Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: tonyH on June 09, 2009, 05:01:27 pm
-
Hello there,
I'm contemplating building a version of the French Arquebuse type destroyer (1900 or so) but I'm mystified for 3 reasons.
(1) There's a rather large bowsprit type thingy which could be a ram, a mine (except she'd blow her bows off), a bumper or a parking aid for le Capitaine! It's about the same diameter as the base of the mast and it appears to have a padded end, looking rather like a large match in profile.
(2) The single rudder is ahead of the 2 props - was this common practice?
(3) The props were staggered - the port one being ahead of the starboard one by a foot or so - why?. This is not a printing error 'cos the prop guards are also staggered to suit.
The photo shows the pointy thing.
Any ideas?
Tony
-
1) It apears to be a walkway of some sort
2) It isn't, and I can't imagine a model one would turn too well...
3) What you have found here is the world's first magic roundabout boat. When power is applied, it spins round in nice ever decreasing circles...
%)
-
A number of early torpedo boats had the rudders ahead of the props, split above and below the shafts. I dunno why the props were staggered - did they overlap? or if they were close together perhaps they created some sort of vibratory interference. However it might just be a french thing - like the renault 4 which had a longer wb one side that the other, so that the rear torsion bars could sit ione behind the other. The pointy thing is of course to mount the pin for the 1902 coupe maritime de bursting les ballons held off le Touquet, but alas no other nations turned up so it all feel rather flat.
-
It's definitely a Pollux et Zebulon special!
The pointy thing is about 1ft square with a bumper end - no ropes or handrails. I tried to resize the plan but it wasn't having any of it so I can't show you. The props are well spaced and the rudder is well afore the props so it may just be one of those 'French' style things like excessive tumblehome.
Tony
PS Didn't you realise that the Renault 4 was built to compete in the Indy 500!
-
from some of the phot's viewed on the web, it appears some of this style of destroyer appeared to have a torpedo tube protruding through the bow, this devise appears to be pivoted on the deck and i would sumise (could be wrong) it is a derrick for lifting a torpedo on board the vessel, layed flat so as not obstruct the view when underway or add stress to the deck when upright, the 'matchstick' end being the pulley at the top of the derrick and has a canvas cover, would need to see more detail from above to see if a torpedo could be moved from front to back along the deck. what about seeing if any of the naval archive sources have information especially lower deck plans, maybe the torpedos were stored in the bow section.
-
The offset props might be to counteract the torque effect of the props, especially if they turned in the same direction.
Some of the German E boats had an enequal transom area, giving more bouyancy on one side, to keep the boat on a port/stbd even keel.
One fwd prop suggests that the ship would have a tendency to turn better one way than the other, so was given offset props to make it run in a straight line when under full power.
Bogs
-
On the offset propellers. The ship looks to have a very narrow beam. So the propellers might be too close together if they were side by side.
-
Hello again,
Thanks sofar!
Tobyker and Niall are right about the props. I've checked further and the props overlap by about 15%. It seems quite ineffiient but the boats ran upto 30Kts so they cant have ben too bad.
I've also checked on the sections and there is nothing under the bow except storage space. The torpedoes were stored close to the tubes, amidships and aft, so I'm still trying to answer the matter of the pointy thing?
As far as the rudder location is concerned, this was one of the larger and faster classes, so it must have worked in more than just trials - odd.
Tony
-
Tony,
Ref "rudder forward of the prop", the following is from "Steam Picket Boats" by Stapleton:
The development of the torpedo as a weapon of defence led Mr White to consider a means for obtaining
increased manoeuvring ability in his boats, this being a very important factor in solving the problem of using
torpedoes with greater effect. Finally, in 1881, he decided that he had solved the problem and built a 42 foot
steam pinnace on speculation, fitting her with two rudders, one forward of the other, and cutting the deadwood
from under the stern until the boat would literally spin round like a top, gaining for her the semi-official name of
a “turnabout boat”. The larger, and main, rudder was situated abaft the propeller whilst the smaller one was
forward of the propeller which made her particularly handy when going astern At first the authorities were apt
to shake their heads over such a revolutionary idea, but as soon as she was tried and they realised her
superiority over the existing types and she was immediately brought into service and supplied to H.M.S.
Inflexible, which was then considered to be the last word in naval construction.
While it does not apply directly to the French TBD you are looking at, it does throw some light on the thinking behind it.
Incidentally, early Yarrow-built torpedo boats were built with a retractable bow rudder.
Rick
-
Thanks for that Rick,
I can understand the White 'cunning plan' but this one has nothing aft of the screws and no bow rudder. There is just a single, normal size, unbalanced rudder well forward of the props.
I've been trying to reduce the size of the (tiff) plan but my computer says no so I can't post it, but its on the French MoD site as a free download.
Regards from Suffolk
Tony
-
Improved stewering when moving astern, none forward? Hmm, are you sure it was French? sounds more like an Italian design {-)
-
I can put hand on heart and say that it's not Italian - this time!
I'm almost tempted to build to a bigger scale (current is at 1:96 to go with a battlecruiser project) to see if the system is actually effective, especially with the staggered screws but they did build 20 of the class, in two batches, and they did exceed their design speed etc. so they must work in some way but would it show up even at, say, 4-5 ft long?
As far as the 'prong' is concerned, on the plans it is shown as fixed on the deck and runs through a solid bow ring?
Tony
-
Hi all - staggered props in warships are relative to two engines in two different engine rooms ...however the actual centerline of each engine is the same axis....just the output shafts or speed reducers are port & stdb handed......you will also find that the AFT engine prop shaft will be at a different [greater] angle than the FWD prop shaft....just all to do with geometry & space .....Derek :-))
-
Sorry Derek, not that simple.
In this case, the engines are on the same line across. The reason for the stagger is that the hull is so narrow that the prop diameters overlap by about 15% BUT one would have thought that there would have been a lot of wasted effort in cutting through 'dirty' water as far as the prop at the back is concerned.
Tony
-
try wikipedia. there are a couple of photos with the fat pointy thing on the arquebuse class ship. photo taken on a slightly different angle to your photo but still hard to tell what it is. may be of some help to knowledgeable MBMer's.
-
Have consulted my 1915 Jane's "the World's Warships" The one with the frontispiece showing the SMS Emden after action with HMS Sydney. There is not much standing above deck level apart from the after mast. Arquebuse is shown as a member of the 1902 Arbelete class. There is a photo of "Claymore" of the Coutelas class, completed 1906, which seems to have the same pointy thing arrangement. If you want a list of all ships in the classes, to aid research, let me know.
-
Thanks all for the input.
I've (almost) come to the conclusion that the French designers were so lost without their ram bows when it came to destroyers that they substituted the telegraph pole with a boxing glove on the end. There would be a certain amount of logic to this in that opposition TB's were so narrow that a decent belt around deck height could have a fair chance of turning them over and so it was even possible that it was just an afterthought.
I'm still going ahead with a small one to see how effective, if atall, having the rudder, ahead of the props is and, of course, if anyone comes up with an alternative to the battering ram..................................
Thanks again
Tony
-
Mystery bowsprit on early French Destroyers
Simply this, the vessels were so narrow forward that is wasn't practical to install hawser pipes for the anchor also many of them had bow torpedo tubes... So, to keep the chain cable clear they installed the "bow spirit" with a bow roller (the boxing glove) on the end) These days you find lots of modern yachts both power(Stink Pots) and sail use the same rig.
Freebooter
-
Tony
On the subject of rudders being forward of the prop's almost all modern submarines rudders are forward of the prop. It's a matter of balance and the fact that the rudder on the torpedo boats would be in clear water forward of the props and so would get a better grip for turning WHEN the v/l was underway at speed... also these v/l's were very narrow back aft and it might not have been practical to have the rudder yoke aft of the props....
British T/B & TB D's of the same vintage often had transom hung rudders but these were vulnerable to weather and battle damage this might be the French answer to this.... No matter what steering arrangement they used long narrow ships like this would have been a nightmare to maneover in tight quarters and would have had a turning circle like a supertanker on a bad day
Freebooter
-
Thanks JJ.
As far as the rudder placement is concerned, I'm sure you're right BUT there is still a question regarding the target subject. The build drawings show that the anchors are taken from P & S locations aft of the bow. The pointy thing is, literally, a heavy pole with a padded end.
I'm still going through all the class drawings on the Ministiere de Marine site but they all exceed the Forum rules (bow plans are 270K) and don't want to be resized so I can't show you what I mean but the more I look at, the more the b****r looks like a battering ram.
Tony
-
Tony
I sent a copy of the picture you posted to a very oldfrend he's 102 years old ex RN ex shipwright He says thats what the "Bowsprit" was used for and that it (Bowsprit ) could have two or three sheeves set into the end to take the cable but as was the norm in those days the anchor was catted and stowed on the deck and that there was allways a heavy davit on the foc'le to house the ancor
Freebooter
-
Just came accross this photo, it says it's a japanese boat??
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5859/72786435.jpg) (http://www.postimage.org/)
-
Hells Teeth Andy, that's definitely a boxing glove - even with a separate thumb!
JJ, I'm having a problem logging into the French site but I've got a plan/section of the bow and anchor areas. It's too big to put on the forum but I'll try a pm so please let me know if you receive it. If you do, and want further info let me know and I'l try to send the main layout plan.
Tony
-
On the japanese boat, it must be something to do with loading the bow torpedo tube - but your french Contre-torpilleur didn't seem to have one. Strange.
-
I've had a look in my 1914 Jane's Fighting Ships and it seems that all the French "destroyers" had a bowsprit around the turn of the century. In some cases it was obviously just a spar while in others you have something a bit more substantial with the "boxing glove" affair. However, some had bow torpedo tubes and some did not. I reckon the bow tubse would have been loaded internally and that the spar was indeed to do with handling the anchor as previously mentioned. It could never have been any sort of battering ram as anything of that nature would have been carried lower down where it would have been supported by the hull proper.
Intriguing all the same though.
Colin
-
Hi Colin,
As you say, it's odd but there's no TT and the area under the bow is clear (the reload torpedoes were stored in cylinders on deck!), nor is there any sign on the builders plan for any link to the anchors. Most of the closer photos are taken from the blunt end - so that's no use - and there are no signs of any fittings - not even a shackle or two, on the pole.
Tony
-
I don't suppose it's possible that the French retained the option of the "spar torpedo" as late as that? I've only heard of these (a bomb on the end of a (very) long stick) in connection with the Confederate Davids - I think when used then it was questionable whether they did more damage to the Confederate heroes or the g-d Yankees.
-
Very doubtful inthis case. The spar is not long enough to stop the bow being blown off and there doesn't seem to be any way of extending it.
Tony
-
Tony sent me his plans which I've now hopefully converted to images which can be posted on here - see below. The spar is clearly made of wood and appears to be fixed length. It is possible that the "boxing glove" on the end is a canvas cover of some sort.
This is quite a puzzle really, I have spent some time Googling without any result. maybe it's just an anachronism!
Colin
-
Thanks Colin,
Now the 'Brains Trust' can see the beastie!
Tony
-
Tony :-)) :-))
Received the plans OK and am awaiting a reply from the maritime museum ( an old friend works there ) But as a matter of interest 3 British Torpedo Gun Boats had the same rig with short heavy spar's or bowsprits The Circe 1892--The Seagull 1889 ---and the Speedwell 1889 ---The Japanese T/B ( first class torpedo boats) of 1903 had two classes the Hayabusa (11 Ships) and the Aotaka (11 ships) the Turks had Sultan Hisar & The Sivri Hisar + 3 French type of the Duranadal Class --- The Russians 15 of the Baltic, Louk & Grosovoi Classes ALL WITH BOWSPRITS.. also the French Branless class had the same Prop Rudder and Bowsprit rig So it looks as if the bowsprit wasn't just a French thing ....
quite a few of the Austrian ships also had bowsprits but some of these on the larger ships were used for rigging anti torpedo nets ...
Freebooter
-
Another possibility of course.
The padding is roughly the same diameter as a torpedo tube - so, if the navigation was exact you could visualise the 'finger in the barrel' situation ala Deputy Dawg etc. on a larger scale.
Nah!
Tony
-
I think the "bowsprit" thing on Sharpshooter torpedo-gunboats (Seagull/ Speedwell) was part of the minesweeping apparatus fitted after their conversion in 1909. It doesn't appear on any photos I have of the class in the gunboat role.
Rick
-
ALL hands
One reply I've had said that he thought that on the V/l's with a single bow mounted tube it may have been used as an Ad-Hoc torpedo gun sight ???? I can understand that it could possable have been used this way in certain circumstances but don't believe this is what it was original designed for --- but--- think the mine sweeping needs to be looked into as some of the French, Russian & Japanese boats were also converted for mine sweeping The trouble is being an Ex G.I. and not a T.I. I only know the bare BASICs of this sort of thing and that knowledge is almost 50 years out of Date---- or 60 year too late.
Freebooter
-
Yes, I wondered if it was a sighting aid for firing the torpedoes too. You would need to accurately know the ship's heading to work out when to fire the torpedoes. But the sprit was carried by shipe with and without bow tubes. There must have been some rudimentary fire control system in use at the time.
Colin
-
Arquebuse carried 2 tubes, both aimable (turnable), one aft and one amidships with deck reloads. Arc of fire was approx 270 degrees for the stern tube and roughly 90 degrees on either side for the amidships one. No bow tube. Maximum forward firing was 45 degrees off straight ahead for both tubes.
The drawings are annotated 'as built' (en francais of course) so unlikely to be modifications.
-
I suppose in a French destroyer, an aimable tube could be used for friendly fire?
-
Nom d'un chien!
I suppose your excuse is that it was past midnight when you came up with that one - nice one!
Tony
-
:-))
-
TonyH.
Recived this form Liza Verity National Maratrime Mesuim
Hope this will help in some small way
Jimmy
Freebooter
:-))
From: Bob Todd
Sent: 22 June 2009 12:02
To: Liza Verity
Subject: RE: Bow sprits on WW1 torpedo boats
Liza
For the French boats I think he will have to try French sources. From about 1888 to 1906 some 500 French torpedo boats of various classes had this small wooden spar stuck over the bow but I have no idea what its intended purpose was or how useful it was.
Some British torpedo gunboats were temporarily fitted with a running bowsprit to take a jib or staysail when they were undertaking long voyages but this was not a permanent fitting. Only the SPANKER retained one for any length of time and hers was removed c.1901. Later on, from about 1909, ten of the torpedo gunboats were fitted with minesweeping gear aft but in 1913 two of these ships, SEAGULL and SPEEDWELL, were fitted with a steel frame projecting over the bow for various types of experimental minesweeping gear to be tried out. These frames were removed in 1914-1915.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Liza Verity
Sent: 22 June 2009 11:16
To: Bob Todd
Subject: FW: Bow sprits on WW1 torpedo boats
Bob
Can you help?
Liza Verity FRSA, Information Specialist
National Maritime Museum
Greenwich
London
SE10 9NF
T 020 8312 6712
www.nmm.ac.uk
-
:} :-)) >>:-(sorry about the spelling on the last message, my 18 mounth old granddaughter gave the keyboard something to drink it didn't like
Jimmy
-
JJ, Thanks again. Computers have a habit of mis-spieling with me too!
So, the mystery deepens!
What were they for?
I'm going to get a PM off to Roger (in France) to see whether he has any contact ideas or whether there is a forum over there that may have ideas on the subject. There must have been some logic behind the poles but...
Tony
PS I thought Bob Todd was on the Benny Hill Show.
-
There is a French Naval Officer here on Mayhem, try a PM to A1Xtian. A knowledgable man on nautical things and a good command of English. :-)
-
Thanks Arrow, I'll do that now. I've also sent one to Rubnat (Phil) in France, so the net widens.
Tony
-
Correction Christian`s handle on Mayhem is in fact Xtian29. :embarrassed:
-
Ta, I'd got worried that there was another mystery!
Tony
-
Tony, I should warn you that Christian may be at sea. Just in case you dont get an immeadiate answer.
-
Hi Arrow,
We've had a first response from France (Rubnat) and it implies that it was a weapon, used like a lance!
Research continues.
Tony
-
Hmmm, think it has lost something in the translation. Lance to penetrate ? A ram , bit flimsy ?
-
I have been in the UK for six days so only just caught up.
Now that I am home (and rapidly refilling the wine holder !) I will get on to it. However Xitan may be a good source as suggested as he is very knowledgable.
Roger in France
-
Hi Roger, six days to fill a wine rack? How many bottles did you bring? :o
-
No, no....... Working at satisfying my requirements since returning !
Went to a family party in the UK and took 70 l. of good stuff which was much enjoyed by those attending two days of birthdays and wedding anniversaries !
Roger in France
-
Roger doesn't deal in bottles, just Tuns....
-
:-))Could do with a tun or two myself (Aussie Red) or Madeira would be nice or a decent Port :D :D
Freebooter
-
Quick, quick in case there is a Watcher about......ROGER DOES NOT DEAL !
Roger in France
-
We take for granted the obvious advantages of a raked bow with some degree of flare, especially in faster hulls, in the majority of sea conditions (much drier etc). During this earlier period of design/evolution perpendicular bows were common and probably much easier to fabricate. My local museum used to display a huge collection of Manufacturer's models, mainly of warships built by Messrs. Armstrong from approx 1880 - WW2. Generally the earlier the design the more closely their hulls and some features resemble ships of the much slower sail power period, including bowsprits and other apparently quite useless features - bow/stern ornament - for aesthetic purposes. I think this bowsprit feature is a little bit of 'sporty bling' on this early French example of their 'greyhound of the seas'. These were probably a 'peace time building' feature prior to WW1 and consequently not retained. I only recall one early warship model with a 'ram bow' and it also had open main turrets and an open skeletal bridge structure. :o
A few models are still displayed including my favourite, HMS Nelson (1927 Treaty). I hope the rest of these wonderful models are safe in a large basement somewhere. :-)
BTW Richard is definately an 'honoured guest' at my next birthday
-
The first torpedoes were an explosive charge on a spar mounted infront of the ship. These are the torpedoes admiral Farragut refered to ("Full speed and Dxxx the torpedoes") during the American civil war. For these to be effective the spar was angled downwards to the explosion would be near the water line. These would be long out of service when this ship was built.
The spar on this ship seems to be a bowsprite.The lump on the end of the Japanese ship looks like a fender to me.
-
I think Farragut was referring to what we now call mines rather than spar torpedoes.
Colin
-
Hello
Very nice thread :-)) As said Arrow5 I was at sea last week where I still have access to Internet but not for sites like forums. so I've received the PM from via the transfert to my personnal e-mail but no way to come here ...
Just for fun, one of my pics taken during that time (click on picture for bigger size)
(http://img3.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_183319DSC_2092.jpg) (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=183319DSC_2092.jpg)
About the like jib boom on this "torpilleur", after reading this thread I was close to think like Perkasaman : ornament, aesthetic and useless but after search on my own books I'have seen many pictures of many differents "torpilleurs" and most have this boom with like a removal plug at the end ... I know a man who's certainely know the answer and I will try to contact him this week.
As I don't like to leave a question without answer, I will try my best.
About the staggered props - I'm sure : this is a solution to the problem appeared some time on so narrow ships as the designer need large size props.
Now about the rudder, I remember that it was some trial in this period. The power requested to move a rudder situated aft of the props at 30 knots was a problem at that time (no hydraulic) so they need reduction that means no speed and long reaction time.
So it was one of the tested solution. I'm not sure about the success as later no more ships will be built like that. But soon after that time power was available to move large rudder with reliable steam actuator.
This "around 1900" french navy was later nicknammed "stupid young navy" as many of these ships were designed by young engineers who tried any sorts of solutions ... some one with silly technical and weapon.
Have a nice week-end ... >:-o I've to cut the "xxxxx".... grass in my garden
A+ Xtian
-
Hello Xtian,
Thanks for the answers to two of the questions. The position of the rudder was a real challenge but it must have worked fairly well with a semi-balanced system. I look forward to seeing how effective it was when I do trials on my model.
I look forward to news on the boom because there seems to be no logical answer.
Now you can relax after the mowing!
Regards
Tony
-
Been mulling over this bowsprit thing and I wonder if it was used for more than one thing...Aesthetics and as for the Japanese one I also thought it looked like a fender and wondered the if on a long narrow hulls like this that didn't steer well at slow speeds it was used to limit damage to hulls by acting as a guide and fender when comming alongside ... easer to replace or repair a wooden spar than shell plating.... An off the wall shot I know but funner things have been tried {:-{ {:-{
Freebooter
-
Quote........Just for fun, one of my pics taken during that time (click on picture for bigger size)
Xtian....why was the FFG......[Oliver Perry Class] allowed to slice in front of HMS York D98?........neither are listening for submarines are they! .......... :o ...Derek
-
Hello
In fact we were all four ships in line with the russian Severomorsk - USS Klakring - HMS York and French Tourville. The Klakring has to deviate during the helo ops aboard the Severomorsk, on this picture she returns to its place in the line.
a+ Xtian
-
The bowsprit only has a bobstay, so setting sails is out and as it is so meaty, I was wondering if it is for taking the weight of the anchor chain when the anchor is in use. Such as a Mediterranean moor, which most vessels would use in the Med, in doing so it kept the chain of the stem keeping the paintwork clean and balancing the moor better. On the other hand French warships are renowned for large ensigns, so it could be used for the Jackstaff!!!
-
probably of no use at all but a photo i found on the net shows the inside of the tube being square.
-
probably of no use at all but a photo i found on the net shows the inside of the tube being square.
So maybe it was used as a socket for some other fitting and that would explain the "boxing glove" which would be a canvas bag to keep the water out.
Something to do with anchoring seems to be the most likely purpose.
Colin
-
There is one photo that I've found showing the ship moored up to a buoy and there don't appear to be any lines further forward than the anchor hawse points. Also, the cross section in the drawing that Colin downloaded suggests that the bowsprit is solid and round.
It's a b****r
Tony
-
I don't think the bowsprit would have been used as a mooring point as that would not be strong enough but it might, as Old Dodes suggests, have been used to take the weight of the anchor when pulling it up as far as the surface when it wouldn't have weighed too much, At that point a line would have been shackled onto it from the anchor handing davit. The bowsprit would have kept the anchor clear of the stem - modern motor yachts often carry their anchors on an extension to the bow to avoid scratching the gelcoat!
-
Do you think it was used as a starting point for keel - hauling drunken Maltose
I do so like a good keeli-hauling :-)) :-)) {-)
Freebooter
-
I agree with Tony, it's really frustrating this one. Someone, somewhere must know the answer!
Colin
-
For carrying the white flags ?
-
Hopefully our colleagues 'sur le continong' can come up with the answer which I'm sure ain't the one Rob suggested. Certainly the wrong period for that one anyway.
I've also looked at the 'bobstay' possibility but I think that the shackle etc. below the pole is for a towline or similar. The line is drawn parallel to the waterline and would only coincide with the bowsprit at infinity. That said, why include the line in the drawing? Is it connected in some other (non-bobstay) way?
Tony
-
Still no answer but, in the meanwhile, I've been building a 1:96 one for inspiration - if any.
It's rather like building a sub, I should imagine, because it was obviously a very wet boat. The small 'lumps' coming up from the hull are a mix of hatch tubes or skylights. All activity took place on a flying deck and the whole hull would be virtually submerged in a heavy sea, rather like the Monitor. Deckhouses were entered via hatches rather than doors. I've left the deck template for the forward third in place to show.
One thing that has arisen in the build that I hadn't noticed from the plans is that having the rudder ahead of the props means that the rudder hits the shafts at anything over about 20 degrees from centre. It must have ben a pig to manouvre with little helm and virtually no effect from opposite screws because they are so close together relative to the length of the hull.
At 1:96 displacement is about 12 oz. Hull is 2mm balsa on 2mm ply frames with doped tisue inside and out. Weight so far with motors, shafts and props, 1 mini servo and ESC is 6 oz.
Tony
-
That is indeed an odd position for the rudder. I had thought they were like some of the early steam torpedo boats - in line with the shafts and split above and below. I'm surprised that the rudder wasn't notched in line with the shafts to give a bit more angle. Manoeuvering to come alongside must have been a bit tricky. Maybe the fat pointy thing was a socket for a sprung bowsprit/bumper (only joking - I still think it's a socket for a spar torpedo).
-
That's the trouble - it may not be a joke and there was a matey on the dockside with a big forked stick to fend off the approaching vessel!
You can see what Xtian was about regarding 'young designers' being given their head.
Tony
-
Hello
Very nice job ! I like the picture showing the staggered props and the rudder ahead !
12 oz %% (hopefully there is conversion table on Internet ... 340 grammes !) my smaller model is 10 kg {-) my bigger 100 kg !
I've ask about the jib boom to one "old navy specialist" and he think about aesthetic, but not 100% sure !
He's sure that it's not for weapon like torpedoes or other (and not to fly the "white flag" <*<) But I'm still waiting for an answer from the "Master Specialist" who's on holydays (holydays for retired person ???? ) until 15th August !
About manoeuvering, it was very easy with steam to "differencier les lignes d'arbre" I don't know the word in english but the idea is to have one shaft in higher speed than the other or stopped or one in forward and one in reverse. With the arrival of the first diesel it was quite more difficult but with steam it was the regular way to manoeuver the rudder was only used for open sea sailing.
A+ Xtian
-
Hi Xtian,
Thanks for the ideas.
I understand the 'differencier les lignes d'arbre' but with a long thin hull and the propellors so close together the effect would be very limited n'est ce que pas? Especially during mooring.
Tony
-
Hello
I understand the 'differencier les lignes d'arbre' but with a long thin hull and the propellors so close together the effect would be very limited n'est ce que pas? Especially during mooring.
Of course with a narrow hull it's works less but it's works better than any rudder without speed and any rudder ahead of props !
On your model you intend to have one or two speed controller ?
A+ Xtian
-
Topic renamed. :-)
-
Looking at the Prop--Rudder arrangment -- I still think at slow speeds she will handle like a super tanker with a hang-over and don't think going ahead on one and astern on the other will do much --- BUT!!! I wonder if putting the rudder hard over and backing into a berth you might have more control --- with an anchor at short stay to control the bow I think it could done with out bashing up the iron work or scratcking too much paint work...something like the way a modern supply v/l berths today.... I can't see if you would have any control at all going ahead at slow speeds... What do you chaps think?????
Freebooter
-
Hello
I'm almost sure that with one ahead and one astern this ship is manoeuvrable specialy as the steam is very smooth and forget the rudder for low speed.
I remember that following my Grand Father the Volta and Mogador with a length/breadth ratio very similar to the Arquebuse (137/12 - 58,3/6,4) was able to come or to leave harbor almost always alone (without tug) and this was possible because of the smooth steam and "en différenciant les lignes d'arbre) Anyone who's experienced steam knows about what I'm talking with smooth steam.
A link to the Arquebuse class history with some pics !
http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Forum-Pages-d-Histoire-aviation-marine/marine-1914-1918/torpilleurs-arquebuse-contre-sujet_660_1.htm
Anyone interresting with a postal card copy ?
http://www.familles.com/cartes-postales-Torpilleur-L-Arquebuse-76600-LE-HAVRE-76-seine-maritime-464336-65396-detail.html
A+ Xtian
-
A few enlargements of the photos from:
http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Forum-Pages-d-Histoire-aviation-marine/marine-1914-1918/torpilleurs-arquebuse-contre-sujet_660_1.htm
Jousting lance?
-
'Ells Bells Martin,
What on earth is she doing with an AA tow-bar! At least that's what the bracket coming up from the mounting half way up the bow seems to be on the top photo! The plot thickens.
As far as the manouevring on the screws is concerned, wouldn't the fact that the screws overlap have a major effect? The best you could achieve would be to stop one engine rather than reversing it.
Tony
-
Hello
Thank's Martin for the enlargements :-))
As far as the manouevring on the screws is concerned, wouldn't the fact that the screws overlap have a major effect?
Yes of course, don't add soap to the water as you will have foam ;D
The best you could achieve would be to stop one engine rather than reversing it.
No as with one ahead and one astern, the ship turn but "playing" smoothly with the power you can also ajust going forward or goin astern. It's really a pleasure to manoeuver like that.
A+ Xtian
-
Hi Xtian,
Luckily the prototype model is small enough to sail in the bath (Sans Savon!) so I've decided to use it as a test bed and fit 2 speed controllers to see what the effect is. The scale effect is going to be large but at least some result may be indicated.
As far as the pointy thing is concerned, the large enlargement that shows the port bow shows a long angled bar that runs through what appears to be a roller to what seems to be a ring about the same diameter as the boom. Is there a link between them and why have what seem to be ladder rungs down the side to the horizontal chain?
I wonder if the boom can be extended forward, with the bar as a brace. It still leaves the 'what is it for' question but...
Regards
Tony
-
Hello
.... the bath (Sans Savon!) so I've ....
{-) {-) {-)
A+ Xtian
-
XTIAN29
I have handled both large and small steam ships and both turbine and resipucating engines in the navy and the merchant navy and a steam whale catcher they are not as all as smoth as you think and on some you can have over a 30 second delay when going from ahead to asrern...
Freebooter
-
Hello
I don't have the chance to experience manoeuvrer with old fashion steam ship (only steam turbine on nuclear aircraft carrier and large destroyer :embarrassed:)
I agree with you about the reversing time and that means that you have to anticipate which is the first step for any nice ship manoeuver. But this problem was the same aboard of old fashion diesel.
When I speak about smooth I'm thinking for exemple about steam tug which do not break the line like diesel tug as with diesel (fixed prop) when you engage the shaft the ship goes to rapidly to 5 knots.
So you have to play with order like "forward 0 for 2 seconds" etc... With steam you don't have this problem and you can run the shaft at 1rpm if you want.
It's the same even with modern nuclear aircraft carrier and I've seen the Charles de Gaulle coming into the Brest harbor with the portside prop in reverse for 3 miles - the starboard in forward and just playing with the RPM.... She come to the quay alone (tugs connected but towline without tension).
In fact one of the best propulsion for manoeuver is electric ( diesel / electric - steam / electric )
A+ Xtian
-
Reciprocation type engines....pistons...[up & downers] .......be they diesel or steam have the functional ability to be stopped & reversed O0 ...in a relatively short time cycle ...for land lovers ;D remember the engine room scene from the movie 'Titanic'....when the bridge command was for engines ASTERN
As Xtian suggests........steam turbines are fine but were never designed for manoeuvrering ....however the newer gas turbines with LIPPS variable pitch props...just love the HUGE mW's of power & astern thrust... O0 Derek
-
Ah! But on the v/l's we talking about had fixed pitch prop's not C.P. and the engines were up & downers ---I still say that with the prop's overlapping they would handle like single screw ships and that the twin screws were more for speed than anything else and would have been almost useless for maneuvering BUT time will tell I shall watch this site with great interest and can't wait to here the results of the sailing trials
Freebooter
-
Just a quick update on the MkI model (1:96). Weight so far is 10.5oz including 4xAA cells which leaves 1.5 oz for Rx and 2 small ESC's which should be possible.
Hardest part was making the supports for the flying deck but used shaped cutter (See photo) whch screwed onto the end of a variable temp. soldering iron.
Tony
-
Steam recip engines can go from full ahead to full astern instantly, that is why the old steam tug masters had such a job getting used to diesel engines which have to reduce revs for the gearbox to reverse the shaft for them. I have worked on a steam recip ship with a single rudder, when the vessel was dead in the water you ignore the rudder, it is the paddle wheel effect of the screws which turn you, ie right hand throw and a left hand throw props when going astern and ahead. I would think that these destroyers if they have opposing throw propellors would be quite manoeuvrable when stopped in the water and being steam recip the power would be as quick as the telegraph could be read and applied in the engine room which would be quicker than many people realise, especially on a naval vessel with a large engine room crew.
Also looking at the close up of the bows, it looks like a bobstay on some hanging off the bow, with a ring which could be quickly slipped over the end of the spar and the stay adjusted for tension.
-
But why have the spar in the first place, apart from artistic licence? The top photo from the ones that Martin included shows a rigid stay, not just a rope one, with what appears to be a roller sheave, which could swing round to re-inforce the location of the spar - but why?
-
TonyH
An old shipmate of mine said that the RN used to deploy explosive cutters for mine sweeping from a bowsprit like boom fixed on some of the older WW1 destroyers---- the idea being to carry the gear as far fwd as possible
Freebooter
-
Sounds like a solid idea JJ.
Apparently, the use of 'cowcatchers' was authorised from 1908 in the RN, and tests had been carried out in 1878, so the timing would be about right.
My gut feeling is that it's going to be a toss-up between that and the simple anti torpedo boat ram, old habits dying hard in the French navy of the time.
Tony
-
TonyH
I Agree. But its perplexing gust the same. Still no info. from out French friends or perhaps they are to embarrassed to tell us :} :} :}
Freebooter
-
No, no confirmation from Le Continong, but Xtian's pal was on hols.
On the mine-sweeping side, I went through a load of RN destroyer photos from the period last night and a number show what appears to be a heavy boom stowed on the fore deck which may/may not be our equivalent. There is also a fair amount of info on mine countermeasures on line but I haven't been able to find how the 'cowcatcher' was actually deployed.
I have, though, been in touch with a neighbour who was in the RN between the wars and he's carrying the 'pointy' torch further.
Tony
-
The Cow (Mine) catcher - plus someones washing!
-
Hello
I still have no answer from the specialist who's on holidays even if he's already retired <*< Expected return in september !
Last week-end I was talking about that with a friend who's not a mariner but a "rat de bibliothèque" and he said that he have a souvenir of a text talking about this "bout-dehors" (french name of this part) Nothing explain the reason of this but the text was about tow as it's hazardous to have a tow line connected when the ship is equipped with a bowsprit so it's why there is a towing device with a cable fixed down to the bow sprit. For him the bowsprite is just aesthetic as for some people at that time mast must be tall even if there is no more sail and a "bout-dehors" is needed like a noze on a man face ...
I'm almost sure that this bowsprite have nothing to do with mine sweeping. There is only one picture with this roller : it should be for mooring reason as most of those ships where moored "cul à quai" perpendicular to the quay aft to the quay with bow on buoy
A nice picture of one of those Contre-Torpilleurs
(http://nsa07.casimages.com/img/2009/07/29/090729084515897777.jpg) (http://www.casimages.com)
A+ Xtian (waiting for september and the return of the specialist ...)
-
When you look at the various pictures there seem to be two types of "bowsprit". A light version which may indeed have been just aesthetic and a more substantial one which appears to have a fitting of some sort on the end.
We must get to the bottom of this, I'm losing sleep over it! <*<
Colin
-
Is there such a thing as the French Maritime museum?
-
Lots of them Martin, all over the place! French Maritime history goes back as far as ours and was very successful in general. Trafalgar was just a hiccup!
Colin
-
A hiccup!
A HICCUP!
A HICCUP!!!!!!!!
Malheureusement my French isn't good enough to even think of contacting them.
Tony
-
Lots of them Martin, all over the place! French Maritime history goes back as far as ours and was very successful in general. Trafalgar was just a hiccup!
Colin
Anyone on here know enough good French to ask one of the French museums to look up the 'bow spit' for us? :-))
-
Trafalgar (http://nsa07.casimages.com/img/2009/07/30/090730030212236794.png) (http://www.casimages.com)
What is trafalgar ... Oh yes ... A submarine named after a square in London {-)
Oops sorry, it's the name of a battle with the winner return at home into a rhum barrel ... Died (http://nsa07.casimages.com/img/2009/07/30/090730030950673507.gif) (http://www.casimages.com)
A+ Xtian
PS Martin don't think about me to ask the question to a museum, my French is worst than my English {-)
-
And Waterloo is a station you used to be able to travel to France from - but not any more....
-
Yes it's a pity as it was a nice way to welcome us {-)
-
I suppose its asking too much for you all to stick to the point(y thing). I'm still agog to find out what it was (and thanks Martin for the enlargements).
-
Hear Hear!
The voice of sanity!
It's all the fault of that Colin Bishop representing Albion Perfide.............
Martin asked the right question, whether anyone has enough French to contact La Musee de la Marine, or any of the others in France.
-
Moi?! I was just killing time waiting for an authoritative answer. From the photos I have seen of destroyers of this era there are two types of bowsprit. One is obviously lightweight and is probably an aesthetic carry over but others are clearly more substantial and would appear to have served some other purpose, definitely not a spar torpedo unless the intention was to blow the bows off the attacking vessel.
Somebody, somewhere must know.....
Colin
-
Hello
Musée de la Marine ... forget to receive an answer :embarrassed:
We just have to wait September and the return from his "retired holydays" of the right specialist for this French navy period and type of ships
What else ?
A+ Xtian
-
I know how you feel!
It's daft, but I've just been through all the photos on www.photoship.co.uk (which is very worthwhile if you've an hour to spare) and there are several shots of French detroyers of the period, along with bigger ships and even one of their original subs, and ALL of them are shot from the back end!
By the way, I'm abandoning the mini version of L'Arquebuse because, following a discussion with Action it's unlikely that a small motor will have enough low speed control to verify or not the idea of the rudder ahead of the screws and the other, boat handling, part of the thread. I'll start on the 1:36 (5ft/13lb) version in the next few days because it'll still be an interesting build and I've got a better 'feel' for it having seen it in 3D.
Tony
-
Hello
It's a big challenge to built a 12oz regular contre-torpilleur with one "regular" motor for the two shaft. But it's a fact that with this prop and rudder arrangement the Arquebuse class need to be built with two very small motors each one with ESC and then it's come a bigger challenge with 12oz %%
1/36 looks a good scale :-))
A+ Xtian
-
Hello Xtian,
The problem is that small motors are not good at slow revs. They do not have enough inertia to be smooth at low speeds, so it would be difficult to be accurate at mooring.
I agree that 1:36 is much better and we can then see whether the 'young designers' were any good!
Regards
Tony
-
Your link is hard ... Following with harbour instead of name of ship I've seen those pics
http://www.photoship.co.uk/JAlbum%20Ships/Ports%20Harbours%20Piers/slides/Toulon%20Harbour-01.html
http://www.photoship.co.uk/JAlbum%20Ships/Ports%20Harbours%20Piers/slides/Toulon%20Harbour-02.html
A+ Xtian
-
Hi Tonyh,
Many years ago I remember seeing a mod to an electric drive motor for a 4mm model railway loco. It had two big heavy wheel weights fitted both sides of the motor, this allowed the motor to drive the model at a very slow, steady speed, because prior to that the slowest scale speed was about 30 mph. Ido not know what others may think , but perhaps this mod might work on a small motor for you. I am just brain storming ideas to get over your motor size problem.
Best of Luck.
David
-
Thanks David,
logical idea but weight would then be a tad of a problem. I have decided to bite the bullet and build the bigger version so we might get some of the handling matters ironed out, even if the 'pointy' matter is still unresolved!
Regards
Tony
-
Hello
Don't be affraid ... I'm sure we will have the answer soon !
A+ Xtian
-
Yes we might :o But x-mas is comming and we might get lucky
Freebooter :-))
-
Hello
I've call yesterday a modeller lover of pre-WWI navy and I was surprise to learn that he was building a model of one of this "contre-torpilleur de 300t" choising the Bombarde because he found many details pictures.
On the other hand he said that there is a superb model of the Bombarde with the Musée de la Marine at Paris. But like me, he said don't expect help from the museum staff ... >:-o
Anyway if you want to built the Bombarde, there is no problem with Luc ... to share pictures and documentation with you. Take care he's a "rivet counter" - As exemple on this class of ship the real deck metal of the hull is rounded and the "walking deck" is above and full built in wood "caillebotis" (what the name of this in English ?)
(http://nsa08.casimages.com/img/2009/08/11/090811081831678957.jpg) (http://www.casimages.com)
So, Luc is building a 1/125 scale model with the full deck built like that O0
He said that he have no idea about the bowsprit purpose but, as he have a lot of documentation on this class of ship he will search for us.
About the prop and rudder arrangement he said (like me previously) that it was no problem for low speed and harbor manoeuvre with two shaft and state of the art steam engines.
So ... the discussion continue !
A+ Xtian
PS : PM send to Tony with detail and adress of this man
-
I may be wrong and my wife like all wives says I am usually wrong. But a suggestion I have is that these bowsprits all seem to have bobstay and shroud fittings, which says to me the strain is upwards and sidewards. So as this is a period when steam vessels had high consumption of fuel, an therefore short endurance range under steam, could the gear not be part of an axillary sailing rig. It is after all a long way from North France to the South French coast and one would not want to rely on Spain or Portugal to bunker ship as that would pose diplomatic problems in times of tension. In those days auxiliary sailing rigs on merchantman was still fairly common and I remember coasters with sails in the early sixties, the old masters often said that although they where fitted as an anti rolling rig they did give extra speed and where frequently used to gain an extra bit.
I am only brain storming ideas until some one comes up with the definitive reason from some old dusty manual.
-
Hi David,
My brain, what little is left, has stormed..........
The idea is certainly a possibility but I'd have thought that the drawings would have shown more rigging/fixings.
Were they ever passaged via the canals and would it have anything to do with that?
I've got a drawing of one of the class that shows it fully rigged, so if you wan't me to mail it to you let me know by PM.
Regards
Tony
PS My wife has the same attitude as your'n.
-
Does Caillebotis mean grating? As your illustration?
-
Hi Tony,
Regards the rigging plan , yes send it by all means, to me this has to be one of the most interesting subjects todate that I have followed on this site.
David
-
Hello
Does Caillebotis mean grating? As your illustration?
Looking on google with the word "grating" it look's like to be the caillebotis (french) in english, thank you Tobyker as it's sometime hard to found a translation tool for maritim term.
The whole deck of this contre-torpilleur is made with wood grating ! hard for a modeler !
About the sail on contre-tropilleur : I don't think so and a bowsprit is not enough ... where are the mast ?
A+ Xtian
-
Hi,
1. Xtian - I've sent to a copy of the rigging drawing for the ship.
2. David - I'll send you a PM tomorrow.
A couple of other things I've noticed today. Firstly the first true torpedo boat (TB1 Lightning) had her rudder in front of the prop so it wasn't just the French who thought of it.
Secondly, mention was made by several vavies of Spar Rams being fitted and then the spar torpedos being an extension of those. (30ft or so). Could the 'pointy things' be the vestigual rams, still in place, after the torpedo bit was discounted.
Tony
-
Hello
Thank you Tony for the rigging drawing, all indication written on it are for exemple "vergue de signaux" (that means spar for flag); this mast rigging is very "fragile " for sailing and at least there is no connection with the bowsprit.
The question and discussion still open :}
A+ Xtian
-
I think that there is a strong possibility that this spar may in fact be a jackstaff. In earlier sailing days the jack was flown from a small mast fitted vertically on the bowsprit while the ship was at anchor. At the "bowsprit ends" is what was specified. This was stowed away when the vessel put to sea. It is therefore possible that the spar on the bow of the Arquebuse and similar destroyers was used in some way for this purpose, either by mounting a light vertical pole at the end of the sprit - is that what the concealed fitting under the "boxing glove" is for I wonder? - or perhaps by raising the sprit itself to the vertical position. When you look at the pictures of these early destroyers and torpedo boats in Janes etc. there do appear to be two types of spar, a lighter one and the heavier one as carried by Arquebuse. There is some support for this on the site below from which I have taken an extract.
Colin
http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-nav.html
I don't think that, in general, it ever has been officially changed. Photographs show that RN ships normally leave the ensign on its staff at the stern, and only occasionally fly it from the mast of a ship with only one mast. Ships with two masts hoisted the ensign on a gaff at the after mast. Some ships, destroyers/frigates/ corvettes in WW2, and current mine counter-measure ships had/have a stub mast on the superstructure between the funnel and the stern on which the ensign is hoisted, sometimes on a gaff. Hoisting the jack in harbour was not made an official requirement until 1920, and before that, in some places and circumstances, was prohibited.1844 Queen's Regulations; "... and with Union Jacks at bowsprit ends when it shall be thought proper to display them". It was not until 1913 that "jack staff" replaced "bowsprit-ends".
-
In the early part of this thread I posted an answer from the British Maritime Museum stating that the some early British ones set a stay sail on the bowsprit when on long passages
Freebooter :-))
-
I still think its the socket for the torpedo spar.
-
Just to advise that I'm due to receive some more plans and photos from France, including pics of the model in the Paris museum. As soon as I've got them I'll post anything interesting. As far as rigging is concerned, there is no indication of any lines to the end of the spar.
Tony
-
Received today a CD with 49 drawings and detail photos from La France. Unfortunately, they're all mega size .tif files and I can't seem to drop them down far enough in size to post. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can advise.
Tony
-
Tony,
I've managed to convert the three you sent me from TIFF to JPEG format:-
Colin
-
PM sent....
-
Many thanks to both Colin and Martin.
Tony.
-
Tony
Any news yet on what that spar was used for?
Freebooter {:-{
-
Nope, no news as yet.
I'm still on the build of the 1:36 version for Mayhem 2010 so, hopefully, inspiration will follow on!
Tony
-
I wait with baited breath for your words of wisdom ;) ;) :-))
-
Fron the hints I have read in various publications it's still quite likely that the spar was jsut an ornament!
Colin
-
Sorry JJ, but I think you overrate my Solomonic (if there is such a word) powers!
You're probably right Colin and it's probably one of those topics where 'bark' and'gumtree' co-incide but (a) why so heavy and (b) why put the 'boxing glove' on the end?
The French navy of the period normally showed more flair wot with too many funnels, mega-tumblehome and proper ram bows on their ships.
Also, there were several designers involved since all the classes of destroyers showed the same 'aberration'.
Come in Xtian - all is forgiven!
Regards to all.
-
Have not followed all of this topic, so this idea might have been raised already. As early TBD were very lightly built could the "fat pointy thing" be some form of protection for the bows?
It might also be handy in getting out of docks, TBD's not being the most maneuverable of vessels, put the "fat pointy thing" up against the dock wall, apply rudder and ahead to swing the stern.
GlynnG
-
Aye Glynn, it's certainly a possibility given the questionable steering on these boats but unfortunately all the photos found sofar show the boats moored stern on or side on to the dock so no guidance either way. That's part of the reason why I'm building a decent size version for 'lab' testing.
Tony
-
I Know this has been raised before but can't some of our "French Connection" check with the Paris Maritime Museum and put us out of our misery--- I tried the Greenwich Maritime Museum and ask about bow spirits on the British ones of the same time scale and was told that on long passages a bowsprit was some times put on so they could carry a staysail to help with fuel consumption ---- later a stronger steel one was used to tow mine sweeping gear and I still think the French used the same type of systime and that the Boxing Glove is a cover for blocks, sheeves or fittings used in deployment :-) I also toyed with it being used to assist in comming along side and mooring due to the light constrution of the vessels but it was pointed out to me that they are often of a very light constrution --- so---- I think we shall have to wait and see...the only thing I am sure of is that they were not used as a Jack staff "That's just a Red Herring--- If they wanted a Jack Staff a light weight portable pole set vert. in a socket not half a telegraph pole set horizontally would have been used :-))
Freebooter
-
My friend John says is it for catting the anchor? The anchor is stowed a long way aft and you have to cat it outboard or it will open the tinwear on its way up.
-
All of these are possibles BUT there's no evidence for anything.
None of the photos of these or similar French destroyers of the period(and there are loads on line), or the plans show any lines or fittings associated with the 'pole'.
It could be for a staysail but there's no indication of this being an option on the rigging plans and also, in the main on RN ships.
the bowsprit was a spare spar on the fordeck and not a permanent fixture stickin' outa front.
All the pics of the vessels at anchor or moored up show the lines or chains running from the deck sheaves. I'd have thought that catting from that far forward of the bow would have been just as risky to the hull but I'm bound to have missed something, somewhere and I'll keep plugging away.
I'm sure this is all a Gaullist plot.
Tony
-
Tony
I think you are correct, Its a crafty French plot (Like the EU) to drive Us Brits Mad --- :} :} :-))
Freebooter
-
Could this be the answer?
Photo in Dec 2009 Model Boats. The tug is the right period being built in 1895.
Are we actually there at last????!
Colin
-
Check this out, not one anchor. Reckon its a throwback to the bowsprit
http://francois.delboca.free.fr/fsaviso.html
-
The anchor would be stowed on deck until it was required for use. None of these pictures seem to help very much although I have read a suggestion that the pole was a vestigal bowsprit of no actual use. But if you look at pictures in Janes and elsewhere it does seem that there were two types of bowsprit, the very thin pole and a more substantial spar with what looked like a canvas covered fitting on the end.
Colin
-
Aye to all,
There's one (Picture 35) that shows the sprit with what looks like a sock over it and a couple of others that show, or at least suggest, fittings (Photo 53 for instance) but there's still no real answer.
One thing I did notice, apart from the fact that the French seem to prefer to photograph from the back, rather like the old Renault ads, was that Photo 23 shows a later ship with the same spar above a bow tube. Could it be that in this particular case the spar was part of the bow tube system?
-
Tony
Any more news on the bow sprit and uses of???
Hows the build comming on???
Freebooter
-
Hi JJ,
Still no resolution of the BIG question. Feelers out in all directions and the odd hint but that's all.
I've done a lot of the basic stuff on the build, such as cutting the frames etc. but I've stopped at the point of sorting access into the hull etc. simply because I want to clear up the matter of the flying deck and how to get all the grating it needs. That will determine the access system because it is, as you know, almost a submarine in form and I want to keep the wet stuff outside.
In the meanwhile I'm playing with a springer derivative. Check out the Vokswagen type 166.
Regards
Tony
-
Build the model and mount it in a motorised, water tight, clear plastic box that way it will never get wet so no problems with water ingress :D :D :D :-))
Freebooter
-
Just out of interest, when i visited the london Science museum during the week I had a look at their models of old destroyers and torpedo boats. No luck I'm afraid but I did find this picture which clearly shows how a spar torpedo was rigged.
Colin
-
Hi Tony,
According to a small photo and caption page 143 of the Arbalete (1903) one of the French Arquebuse class destroyers in the book Steam,Steel and Shellfire The steam warship 1815-1905 by Conways, The small bowsprit was useful in handling the anchors.
I think Colin hinted at this earlier but i have been rooting through some of my ref books trying to find you a more positive use/description to give you a answer....and the above this seems the most likely to date.
Merry Christmas to you all :-))
Ian
-
Yes, I think the illustration on reply 146 above gives an indication of how it may have been used for anchor handling.
Colin
-
I've been looking at the Pix in the thread http://francois.delboca.free.fr/fsaviso.html The more I look at them the more I am convinced they were used mainly for anchor handling and possibly a 2nd dairy use like the British ones for mine sweeping or setting a passage sail ---- There are too many different designs of ship in this class fitted with a bowsprit for it to be just a decoration (Even for a French vessel) None of these TB's seemed to be using stockless anchors... given this and the light construction and lively movements of these vessels I wouldn't want one of the old stile anchors swinging any where near my fragile shell plating until it was properly secured...Modern Yachts use a similar system for recovering and stowing anchors ..the bowsprit could easily be rigged with a sheeve inserted in the end and a wire running to a ten/fiveteen ton SWL block to take the anchor warp ... The out board end would be protected with a canvas cover when not in use
Freebooter :-))
-
It's all still 'mebbe' but I think that it's probably closest to the truth.
There are what seem like thousands of photos of almost all members of almost all classes.
There are photos of the wrecks, above and below the water.
There are crew lists and histories.
There are stories of storms and almighty 'b****-ups' which indicate the lack of steering in the ships.
There is nothing yet to confirm anything.
The bracket/roller thingy in the photos of Reply 81 could, in fact, be a 'bolt-on' version of the rig shown on the steam launch and the lines which run round the bow could play a further part.
It just seems a bit, well, inelegant.
The shed is snowed in/out for the moment and I'm waiting for a price for the laser cutting of the grating for the flying deck.
Happy Christmas to all
Tony
-
One of the pictures shows what looks like some steps down the hull on the same side as what might be a hinged bracket for swinging the anchor aft to the stowage position just under the gun platform, once it's been raised. The steps could be for hooking the anchor to the bracket, or merely access to clear fouled lines.
-
Ah! Tony
Have a Happy Yule Tide and A Very Merry New Year (Hic!!!)
Freebooter :-)) :}
-
Hi all,
This link doesn't help explain the items function but does show the Russian version on two 1/50th scale ships (very nice builds of Braviy & Grozny).
http://u-boat-laboratorium.com/index.php?page=gallery-model (http://u-boat-laboratorium.com/index.php?page=gallery-model)
Enjoy.
Roger.
-
Actually, I think the photos are quite helpful. One destroyer has bow mounted torpedo tubes, the other doesn't but the fitting is essentially the same on both so it can't be anything to do with torpedo handling.
The fitting is substantial and fixed in position which suggests that it is built to take a significant weight.
The glove on the end appears to be a cover for a boom end fitting - maybe a sheave.
There is a strop fitted along the side of the hull just below the deckline on both vessels.
To me it looks a virtual certainty that the gear is used for anchor handling. Remember, other lines/equipment to make it work may be stowed away out of sight when not required. All in all it does seem to tie in very well with the earlier photo I posted of the civilian vessel with anchor at the ready.
Colin
-
Lovely models Roger. Thanks for posting the discovery!
It's now at the point where civil law separates from the criminal variety.
'Balance of probability' v 'Proof' <*<
It still niggles but after so much consideration and input from everybody it's probably right but I'm sure we'd all like to see just one blurred picture of 'The Thing' with even a bit of string attached to it!!!!!!!!!!
Happy New Year to all!
Tony
-
Great pictures Roger The boxing glove looks very much like fendering to me which makes sense when you are bringing somthing so long and narrow along side a stone jetty or quay or indeed another vessel But it really dosn't answer the question of the main purpose --- Hows your Russan ? maybe they would or could tell us what it was used for... Super Models
Freebooter
-
I can't see how the "boxing glove" could be a fender. Whilst the spar might be quite sturdy, it isn't strong enough to take the weight of the whole vessel and any misjudgement when coming alongside is lilely to impact on the side of the bow. The spar would be likely to be well above the level of the dockside. The ship would use proper fenders slung over the side at the appropriate height when coming alongside, not rely on bashing the bowsprit against the dock or puncturing one of its flotilla mates!
Colin
-
Hi all,
Hopefully a member has a grasp on the French language and could translate this snippet of info in the attachments, fingers crossed it may shed some light on the matter at hand.
The plans are from the FCM site and of the Contre-Torpilleurs "Carabine""Sarbacane".
My initial thoughts were that the bowspirit may have been a 'hang-up' from the aux sail power days but on checking Torpilleur Aviso Type "Bombe" (plans show sails) that type does not have a bowspirit :((. So checking a few other plans I'd downloaded I remembered "Carabine".
Anyways - more fuel for the fire ;).
Hope the attachments attach !.
Roger.
-
Interesting!
1 seems to refer to "eyebolt for attaching straw cover to plug of shock" so maybe it is some sort of fender after all!
2 & 3 seem to refer to attachment points to "???? stretch" so probably are rigging or forestay attachments.
4 remorque= "haul" so proably associated with raising the anchor.
Hopefully somebody can do a better translation.
Colin
-
where's 'roger in france' when you need him
-
Yes, I have sent for the cavalry!
Colin
-
Have sent information to friend in France so i will post reply if he can understand it.
Have tried various translators (Babel Fish etc) and have results:
1) Eye-bolt to mulch(straw) plug (buffer) of shocks
2) Bolt has shackle of 15mm for smoking tent (canvas) ?????
3) Eye-bolt of 15mm for chain fixing
4) Bolt of 30mm for ????? of tow (hauler)
6) Hand hold to seize the slipper anchor
More food for thought
Richie
-
I would suggest that #1 is referring to eyebolts for retaining a straw pad. So I think it is a buffer or fender.
Words change in any language. The current use of "tampon" in French means a rubber stamp used with an ink pad. Whilst "paille" is certainly "straw" it seems to be used here as "pailler", the infinitive of a verb!
I do agree with those who have said that it is an unlikely weapon for charging the enemy and that at that height it would not be effective against many docksides as a fender (except at low tide?). However, like any protuberance it could, accidentally come into contact with anything and needed padding.
My French is about present day usage in everyday situations and so I will bow (happily) to a native French speaker with some knowledge of ancient usage and nautical practise!
Roger in France (....and not a very helpful one at that!)
-
In my last reply I was concentrating on #1, which I think was the original query.
Here is a little more:
"remorque" usually means a towed trailer, a "remorquer" is a tug. I think "pentoir" is a French nautical equivalent of a boats rope for mooring or tying up, in English a "painter" and so I think #4 is a towing point.
Roger in France
-
So 2 & 3 refer to the awning, while 1 & 4 seem to be a towbar/fender arrangement. The latter would presuppose that the towing ship wa somewhat higher than the tow.
-
One of the menaings of "Tampon (Fr)" is "Buffer", so i think the bolts are to hold the straw pad of the shock buffer - so I think the FPT must be simply a buffer. 2 and 3 are I suspect bracing (guy rope?) bolts for the tente/awning. and the pentoire de remorque is I suspect a wire rope to take the strain of towing to those rather hefty oblong plates bolted to the collision bulkhead.
I can't find my big french dictionary right now, and the trouble with all the web dictionairies is that they seem to translate wods not phrases, and we are using nautical jargon at least 70 years out of date.
-
As a fan of all things "torpedo boat" I have followed this thread through its meanderings, but not being a Francophile I've kept out of it since my earlier post. But .... in the early days these craft were always moored to a mother or depot ship, usually with a much higher freeboard. Mooring them bow- or stern-on would allow more to congregate around the depot ship. Having a fixed fender would make this procedure easier.
Just a thought
Rick
-
Just had another look at the pic in post 21 and it just looks as if the 'bolster' has just slipped down, leaving a flat end, devoid of anything.
We seem to be going back to the original idea of a 'parking aid'?
-
PS. I've just had a reply on another forum confirming the 'fender/bumper' but I've followed up with the 'what circumstances/what for' question.
I'll report further.
Tony
-
Try this on for size
I'm bringing a long narrow thin hulled hard to control vessel at low speeds alongside a Trot of like vessels ---How would I do it?? The vessel has a bowsprit ---How can I use it to assistest
!) pad or fender the spirit to help prevent contact damage
2) rig a light Kedge anchor as far forward as possable (ie; off the bowsprit) to assist in contorling the bow and the ships speed (This is a ship handlers dream come true getting the anchor cable so far forward gives you a lot of leverage for moving and controling the bow.)
3) Depending on local conditions making my approach at about 30Deg's at dead slow -ahead-- at approx 75 yards all Stop --- let go the kedge. ---Play out the cable---50 yards... Helm 20deg Stb'd... slow astern stb'd M/E ...stand by with fenders and the the spring .. slack the cable--- 25yards... all stop...check the cable... (this has the effect of slowing the vessel and pulling the bow to Stb'd... heaving lines away... pass the spring --- 10 yards ... surge the spring ...dead slow astern port M/E ... this should pull the stern in and so pull the bow spirit away from danger---5 yards...Hold on to the spring and the cable (the bow is now controlled between the anchor cable running aft on the Stb'd side and the spring on the port side) stop engines...dead slow ahead Stb'd M/E ( with the rudder at stb'd 20 deg. the stern should be gently pushed alongside and will stop us from moving astern) we can't move ahead because of the spring and the anchor---- Make fast --- stop M/E Ring finished with engines ... Shore leave for off duty hands ...
By By :-)) :D :D
Freebooter
-
I'll have to let you drive the prototype JJ!
Just remind me to leave the fiddly bits off (Excluding the pointy thing of course) ok2.
Tony
-
Tony
Sounds like great fun... Two questions ... When will it be ready for sea ? Where are you going to get the hands to handle the Anchor?
Your not to faraway as I'm in Kings Lynn Norfolk
Jimmy
-
If you are on a trot bows on to something solid, presumably you could stuff the fender up against it at an angle and walk the stern in with the appropriate screw at low revs.
-
Not far away JJ?
There's a zillion miles between Norfolk & Suffolk :P
Oi reckun that Oi'd after com over the border to, say, Eaton Park as nootral grownd!
I'll be back in the shed as soon as it thaws out and could have the basic floatable/steerable/driveable hull ready for April, so if you want to meet up for a try and a pint it could be around then.
Don't forget the screws being aft of the rudder!
Tony
-
;)I remembered something I learned many years ago about a prop causing an area of of low pressure(suction) at the leading edge of the blades---If the rudder is close to the forward (intake) end of the prop's the flow will have some effect but not as much as it would if it was in the direct flow from the prop's ...also the offset of the prop small as it is from the centre line, will have a bit of a turning effect but the main turning force will come from slacking off or heaving on the spring or anchor cable ;D O0
--- Yes we could meet at Eaton Park if you wish, the pond there is super... Its just the parking and the long walk with heavy boats that let the place down...
Jimmy
Freebooter :-))
-
I'll get a PM off to you JJ.
Tony
-
The fat pointy thing is a French navy version of a petard.
-
Hello All,
A suggestion for your consideration.
The combination of towing eye and bumper could suggest the ship being towed on a short tow. This would apply if the ship was set up for movement by canal. This would not apply to larger ships.
At that time, Suez was owned mainly by the French and also there are plenty of photos of torpedo boats ans destroyers in locations such as Ouistreham, Tancarvile and Agde which are on canals.
Possible?
Logical?
Proveable?
Tony
-
With the French any thing is posable But I think even the British ones were rigged with towing points ... Many of these small fast ships had new and experamental engines even the older ones were pushed to thier limit and beond and breakdowns were rife, even on modern V/l's if you push the Infernal combustion engine too hard too often they brake --- one of the drills done regulary in the RN is towing drill --- I think the French couldn't have been that much diffrent and that being towed was a fact of life on this class of v/l ...Those of you that are old enough will remember how often the WW 2 MTD's used to come in on the end of a bit of string. For the younger ones think of how often modern raceing boats brake down
Freebooter
-
I think the last drawings possibly show the best reasons for it all, to assist in leaving when a longside a wall perhaps. A simple spring in the eye's then gently steam on it till you have your desired agle off to proceed out off the berth astern. Because I expect lowly vessels like these would not warrant a tug to assist. The towing point makes sense, as vertually all warships have built in towing points/systems.
-
please delete, wrong posting
-
" i think the last drawings possibly show the best reasons for it all, to assist in leaving when a longside a wall perhaps. A simple spring in the eye's then gently steam on it till you have your desired agle off to proceed out off the berth astern. Because I expect lowly vessels like these would not warrant a tug to assist. The towing point makes sense, as vertually all warships have built in towing points/systems."
Old Dodes
I agree, On the last posted drawings looking from the top and the side if the bit wrapped arround the outboard end of the bowsprit isn't a bow fender I'll buy the first round...
I said at first that I thought the bloody thing was multi usage and the more info that comes in the more I'm convenced that it is...!!!
Freebooter :-))
-
I said at first that I thought the bloody thing was multi usage
I expect the skipper used it to help tell which way the ship was pointing too - just like the Great Lakes steamers!
Colin
-
Aye Colin , Supply boats and some tugs as well
Freebooter
-
Well this must be one of the best threads yet on this site, as no one seems to have cracked it yet, perhaps some french researcher may come tour rescue and tell us all. But yes if I was driving that thing, I would lean on the bowsprit to get a decent angle of. Though to just add another spanner into peoples theories, in the med you usually moor what is called a med moor, ie stern to the wall and the bow lies to the bow anchor, except for large vessels of course.?????
-
OD
Agree with you on the Med Mooring system, But a lot of small war ships tended to moor on a Trot (Snuggled togeather like little piglets ) often alongside a Tender or Mother ship and it is often the case of get along side and snug down first and run out an anchor or two later if needed, in this case a fend off spar could be useful... also in some ports it is very dicey to go stern too a wall due to subsurface obstructions or shallow water which could damage your prop'(s) or rudder(s) so you have to go head to the wall... in this case a bowsprit could come in very handy to help launch, support and recover a gangway... I don't mean to say this was the primary use of this spar... But I've been in the Med on Naval , Merchant And Large and Small Sailing Vessels and have moored stern and head to ...We used to deploy the gangway on the sailing ships this way because having the extra reach from the spar made it a lot easer to handle
Jimmy
Freebooter ;) :-)) :embarrassed:
-
Good to see that the brain cells are still at work, even in the cold!
Don't forget that the placement of the screws and rudder could have had a severe effect on the handling. I'm hoping to see if that is the case with the model.
You'll be glad to know that I may have started an inter-French argument on another forum with the same question - so........
Progress on the model is slow at the moment - it's still too cold in the shed.
Cheers All
Tony
-
I dont think I have ever learned more from a single thread ! thankyou to all involved .
-
Thanks Rob,
I must admit that I never thought that it would run as it has with so many ideas and knowledge coming forth.
What fascinates me is the relationship between the model world and the world of real shipping and the way each can relate to the other.
Tony
-
Well I think I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here in regards to the "boxing glove/padded buffer" (although the "Arquebuse" plans show the area cross-hatched the majority of plans of the Contre-torpilleurs show it as open, more than likely a spring-steel loop, possibly covered by woven fender !). Ahh, and the plot thickens <*<.
Roger.
-
Just thought I'd add this pic to spark the views/thoughts of Tony's intial post question :-X.
Roger.
-
I think I'm just going to sit in a darkened room for a few days/weeks/months...........
Tony
-
Make sure you take a good Keg, Barrel or Demijohn with you
Freebooter :-)) :} :} :}
-
My son's been making cider, so I've raided the cellar!
Tony %%
-
Not taking up residence are you? {-) {-)
Freebooter
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................
-
Having de-hibernated and partially thawed out, I've just another teeny, weeny question for the knowledgeable.
I've been sorting the drive train for Arquebuse prior to getting the kit from George Sitek and I've come upon the fact that the shafts are inclined towards each othet in the horizontal plane. I'e. they're closer in at the prop end than at the front. Only by about 4 degrees ( 2 degrees each side) but still significant.
Is this common practice or is it another experiment from the period?
Tony
-
That's a new one on me Tony. This would tend to make her react more to the offset thrust of the screws (ie: going ahead on the stb'd' engine would swing her head to port ) though with such a small angle it's hard to see how much effect it would really have.... most ships props and shafts are in line (parallel) But I have been on ships who's prop's are winged out slightly to offset the twisting thrust and make them easer to steer on one engine. How are the props set up... are they inward or outward turning???
Jimmy
Freebooter {:-{ {:-{ :-))
-
There's probably a definite answer to the 'hand' in idiosyncratic French on the drawing but that's beyond me.
If, however, I trust the model in the Paris museum, they turn outwards at the top. They appear to be VERY coarse pitch (over 45 degrees) with a deep scoop blade so it's going to be very interesting to see how George translates the drawings!
-
This day at Eton Park is going to be very in--ter--rest--ing
Freebooter O0 %%
-
found this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu-nCWtzgB8
-
BRILLIANT Logoman,
I think that my reading of the cyrillics means that she is the TB Deraki which was built in France in sections and assembled in Varna in 1907/8.
It also indicates that IF it was a ship-handling aid that they needed it for single screw vessels as well as the twins.
Many Thanks
Tony
-
I googled the Varna Museum and there are some good still pictures there:
http://12121.hostinguk.com/varna_naval_museum.htm
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav258.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav238.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/navo128.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav248.JPG
There is probably enough information here to model the fitting but it's still not clear exactly how it was used. The 'knitted' fender is very obvious though.
You could probably email the museum from this site for more info: http://www.jicabg.org/museum/search/VarnaMM-e.html They might be able to send you some more detailed photos plus possibly an explanation of what it was used for.
This does seem to be something of a breakthrough.
Colin
-
interesting, but it could well be an aid to loading the bow tube.
-
I don't think so as the fitting is identical on boats where there is no bow tube.
Colin
-
As far as I know, bow tubes were loaded from inside the fo'c'sle.
Rick
-
GREAT find Colin! :-))
those fittings on the spar, don't look very strong though, not very strong at all !
To me it looks lke it tilts upwards and just stored horizontally. Why? I have no idea....
(http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav258.JPG)
-
It was Logoman's find really - I just followed it up.
I agree that those fittings look too fragile to take the weight of the ship in any way although the spar itself is quite substantial. Although the forward fitting appears to release, from what I can see of the after one it is fixed and would not permit pivoting. However the thing on the front is obviously some kind of fender.
So the mystery remains - unless it's a prototype in flight refuelling probe... %)
Colin
-
Rick - I thought so in general too, but I know some early types of tube were muzzle loaded. However the torpedo crane theory fails because of the latest excellent photo which shows the deck fittings are too flimsy for it to take the weight of a torpedo.
The "spar" must have some purpose - If it can't be used to lift, does it push or pull, or is something stored inside it? Does it fold flat to get it out of the line of fire - but if so wouldn't it be stowed vertical in the use position, and folded down at Action Stations? Does it swing out sideways as a boat spar to tie a tender to? If it does have to be unbolted, the railings will be unsupported. Does the whole thing slide out forwards? Why does it have to extend forward of the stem, so it has to have a buffer on it? And, therefore, why can't it be mounted further aft so it doesn't protrude? Has anyone e-mailed the Musee de la Marine? If this fitting did not occur on HM Torpedo boats, what did foreign navies do with their TBs that was different from ours? Is there evidence of some fitting on HM boats which suggests that we did it a different way? We built loads of TBs for other navies, so maybe there is some evidence available in the UK. I wish I still had access to the MoD Naval Historical Library. Will the aardvaarks.........
Well done Logoman and Colin - about time fresh fuel was added to the blaze!
-
In an idle moment I had a look at my (reprint) copy of Sleeman's Torpedoes and Torpedo Warfare (1889).
He has quite a lot to say about spar torpedoes, including the fact that the French Navy were keen on them following successes in China in 1884. However, in 1889, most spar torpedoes still in use were of the McEvoy type, fired electrically. This necessitated a hollow spar to protect the wiring. The boom shown, apart from being too short, appears solid.
Another system, invented by US General Hiram Berdan, is also described. To call it "Heath Robinson" does it more credit than it deserves, but somewhere in the set-up would be a forward-pointing spar - probably with a fender - so it's just possible . . .
The "Berdan" system is as follows: about 50 feet abaft the bow of the torpedo boat, a strong tube or light cannon is fixed vertically and opened downwards, one on each side; in each of these tubes a torpedo (8 feet by 14 inches) is placed, and connected by a wire to a stout bumpkin placed forward on each bow. The torpedo is propelled by means of four (6-inch) rocket tubes, each 32 inches long, and carries a 200-lb. charge of explosive.
A long pole projects ahead of the boat, which on striking the enemy, reverses the boat's engines, and fires the rockets; the gas, thus generated by the rockets in the tubes, ejects the torpedoes downwards, swinging them forward round the bumpkins as centres by the wire, thus causing them to pass under the net into contact with the ship.
Anyone fancy a suicide mission?
Rick
-
Can't be anything to do with torpedo loading as it's there even when the bow torpedo isn't...
http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=17389.msg180107#msg180107
-
Tony , Looking at the clamps on the Russian T Boat I would say that the bowsprit could be run in and out, very much the way a lot of fishing smacks used to run their's in and out.. This could explain why in the pictures of some of the French vessels they seem to be different lengths, It doesn't however give us a clew as to the main usage of the said spar ,,, I wonder if the one in the Russian picture is an original or a replacement put on for show, as except for the fender on the end it seems to have no fittings attached to it at all {:-{ {:-{ {:-{
Jimmy
Freebooter
-
I've checked the drawings and the main torpedo tubes on the Arquebuse were for the short 14 inch type of torpedo rather than the later (and soon to become the standard) long 18 inch types. It could be the same on the Bulgairian TB.
The weight of the 14 inch types were generally not much more than 5-600lbs and I'd have thought that the fittings were up to that.
It's possible - just - that although there was no bow tube on the Arquebuse, old habits died very hard and it was a sort of vestigial crane for removing 'duds'.
I'm pretty certain that it's not the explanation but I thought that I'd add the info.
Kind regards to all
Tony
-
You learn something new every day ... I didn't know the 14" fish were tube launched I thought they were crane/davit or cradle launched and the tubes came in with the 18" as I said something new Tks ! :-))
Jimmy
-
Hi JJ,
I was, to be perfectly accurate, slightly economical with the numerical truth. The dimension on the drawing is 383mm or nigh on 15ins but it is not easy to determine whether this is the internal or external diameter of the tube. Whichever it is, it's certainly in the 14 inch area!
Tony
:}
-
Dear Friends,
It is with Deep Sadness that I must tell you that Our Quest may be nearing the End.
I have been advised that Certain Documents, from the annals of Augustin Normand and dated 29th November 1909, exist that confirm that the Fat, Pointy Thing is nothing more than a front Shock Absorber pour l'absorbtion de choc and that the Rear Tubular Mount could be Tightened to give Sliding Resistance.
The Information has come from both France and Canada and I have asked for a Copy of the Documents which will be Exhibited Here in due course, all being well.
This has been a Long and Dangerous Journey that we have followed in search of the Truth. The Road has veered Hither and Thither; There and Back again and to all those who Guessed the Final Outcome goes my Deepest Respect.
For now - Adieu
-
Gosh Tony, just think what they could have done had it been spring loaded.... %)
Colin
-
That explanes the fender fitted to 90 % of them --- It's been a good chase but youv'e finally brought the Fox to heel...; The next thing is to find out what she handles like
My bet is a turning circle like a super tanker with a hangover and steers better at slow speeds going astern than ahead..... Quick acceleration going ahead and even faster going astern (Any takers???) %% %% {:-{ :-))
Jimmy
De Freebooter
-
That must be the only class of ship to leave a slipway with a 10' bow fender built in!
"Arquebuse class destroyer - Owners Manual."
1. She steers like a pig.
2. Stopping...... You need to think ahead... real far.
3. Don't even think or trying to steer when going astern.
4. Have you made out your will before embarking?
-
Aye JJ,
It's just that the ending seems so feeble, but I suppose many expeditions have the same experience of flatness at the end.
As far as the model is concerned, I've almost completed the planking and am just waiting for the running gear before sealing up, so should be on schedule for our April meet. Basic upperworks will be in place and, of course, a working version of the 'point' of the exercise (Ugh - Sorry :embarrassed:)
As to your idea Colin, I may just save that for the Mayhem Weekend!!!!!!!!! (OK Martin - You can have a play as well!!!!)
Tony
-
Well, hasn't it been fun while it lasted!
-
Be interesting to know what they expected to hit...
Colin
-
Don't worry Tobyker, I'm sure another 'anomaly' will turn up as I trawl through the Victorian period - for example - disappearing gun mounts on ships, what was the point if the 'fuzzy-wuzzies' couldn't see the power of Empire?
I'm sure the answer to your comment comes from the fact that 99.9% of the photos of the ships show them 'bottom'-on to the dock!
Tony
-
Disappearing gun mounts were provided so that the gun could be reloaded out of sight behind armour. Ranges were so close in those days that shot trajectory was virtually horizontal. Of course when Gatling type guns caught on and were mounted in fighting tops the benefit become somewhat less. As disappearing mountings were heavy and expensive they soon died out in favour of the protected gunhouse. I think they were still used in land based situations such as forts where the drawbacks were not so apparent.
Colin
-
Colin,
The Yanks were very fond of their disappearing gun mounts , Mainly the much vaunted Dinamite gun used in sea defence forts but as you mentioned the mounts were deemed impractically for marine use mainly due to the fact that the vessels of the time had a fairly low freeboard and the danger of flooding the deep Barbette needed to lower the gun out of sight was much too likely,.. making the gun useless... and it was also found that these guns were not as powerfull as the same bore gun using traditional powder and were also a lot heaver :-)) %) {:-{ so they went the way of many other insteresting but impractical inventions.
Jimmy
Freebooter :-))
-
Sorry, I wasn't really trying with that one but it's an interesting subject all the same.
Also Colin, for not saying that it was your comment that I was referring to in the second sentence of my last post.
Tony
-
( Never heard of one of those, but a search for 'Dynamite Gun' came back with an interesting page... can you read Chinese? - http://note100.egloos.com/5134369 )
-
The only RN battleship to be fitted with "disappearing guns" guns was HMS Temeraire (1876), which also had the distinction of being the largets two-masted warship capable of being propelled by sail alone. She took aprt in the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882 and was not scrapped until 1921.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee59/RickF_photos/temeraire.jpg)
Rick
-
I'd Forgotten about her. Carried 4 x 11" MLR's in two pear shaped barbette's (The RN's first barbette ship) The largest Brig evet built "8,540 tons Displacement" Built in Chatham Dockyard 1873 - 76
Became a Depot & work shop Ship in 1902 and was renamed Indus II later Akbar sold out of service in 1921---- She was said to be a slow sailor but handy.
Sorry got carried away .. I started on a model of her 30 odd years ago... {:-{ Last I saw of it the young son of an old shipmate was carrying
it along the Quay in Cape Town with a huge grin on his face ok2
Freebooter
-
Rick F
Could you tell me where you got the Picture of her I wouldn't mind getting a copy for my collection
Jimmy
De Freebooter
-
It's from an excellent collection of Fred Mitchell paintings in a book called "Ships of the Victorian Navy" by Conrad Dixon (1987). It contains about 50 prints, each with a full page description of the ship.
Currently available from Amazon.
Rick
-
Thank's Rick I'll put that on the wish list :-))
Jimmy
-
Tony H
Awaiting Trial's results O0
Jimmy
-
Don't worry Cap'n, it's in for typing!
Tony :-))
-
I saw trials of Tony's Arquebuse on the Sunday of Wicksteed....
She's a bit like trying to navigate a telegraph pole around a paddling pool!
It needed all the lake (actually, a few feet more) to make a full rudder turn. Tony was on the helm and his mate Andy(?) was on
the engine room telegraph [she has twin motors with overlapping propellers... and the rudder in the FRONT of the props!].
She's quite fast in a straight line but anything more than a 5o turn is asking rather a lot of her. Tony and Andy had quite
a realistic command banter between then and just for a moment or two, it was like listening to an old Sunday afternoon
black & white British WWII film on BB2!....
"Coming to port"
"Coming to port, slowing port motor"
"Helm hard over"
"Port motor stopped"
"Port FULL!"
"Port motor reversed, Starboard motor full."
"We're going to hit!"
"Full reverse!"
"..... to late."
"........that front buffer beam is a good idea isn't it?"
At one stage the wing took full control of the vessel and parked he neatly in the wooden dock... that's when they found out
that a French Arquebuse class destroyer steers MUCH better backwards than forwards, I guess because the props and rudder are
in a more conventional configuration.....
-
Thanks Martin!
It's fun trying to prove that design flaws can occur in the real world! %%
To the Lords Commissioners of Mayhem, I respectfully submit the following for their consideration
On the 7th inst. Vice Adml James and the undersigned attended at Eaton Park, Norwich for the purpose of further trying and assessing the characteristics of the French ship Arquebuse.
The first thing was to ballast her down to the line. She was VERY light at Wickstead as can be seen in your photos, and even when Andy provided a spare lead-acid battery as ballast she was uncontrollable. We also set the end points on the rudder servo so that the rudder was just about touching the shafts giving a MAXIMUM travel of about 15 degrees each side.
1. Leaving the Dock.
If moored alongside, it was almost impossible to get her unstuck. The nearest we came was reversing away and even this was marginal. The fact that the shafts are angled towards each other going towards the stern meant that the rudder effect was partially neutralised in either direction.
Once she was a couple of inches clear, she would move smoothly away but needed a lot of space.
We then tried dropping an anchor well off the seaward side of the bow and on going ahead the bow was pulled away from the dockide to give clear water. This may be the onlyreliable way.
2. Docking.
She would come alongside cleanly but again needed a long approach. We then tried docking stern on (since almost all of the photos show this to be common practice). Again, lack of control was very obvious, as was coming in bow first, so we then tried dropping the anchor well away from the dock and letting the ship go astern and drag (trawl) the anchor back to a decent mooring. This was a lot better and the only way to do it, as far as we could see.
3. Handling at sea.
With the right ballast, generally handling was as could be expected. I.e. she needed a lot of space. Optimum turning seemed to be at about 3/4 throttle and she seemed to prefer going to starboard (but this may be down to inaccuracies in the build).
There was a definite problem with cavitation at higher speeds. The propellors were made (by George Sitek) to the size and pitch from the builders' drawings and so there is definitely an inherent limit which may have been there in full size. The shape of the stern is not helpful being very rounded. The location of the screws is not quite right, by the thickness of the locking nut, so removing these would bring them slightly further under the stern and closer to the hull. This could reduce the cavitation.
4. The Pointy Thing.
After the collision with Stavros' lighthouse, it was felt that a further test was required and I'm happy to report that, as evidenced below, a high speed approach to the pond wall led to a 1" movement on the 'prong' and no damage to the forward plates or stempiece!!!!!!!!!
5. Piracy.
At various stages during the proceedings we were approached by the pirate ship Freebooter which, beiing commisioned by Adml James, tried to cause havoc but which was doomed to a slow time due to the lack of winds. We have appended a picture for identification.
We commend the above to Your Lordships and remain,
Yrs Etc.
TH
Jimmy, I'b be obliged if you could add your specialised overview O0
-
As requested by Commander T. H. I Dully presented my self at the lake side (Eaton Park .Norwich) to assist with the trials of TBD "A" at 10:07 Hrs BST 07.06.2010
After inspecting said V/l and voicing previously stated opinion that she would Manoeuvre like a super tanker with a hangover hands were sent to quarters for getting underway.... Vessel laid stb'd side too along side the wall....First attempts to un-dock using engines alone proved that unless the wind was off the quay it was virtually imposable to clear the quay {:-{.... attempts to spring off using a head spring and then a stern spring also came to nought :(( .... An Anchor was then set to seaward of the port bow and it was found that by going slow ahead she would lift slowly off the quay O0.... Trials were then tried going slow astern on the anchor to spring the head off were also successful. %).. once clear of the berth engine / Steering trials were commenced (J.James in command on the Bridge & Commander T.H. in charge of the E/R)
It was soon found that at speeds below Half she would only very sluggishly answer the helm when going ahead....at speeds above half to 3/4 speed she had as predicted the turning circle of a Super Tanker with a very bad hangover( taking 5/6Th's of the lake to turn (But this was her best Manoeuvring speed at Full speed she turned like an arrow loosed from a 100 Lb War Bow.... Going astern her maneuverability unimproved by 10-15% ....Berthing trials as expected underlined the extremely poor handling of this class of V/L at slow speeds and showed that Berthing and unberthing with out the aid of a tug or extremely skilled use of the v/l's anchors is most unwise
Trials were also made using a purpose made Stay Sail (Rigged RN fashion) as a passage sail ---wile inconclusive were promising--- O0 Some light humour was injected into the proceedings by the appearance of the Freetrader Brigantine Freebooter which proceded to out maneuver the much vaunted French TBD in very light winds even with Commander T.H. at the Helm %) Freebooters proper Master was at the time living up to his Flag and reputation :o by conducting a raid on the French vessel's Grog Locker
Jimmy James Master
-
Tony
How did the rest of the photos turn out? Any chance of some copies
Jimmy :-))
-
I think these two pictures, 100 years apart, go together rather well:
(http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17389.0;attach=83093)
(http://www.images-chapitre.com/ima0/original/012/8996012_4042960.jpg)
-
Tony... I told you we needed to ajust the ballast ,tweek up the engines and rig a smoke genny ... The Frogs are burning cheap coal again
Nice match Victorian
Jimmy
-
Don't worry Jimmy, I almost got a perfect match today when I left a lit blowlamp too near the hull. Not a good idea!
Tony :embarrassed: