Print

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

[tonyH]

Now its getting colder, thoughts lead to the next cunning plan!
I managed to get the drawings for this from the Amsterdam Maritime Museum some years ago and now seems to be the time to plan the build. I know that there is what appears to be a contemporary model somewhere since there is a photo of the bow curly bits but the museum now seem to be reluctant to help. Why that is I cannot possibly think? I know it's not at Den Helder Naval Museum but I took a load of pics of contemporary models of other vessels of the same type while there in August and they're great for the armaments which are standard Krupps but can anyone, especially any Dutch members, suggest where the model is?
Many Thanks
Tony

[zooma]

Have you managed to locate this missing model - or are you making your own?

[tonyH]

Hi Bob,
No sign of model so I've taken the plunge with a 1/96 version using what details I can find. It'll be the lower, black, version with the "battle" tops since that was as completed rather than as modified.
Tony

[zooma]

That will keep you quiet for a few hours.............

[tonyH]

hartelijk bedankt old chap 

[zooma]

hartelijk bedankt old chap 

........"what he said"....................

[ballastanksian]

As I used to say when Radio Joe was starting on a project: Get the tea on and the biccy tin out, we've got ourselves an exciting project to watch and learn from!


I look forward to see some photos of this project!

[tonyH]

The Dutch might use the word "Wensdenken" and no promises but I'll see what I can do!

[tonyH]

Right, well here goes

The Dutch Navy weren't happy with the first build so she was rebuilt which led to a number of differences between the hull drawings so I've had to make some decisions but I reckon this is fair. The dates on the drawings don't compute anyway. The aft cross sections on the later plans show a definite step roughly halfway up between the waterline and the deck line. This does not appear on the earlier ones.  I've kept the step 'cos it's more interesting. So the first pic is the Mark 1 and the second shows the cutout which runs aft from about 2/3 from the bow.I decided to make the hull in 2 halves, one up to the waterline with all the works with the upper half with all the twiddly bits dropping over and located with magnets. I've used this method a few times and it does the job for me. Most of the build so far comes from a large pack of balsa I bought a couple of years ago on A****n, 8mm and 4mm ply I had spare and a couple of sheets of 3mm balsa I actually bought! 2x385 motors from CompShop, 12" shafts from MBB and couplings I had in stock.
Now I've got to get some 0.8mmply and beading from SLEC.

[ballastanksian]

Great start Tony! What a sleek ship considering her role. In fact most of the Scandinvian* coastal defence ships were quite attractive, probably until they were fitted with extra weapons for AA defence and the like.


I look forward to progress.

[derekwarner]

Tony...that PLAN2 ODD.jpg image is I believe an early rendition of 1st angle projection

1. We see she has a finer Stern than Stem by about 200%
2. A propeller is shown stbd side but looking from the stdb engine onto the propeller


But the Bakers Pancake shaped lines directing Frames 20/15/10/5 then 93 1/2/90/85 have me a little tossed ...must admit, I do not understand these


Or is my problem that I am looking at these images upside down? 


Derek

[tonyH]

All things are possible Derek, especially after the fun yesterday at the Oval Meanwhile, this is the deck shape which could be the original or post-rebuild. Frankly, I've no idea and it's very difficult to confirm on any of the photos I have. As to the strange "growth", it could be the area covered by the extra iron-wall imparting the protection to being a protected cruiser.
Cheers
Tony

[raflaunches]

Tony...that PLAN2 ODD.jpg image is I believe an early rendition of 1st angle projection

2. A propeller is shown stbd side but looking from the stdb engine onto the propeller

Derek

I think you are confused mate
I see it as the port propeller looking forward not the starboard on that drawing

[derekwarner]

Ahah........I just threw that in as a red herring to see if anyone was watching 


Clearly the vessels Regela is shown on the stern image plan7.jpg & so dictates the angle of projection 


The real question is of the Bakers Pancake lines? also shown in the Elevation view


Derek

[tonyH]

I'll just put it down to high spirits

[tonyH]

Of course I managed to totally misread the supposed cutouts on the upper hull. They don't exist so I've now sorted the actual layout and rebuilding proceeds. 
Derek. Pancake shows up better on this so seems to be protection for the boilers/engine etc.

[derekwarner]

Yes Tony.....the Pancake profile lines are clearly shown in this image as a heavily reinforced layer

It is possible that the designers were mimicking the profile of a huge underwater Creature, be Fish or Mammal 

Certainly from mid-ships to the bow, a high degree of symmetry between the line of the reinforcement to the curve of the keel plate

Derek

[Geoff]

The dark line is actually the protective deck. Amidships its higher then the waterline and would probably have sloped down to each beam. The angle for and aft was typical - a kind of carapace design so that the protective deck is below the water line fore and aft.


Amidships its higher to again protect the vitals but also to provide a significant reserve of buoyancy. The protective system mimics that used in the standard large ships of the day. I don't know enough of the vessel to comment on whether it had any side armour and just relied on the protective deck. In that time there were two types of cruiser - protected which just had the protected deck and armoured cruisers which had side armour.



The intent is not to mimic a fish but to protect the buoyancy. Stores would typically be stored above the protective deck such that any water entering would be reduced by the volume of the stores so stability would be preserved. The carapace shape also has a tendency to deflect low angle fire from any of the vitals.


And yes this did give odd deck levels below the weather deck!


Weight was the problem so economy of protection was built in. Its a very fascinating period in naval construction.


Cheers


Geoff

[tonyH]

By rights she's protected only but she can also be very confusing. I'm now working on the basis of no waterline reinforcement, even though the lower hull finish is carried well above the waterline. That said, I originally had a second set of contemporary frame plans which showed a distinct run of something, about 2m wide, above and below the waterline inside the hull . These I've chucked but they may have applied after the rebuild

[derekwarner]

Tony


When I questioned mimicking an underwater Fish or like, was not for any mythical thought, but the flattened cylindrical shape being a pressure-resisting vessel or hull


Early submersible vessels, [later known as Submarines] used this same roundish fish like flattened cylindrical shape hulls for this pressure-resisting purpose


Derek

[Geoff]

On checking further Wikipedia describes it as a protected cruiser, so no side armour, just a protective deck. We should also draw a distinction between armour, which is basically solid slabs subject to specialised treatment and a protected deck which is layers of steel riveted together to form the appropriate thickness, in this case apparently 2 inches. The protective deck was therefore more flexible to horizontal fire where shells were expected to hit at a very oblique angle and glance off.


Typically coal was also piled on the beam slant of the deck to provide additional protection to the vitals.


Either way a very interesting model and I await further updates with interest.


Cheers


Geoff

[Geoff]

As an add on, in turns of ship structure, naval architects liken it to a box girder for structural strength calculations. Its very resistant to bending but if you punch enough holes in it, it will break.


Interestingly enough many ships had tumblehome, the sides angle inwards above the waterline. This was done for two reasons, firstly a nominally curved section is stiffer than a square section so it improves the strength of the hull girder. Secondly by making the deck narrower it saves weight. However if overdone it reduces the righting moment of the hull as it heels. French battleships were very prone to this and during WW1 a number proved to be very unstable - Bouvet at the Dardanelles sank very quickly due to lack of inherent stability in part occasioned by excessive tumblehome.


Interestingly the French tried to correct this by building almost square caissons amidships to improve their stability and this can be seen in old pictures.


Cheers


Geoff

[tonyH]

Well, here she is now at an early stage that, hopefully, gives a better idea. Lots of fettling to be done and interpretation from the photos but it seems to be on the right lines. Just going back to the matter of what I thought was a step, it is obvious now that there's no step but the the cut-out areas are simply no-go areas, with solid bulwarks inboard and just rails outboard, when the port and starboard weapons are trained aft.

[raflaunches]

She has some elegant lines and these are clearly seen in your model. Beautiful work Tony. Love this era of ship.

[ballastanksian]

Yes, a superb looking model Tony! This will keep me enthused seeing your progress. Without the armoured belts cutting into the strakes, you should have an easier time of it plating the hull.