Any help or anyobservations would be appreciated.

RichyB

[Tug-Kenny RIP]

Hi RichyB

I have a build blog on here if you'd like to have a read about the trials and tribulations of building the Titanic

click here ------  http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=31542.0


It might help you.  Then again it might give you laugh   

ken

[RichyB]

Hi Ken,
     Thanks for your reply.  I am really impressed with your build of "Titanic", what a superb achievement and the build blog has certainly given me inspiration.  Back to my original question, the stability appears to be OK at 1/175, but I wonder how it will be at 1/250, this gives a model length of about 3ft, and as she was designed by Hachette to be a static display model, I wondered how it would convert to R/C.  I only wish I could remember where I saw the article about the stability of the Hachette Model when converted.  I have built 2 Model R/C boats before, Billings "Bankert"  the plank on frame version, not the ABS, and I am currently building a 1/48 scale Flower Class "Bryony", fibre glass hull and the remainder a mixture of scratch build and some commercial fittings.  Therefore I do not consider myself to be experienced, at the best my modelling skills could be described as mediocre.  But as I have already said, I am really impressed with your build, and will probably refer to it often for guidance and inspiration

RichyB

[Colin Bishop]

As the Hachette Titanic was designed as a static model then you will almost certainly experience stability problems as the high superstructure will be very overweight compared to the rest of the model. This is true of all liner type models and particularly bad for the Titanic which is relatively narrow for her length. The other big problem will be windage with on the  superstructure and funnels which will tend to push her over in anything more than a slight breeze.

I think the only real way around this if you are building with the original materials is to hang a weight underneath the model as is often done with scale sailing models. But then you have to be certain that the keel weight plus the weight of the model structure plus the motors, batteries and running gear etc. doesn't pull the model below her proper waterline.

Battleships such as Bismarck are a much more practical proposition being inherently more stable and with less superstructure although you do have to watch out for the weight of the fittings.

Colin

[Tug-Kenny RIP]

The stability is definitely Not all right at my size.  The Titanic is like a tall block of Flats with most of the weight above the waterline.

When I get around to sailing her I shall be fitting a removable weighted Keel.  This will have the added advantage of a lower and more effective balance point. I imagine the problems won't be so bad with a smaller model, but will still need careful consideration.

ken

 

[RichyB]

Colin & Ken,
     Thank you both for your replies, I have just seen in the last 30 minutes the complete Hachette series and parts for Titanic selling on e-bay in Australia, for the equivilent of £329.00.  If stability is going to be a problem with this, considering my limited experience and often windy conditions at my local sailing ponds, putting it on e-bay with a reserve price and cutting my losses may be an attractive alternative.  Any money recovered would then be available for a more realistic project more suited to my current skill level.

[Colin Bishop]

I have seen quite a few working models of Titanic and none of them could be described as being very stable. They were all very 'tender' and prone to roll about a lot. Some of the actual ocean liners of the period were just the same. The German Imperator had to have all the first class cabin marble bathrooms ripped out, the funnels lowered and thousands of tons of concrete poured into her bottom to make her reasonably stable. And even then, at the end of her voyages across the Atlantic when most of her coal had been burned she would list to one side or the other to the extent that she was nicknamed Limperator!

[Martin (Admin)]

( Topic Side Track:  SS Imperator - that's got to be one of the greatest ship names of all time... Titanic, Dreadnought & Redoutable   was also brilliant! )
   ( We'll split this topic if you want to add to the list...  )

[Jonty]

  How about Fisher's 'large light cruisers'? HMSs Outrageous, Curious (or Spurious), and Laborious, though there were other variations on their official names.

[derekwarner]

Hullo Ken...I have commented on this in another thread........

1. when we build a scale model   .....I suspect we physically cannot get the scale mass of our drive system low enough in the hull to mirror that of the prototypical or actual vessel

2. in the case of the Titanic.....lets consider what would have been below the waterline?????....  80% of her engines mass?, 80% of her boilers total mass?........100% of her coaling bunkers...100% of her ancilliary equipment...steam driven pumps, compressors, generators,  evaporators   fresh water & lube oil storage etc........& the list goes on & on........

Ken.... a question.......just a ball park answer will suffice........what % of model engine + battery mass is below the waterline in your Titanic?.......

I suggest the smaller the scale model of a model Titanic.... ...the greater the issue of stability will be......Derek

[Colin Bishop]

What Derek says is true. The other major factor in a model is that most people don't build the superstructure as proportionally light to the main hull as in the real vessel. At the sort of scales we use, for a Titanic type model you would need to build the superstructure in thin card over a balsa frame and make the funnels of rolled paper - and forget metal fittings!

It can be done but most people don't realise the absolute necessity to keep topweight down.

The liner model I'm building at the moment has a much lower length to beam ratio than Titanic, has much less superstructure and was a substantial cargo carrier and sits relatively much lower in the water than Titanic so presents far fewer problems but I am still building the upperworks very light.

Colin

[Tug-Kenny RIP]

Ken.... a question.......just a ball park answer will suffice........what % of model engine + battery mass is below the waterline in your Titanic?.......

Derek  

Hi Derek

Just been out to measure with some accurate scales  (from the kitchen)  and here are the results.

Total weight of complete ship  = 9900 grams  (nearly 10 kilos)

Height of ship to top of funnels is 31 cm whereas the waterline is 6 high. The motors are located on the waterline, and only batteries are below it.  You do have a point about the balance and the only way to keep her upright is to increase the depth of the weight.

So in answer to your question, I would assume 80% is above the waterline. Using that Greek gentleman's formulae for load arm length, I estimate a 2 kilo weight suspended at 20 cm might bring her back on an even keel.

Gonna need a deeper pool.    


Don't give up RichyB.  As my wife says, "Never mind, it'll look lovely on the shelf"

ken
 

[derekwarner]

Good morning Ken.... ....mmmmmmmm

I think mother nature + science + scaling are against us in model vessel building 

Do you remember the name Ben Lexen?.... from OZ..... not from Europe  ...he developed the winged keel that let our OZ team bring the Americas Cup back to our shores 

But thinking ... a winged keel on your model Titanic may look  a little funny ...... 

Derek

[Tug-Kenny RIP]

Love it -------------------   Watch this space   

ken

[Edward Pinniger]

Reading this thread has made me rather uneasy, as I'm also currently working on a Hachette/Amati Titanic conversion to R/C (rebuilt from a very badly made second-hand example, stripped down to the basic hull) and have nearly got it to the "ballast trial" stage! I'm planning to ballast it with lead sheet (or possibly fine lead shot in bags) at the very bottom of the hull interior. The battery is fairly light (small Powersonic 6v 4.5A SLA) and mounted as low as possible, and the running gear consists of a single motor (powering the central prop only - I left the outer two as non-functional dummies) and a standard servo, so shouldn't add much topweight. Fingers crossed - I'll post again here if I have any success (or not!)

The model is basically a bare hull at the minute, sealed with GRP resin inside and out, and painted + varnished below the waterline, but with no superstructure and fittings; so I'll need to ballast it to a bit below the waterline to allow for the added weight of the latter. I'll be scratchbuilding most of the decks and upperworks using styrene and lighter gauge ply than provided in the kit - and most likely replacing some of the metal castings with scratchbuilt ones - so it should be somewhat lighter above the waterline.