Model Boat Mayhem

The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: Bob K on April 30, 2012, 11:17:45 am

Title: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: Bob K on April 30, 2012, 11:17:45 am
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  not quite a submarine

I am hoping that someone on Mayhem can help with information to help build this model, using the 1/60 scale hull from Deans Marine.  Unfortunately the only plans available are with the N.M.M. and I am advised these could cost around £400.  What I am looking for is someone who has built this ship, may have plans & detail photos for it, or may be willing for me to take detail photo's of their model.

I realise this is a long shot.

(http://s14.postimage.org/sejhmf2il/HMS_Polyphemus_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/sejhmf2il/)

HMS Polyphemus was possibly the weirdest ship ever to be commissioned by the Royal Navy.  A Protected Torpedo Ram capable of a then-stunning 18 knots, and partially submersible in attack trim for maximum stealth where the waist was almost awash.  Twin additional rudders under the bow.  The first use of underwater beam torpedo tubes, plus a 5th tube inside the huge ram.  Building one has certain challenges.  To properly simulate attack mode construction has to be treated as a surface running submarine. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Liverbudgie2 on April 30, 2012, 11:49:05 am
John Hollis built the original model of HMS Polyphemus, he in turn sold to Ron Dean and it is from this model, I presume, that the mould for your hull has been taken. As far as I'm aware no other model of this vessel has been built and the only available plans can only be obtained from the NMM.

You could approach Ron Dean to view John's model I expect if you want to photograph the detail.

LB
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 30, 2012, 12:19:17 pm
Thank you LB.  I had spoken with Ron this morning, who no longer has the orginal John Hollis model.  He suggested I asked on the Forum as there should be several either built or under construction out there.  He also suggested a back issue of Model Boats magazine approx 1970's, and Maritime Books.
Online pics are few and poor quality.  I would be prepared to travel to take some photos.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 30, 2012, 08:04:32 pm
Searching on Mayhem this question has come up twice before, in 2006 and 2010, without success.  I have emailed Royal Greenwich Museums print agency requesting if they have plans available to purchase.  A0 paper prints are £29.99 ea, and I don't need the whole set, just details of the decks and superstructure.  Maybe 3 sheets will be enough.  I wish I could find better pics on Google, or even of the original model.

Just to show how unusual this ship was, here is a photo of her in dry dock.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/HMSPolyphemus2.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: rob on April 30, 2012, 09:21:22 pm
PM sent Bob.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 30, 2012, 09:49:00 pm
Many thanks Rob.  Appreciated.  I have sent PM in reply.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 01, 2012, 09:58:27 am
One of our members built one of these in the early nineties, I will find out if he still has plans for it. I purchased the hull originally from Ron Dean, at The Sandown Park show in about 1989, got as far as putting two staggered motors and shafts in it, then sold it. The model is still in the ownership of one of our members, in a box, in the loft. However, I may be able to get some photos of it, if needed.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Harquebus on May 02, 2012, 11:03:38 am
Are you going to name it HMS Thunder Child?

You'd even have a theme song for it.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: JohnH on May 02, 2012, 01:18:59 pm
Hi Bob
Ron Dean's mould is the one I made many years ago. I also gave him my copies of the NMM plans so unfortunately I no longer have them. As you already have the hull, you would only need the plan of the upper deck, main deck and arrangement plan which should not cost anything like the £400 mentioned, I would give the NMM a call and go & see them, I have found them very helpful for all of the plans I have needed from them in the past.
NMM also have a number of pictures of the vessel, the two best ones being a starbord bow and stern shot whilst alongside a dock - they give a good idea of the deck fittings.
I sold my model a long time ago but I may still have a few pictures of it under construction if they would be of interest. I also wrote an article which appeared in Model Shipwright No 70 in December 1989 which described the build and had a few pictures of the model.
Please drop me a line if any of this is of interest to you
John Hollis
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 02, 2012, 05:47:09 pm
    unbuiltnautilus   
Thank you, but someone unconnected with this Mayhem Thread has kindly PM’d me offering to let me see his NMM plans and photos. 

    Harquebus   
No, I am not going to name it that, although H.G. Wells credited this unique RN Torpedo Ram with the only known destruction of a Martian Tripod Machine in “War of the Worlds”.

     JohnH 
I am hoping to get the Deans hull this weekend, and hugely appreciate your input here.  Thank you also for telling me the issue number of the Model Shipwright magazine which will greatly help in my finding a copy of it.  I had already emailed the NMM’s Greenwich print agency for information.  Any pictures you still have of your model would be hugely appreciated.  Either PM to me, or post them here.  I know very many people would love to see your multiple award winning model.

For any not familiar with John Hollis’ incredible work see this awesome Russian ship “Lavadia” I found whilst searching on Google.
(http://s16.postimage.org/inb6mzqlt/Lavadia.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/inb6mzqlt/)

With sufficient info I hope I can do Polyphemus justice !

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 07, 2012, 07:59:00 pm
Firstly, some sincere Thank You’s.
Starting with an accurate detailed hull makes a big difference, and with the wealth of information supplied this project has been made possible.  I understand that this ship will require about 20 lb of ballast, and that the bow rudders were not very effective.  Due to the waist being almost awash when underway construction technique will be as if a surface running submarine.

The Hull.  In a rare burst of bright sunshine the super hull detailing is hard to see here:
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Hull2.jpg)  Note:  Massive submarine-like side bulges.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Hull3.jpg)

Intended Methodology:
Even at 1.27m long, freeboard in attack trim is only one inch. !!!   So . . .  Watertight compartments.
Build in two longitudinal ballast ‘bulge’ bulkheads, intended to trim waterline for either ‘safe’ sailing or in full stealth low freeboard attack mode.  Next build a series of transverse watertight compartments each with gasgetted screw down hatches.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/compartments.jpg)

Sectional diagram of side bulges
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/ballastsections.jpg)

Working out displacement: 

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: TailUK on May 07, 2012, 08:20:00 pm
With a row of oars sticking out of each side, she'd look like a Greek Galley!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 07, 2012, 08:42:51 pm
You are not far off there  {-)   In fact I've seen a neat video of a radio controlled galley  O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881)
Post by: Bob K on May 11, 2012, 11:49:12 am
Measuring Displacements:

Strange that filling a boat with water requires it not to be raining.  In this case I needed a dry day to take reasonably accurate ballast volume measurements, using water.  I had marked two internal waterlines, one for a 'safe sailing' trim that could be used in conditions other than no wind millpond, then another for the more realistic low freeboard attack mode.

Mounting the hull on a stand, checking with a spirit level, gradually adding water to the lower waterline.  7.0 Litres.
Carry on filling to the upper waterline took an extra 2.7 Litres, therefore each side ballast tank needs to be 1.35 Litres, almost exactly 1.35 Kg although not measured at the S.I. defined 4 degrees C.

Mounting hull level on side, 1.35 Litres was added to one side bulge with position of centre of mass estimated from hull profile.  Resulting waterline marked with a waterproof marker.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/internalwaterline1.jpg)
Using water means the side bulkheads can be made from flat sheet, with a max ballast capacity of 1.35 Kg each.

9.7 Kg total displacement (21.4 lb) including weight of internals and upper-works.  Ties up closely to the 20 lb used for the original model.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881)
Post by: Bob K on May 27, 2012, 06:05:05 pm
Due to home and work pressures dockyard activities have been a bit limited recently, but progress is being made.  I now have a set of scaled working plans, plus loads of detail photos.  Many many thanks to people who have helped.  This community has been truly amazing.  I would also like to nominate Ron Dean for a customer service gold medal. 

Whilst collating this wonderful wealth of data I am working out the internals.

Materials:
Watertight compartments worked out and materials obtained.  I will be using 3mm clear Polystyrene sheet for the WTC side chambers, and 5mm Marlon cellular Polycarbonate for the bulkheads and under-deck.  The later has corrugated internals, is strong light and should give ample epoxy resin inclusions on cut edges for bonding.  Each of the six WTC covers will be screw down and gasgetted. 

Ballast system:  Air or water pump?
I am weighing up whether to use an air pump with cam operated valve or a large capacity peristaltic water pump.  Most peristaltics only shift around 200ml/min, and these ballast tanks total 2.7 litres.  Using air I only have to watch for bubbles from under hull vents to know they’re full, but with a water pump it will need to vent excess water over the side or fit a pressure cut off switch.

Keeping transport weight down:
10 kg of deep draught boat will take a bit of lifting in and out of the water.  I am contemplating making two of the six internal chambers free flooding to save static mass, (labelled ‘B’ & ‘E’ in earlier diagram)  Either that or chuck in several extra SLA batteries.

Motors & props
I need to research suitable motors for twin very large three bladed props:  I have been recommended geared motors such as the Marx Monoperm or belt drive MFA Torpedo.   Even finding scale props that look like the originals will be challenging.

I have my eye on some watertight prop shafts from Cornwall Model Boats that can be run through into compartment 'C'.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on May 27, 2012, 08:01:52 pm
    Harquebus   
No, I am not going to name it that, although H.G. Wells credited this unique RN Torpedo Ram with the only known destruction of a Martian Tripod Machine in “War of the Worlds”.

Not quite!  %)

Early in the novel a gun crew manage to hit a tripod which crashes, uncontrolled, into Shepperton Church.

</pointless trivia>

Right - on with the build. She's a lovely (if not somewhat insane) vessel.  :-))

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 27, 2012, 09:06:31 pm

Right - on with the build. She's a lovely (if not somewhat insane) vessel.  :-))

Andy

<pointless trivia>
Sanity is not my best point of sailing
</pointless trivia>

Thanks for the H.G. Wells update.  I must read it again   :D
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 28, 2012, 02:52:51 pm
R&D

After a lot of searching around and comparing options I am leaning towards using an air system for the ballast tanks, rather than pumped water.  Peristaltic water pumps tend to max out around 200-300 ml/min unless you get a really massive one.  The largest snort pumps shift up to 0.7 l/min, and 12V aquarium air pumps a lot more.  Only 85 mm head maximum, this is not a submarine.  Air inlet via hollow main mast.

Rather than a Schrader tyre valve and cam, I have been trying out a pond type air manifold ball valve.  I’ve tried it down to half a metre and it’s water and air tight.  The Blagdon valve arm takes minimal effort to turn, so should work well with an extended arm like a rudder servo.  Some lateral thinking!

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/airvalve.jpg)

Open valve to release air and trim down to minimum freeboard mode.  Close valve and pump air to blow ballast, returning to high freeboard mode.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881)
Post by: Bob K on May 29, 2012, 08:26:40 pm
Propellers and shafts were a bit unconventional.  Thin bladed and 60 mm dia at this scale, they projected so far outside the hull that fending booms were fitted for docking, not to be confused with dry dock shoring shown below. Sourcing props like this will not be easy. I will need big slow RPM geared-down motors.  Suggestions for both most welcome !
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hms_polyphemus_at_chatham_dockyard_kent_1881_3986251.jpg)

A view in Malta showing how deliberately low the freeboard was.  A Victorian stealth ship.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/HMSPOLYPHEMUS-TORPEDORAM-2.jpg)

The principal function of the ram was to break through harbour defence booms. She proved her worth in the Berhaven raid, an exercise in 1885 meant to simulate a sneak atack on the Russian fleet base at Kronstadt
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/1215623722.jpg)
Once inside the boom she could fire her underwater torpedo tubes at point blank range.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tonyH on May 30, 2012, 01:09:38 pm
Hi Bob,
Try George Sitek for the running gear. He made the ones for Arquebuse from the builders plans and for Ambrakia from a photo of the builders model and a sketch from me. I've also ordered ones for the current project (Descartes - French Cruiser 1894)

Lovely project by the way.

Tony
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 30, 2012, 03:02:28 pm
Thank you Tony.  Found their web site on Google.  Not sure which country they are based in though, but I have contacted them bt email
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Liverbudgie2 on May 30, 2012, 03:16:13 pm
Thank you Tony.  Found their web site on Google.  Not sure which country they are based in though, but I have contacted them bt email

It's England, Crewe in fact.  :-))

LB
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 13, 2012, 08:20:24 pm
Gradually moving from design to procurement phases.  This model will be as unusual in construction as the original.  I am grateful for the wealth of information that colleagues have assisted me with.

Two 50 mm special Victorian ‘crocus’ propellers plus custom A frames are being produced by George Sitek.  Thanks again Tony for your recommendation.  Huge props for a 1.27 m model that project far out from the hull.  I note that prvious models have opted for smaller non-scale props.

To complete the running gear I have Raboesch 301-13 watertight shafts with bearings, and twin Kondor motors -  high torque low RPM.   Double headed ‘bar’ UJ’s with connections to match shafts and motors.  These from Deans.

On board electronics just arrived from ACTion include a P94 twin ESC’s with mixer, a P19 5V BEC unit, and a P64 multi-cylinder steam sound unit plus 2.5 inch speaker.

I was very impressed with the MMB mister smoke unit at Alfold, so this is now on order plus various batteries.  I need to lay out the internals and static ballasting before construction of internal bulkheads.

This will be a long build, with what you can’t see below the decks a major part.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 13, 2012, 08:44:11 pm
Bob, you can get snort pumps- basically low pressure diaphragm pumps that will shift loads of air.

Have a look at this links to see a pump that will evacuate your tank in about 15-20 seconds-

http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10398
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: mikearace on June 13, 2012, 08:44:50 pm
Quote
Try George Sitek for the running gear

Well recommended.  To me Sitek is to Running Gear what AcTion is to ESCs and Mixers etc.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 13, 2012, 09:36:50 pm
Andy:  That air pump looks really neat, and very compact too.  At 12 L/m that will blow the tanks very rapidly, and I would not need a pressure switch cut off if the bottom of the ballast tanks are open vented.  I will also need to think about interconnecting the two tanks with 3 mm tubes and fitting baffles to ensure it keeps on an even keel.  Thank you.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), internal layout
Post by: Bob K on June 15, 2012, 02:32:02 pm
Layout of internals:

I have found from previous builds that it is best to organise the internal layout before fitting bulkheads etc.  There is a lot going into this hull.  Murphy’s Law dictated that I am going to have to alter the ballast tank profiles to get vertical side walls with 100 mm between to fit the 6V 12AH SLA battery between, and allow space for the shafts and motors.  I was hoping that the mister outlet could be directly under the funnel, but . . .

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Layout1.jpg)

Batteries
Three battery sets involved.  A big 6V 12Ah SLA for the low RPM motors, 12V for the air pump, and 24V for the mister.  For the later I have two 12V NiMh packs in series as it only needs around 1/2A for several hours running.  The 12V for the pump that Andy recommended (now on order) can also be fairly small.  Batteries as low in the hull as possible, final positions will be adjusted by bath-test ballasting, but will require waterproof cable glands between compartments.

Electronics
The electronics modules will be mounted on a removable internal panel, keeping them well away from motors and pump etc.  Mounting the 2.5” mylar cone speaker will need some thought due to very low freeboard.

I aim to operate the ballasting controls from one channel (stick).  A chunky servo sits at neutral.  Operate one way rudder-type linkages will open the Blagdon air valves, and in the other direction a cam + microswitch will turn on the air pump.
That should be interesting !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 16, 2012, 07:53:47 pm
Worth trying the pump on 6 volts, you may find it fast enough on the lower voltage, and it will save using another pack of batteries.
Title: Re: Polyphemus
Post by: Bob K on June 17, 2012, 11:56:49 pm
Thanks for that suggestion Andy, I will try that when the pump arrives from the States.  Could make the battery recharging less complex too.


PS:  I took my wife out for dinner and a movie tonight.  The film was not a documentary on my latest ship build after all, but about aliens and spaceships.  However, it was a cracker and totally stopped me from thinking about boat wiring for over two hours.   {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Smoke without Fire
Post by: Bob K on June 25, 2012, 08:31:07 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  Smoke without fire

With space inside this 1.27 m hull I am adding some ‘first time’ special effects, bread-boarding the electrics to test them out before trialling the ballasted hull fit.  The size and shape of the side ballast tanks determines WTC space available between.

Smoke without Fire
A Victorian single funnelled ship really needs some serious smoke on the water.  After considering alternatives I opted for the MMB Foggy unit as this will be running inside a watertight chamber with ventilator inlet and ‘smoke’ outlet tubes.  No heat.  On 0.7 Amp and plain tap water, I ran it for over an hour without refilling.
However, the mister needs 24V (2 x 12V AA cell packs) plus 6V for the fan.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/foggy.jpg)
The Foggy Unit being run outdoors under natural wind conditions.  Does the job nicely.  There is also a version where the fan speed is varied by the throttle setting, but I’ll try the basic unit first as ships of this era made loads of smoke even when idling.  

See  http://www.marksmodelbits.com/ (http://www.marksmodelbits.com/)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 26, 2012, 02:01:07 pm
You could always fit a switch mode booster to get your 24 volts- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12V-to-24V-Step-up-DC-Power-Converter-Convertor-Module-/250874790943?pt=UK_Computing_LaptopAccessories_PowerSupplies&hash=item3a694d841f
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 26, 2012, 03:46:06 pm
That does look a good idea Andy.  At the mo' I have two 12V 2600 mAh AA cell packs in series, and will try running the vacuum pump off the 6V main motors SLA as you suggested.  Not sure if the voltage step up involves converting to AC, stepping up then rectifying.  If so that big coil may radiate a lot of RF ?

I intend building a 'test jig' with two empty 2L lemonade bottles suitably ballasted and with bottom vents to gauge how fast the pump vents them, and how much 'pressure' may be generated before constructing the side ballast tank bulkheads.  Hopefully the worst case scenario will be huge amounts of air being vented from the bottom of the hull.  A good test for my Blagdon air valves too.

I am really looking forward to seeing how the ACTion P64 multi-cylinder steam engine sound module operates.  A lot of R&D in this project, but hugely enjoyable challenges.

Thinking ahead, I will need to find suitable gasket material for the screw down hatches, and blind nutserts.  I will search the Mayhem submarines section.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 26, 2012, 08:43:35 pm
It switches so it will be dirty, but should that matter with 2.4ghz? I think it's largely immune to such radiated interference, although there are others more knowledgeable than I on this. You could stick the thing inside a grounded steel case, that would deal with a lot of nasties (works for computer PSU's).

Regarding watertight boxes, you don't need to bother with blind inserts for the bolts, use an o-ring sponge gasket for the seal and put the nuts and bolts on the outside of this seal (make sense?) then the bolts don't need to be sealed at all, and you can just use ordinary fittings. You could use wing nuts for easy tool free access.

Something else to consider is lock and seal boxes from tesco. These are watertight. Not so great for subs, becuase they're squishy, but would do the job here. only problem i can foresee is that these things are made from a plastic that doesn't take adhesives very well, so anything that passes through would need to be mechanically fastened or bonded in with a mastic sealer e.g. Sikaflex.

Regarding pump pressure- nothing to be concerned about. These pumps make about 15 psi maximum in the real world.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 26, 2012, 11:42:10 pm
It switches so it will be dirty, but should that matter with 2.4ghz?

I intended to use my 40 MHz F14 with the Multiplex Rx that was 'spare' from my sub project as the Rx will be below the waterline.  The main deck will run almost awash underway.    Hence my treating this as a surface running submarine.

Any waves are likely to wash over the deck when trimmed down so the six access hatches and fixings will need to be waterproof, yet be removable.  The space between the underside of the deck and the access hatches needs to allow for free flooding with scupper slots.
I was thinking along the lines of replicating the srew down hatches used on some of the Engel subs.

I have a selection of the nice Tesco boxes but can't get all my running gear in them.  Pity, they are really watertight.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on June 28, 2012, 12:40:42 am
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  Bulkheads

Next up are the bulkheads.  Two longitudinal ellipses for the ballast tanks, and five transverse for the six machinery compartments.  The ellipses were transcribed using mylar film from the side ballast fill lines, then transcribed onto 3 mm corrugated cardboard templates to test fit.  The side bulkheads had to be angled more upright to allow for a more practical 100mm compartment width.  This meant flat top edges need to be added.

Going from templates to 3 mm clear polystyrene will have to wait till payday as I will need a power jigsaw for the curves. 
This video clip was informative   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh62xaTEmxw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh62xaTEmxw)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/compartments.jpg)

Once the sides are fibre glassed in I can make up cardboard templates for the transverse bulkheads, then cut Marlon cellular copies to fibre glass in.  Care will need to be taken to ensure all top edges are level for the under deck.  I may utilise the long axial recess in the base of the hull to route wiring through brass tubes.  These can be sealed off with RTV after wiring.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 28, 2012, 10:38:48 am
You can slice up polycarbonate with just about anything. It's more chewy than most plastics, so not brittle.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads cutting
Post by: Bob K on June 29, 2012, 03:51:12 pm
I had some thought and tests on this.  The 3mm clear sheet is B&Q polystyrene for interior glazing, and very hard.  If I was cutting rectangles I could get away with repeated scoring with a Stanley knife and steel rule.  However the side bulkheads are long ellipses.  Fret saws will not do it due to frame getting in the way.  I may have no choice but to get a power jig saw and sandwich the material between two clamped sheets of wood.  At least I can cut both bulkheads together.  The other bulkheads will have profiled bottoms to suit the hull shape.

The more I get into boats, the more tools I seem to need !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on June 29, 2012, 04:06:50 pm
A fretsaw has its limitations but, have you considered a coping saw? You know, the one where the blade angle can be altered by twisting. Mine has about 6 inch clearance at maximum (90 degrees)  -  just been and measured, it's 170mm allowing for a couple of mm clearance. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 29, 2012, 04:58:22 pm
Forgive me, but isn't a coping saw similar to a fret saw but usually with less 'throat' clearance in the frame?  My fret saw also has a revolvable blade but nowhere near man enough for the job.  Maybe worth looking into getting one with a very heavy duty frame, and scribe-cutting oversized rectangles first.  My thought on going for clear material was to be able to visually check water levels in the side tanks.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: suffolk1928 on June 29, 2012, 05:52:05 pm
I've had a similar problem cutting curves in clear sheet- it can be scored and snapped along the line as you described. I roughed out curves in short straight sections, making connecting cuts with a hacksaw from the edge of the plastic to the scored line to allow the excess to be snapped off in sections (if you see what I mean!?). Once I had the rough shape I then sanded down to the correct curve. Hope this helps! James
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on June 29, 2012, 07:55:23 pm
Sorry, wasn't trying to mislead you. My fretsaw blade is fixed, hence reliance on coping saw for any saw cuts needed along any large length. If you'r adter oval shapes and cutting initial rectangles, would cutting the corners off as well help? thus starting with ovals .
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on June 29, 2012, 09:20:17 pm
That's a good idea James.  Start off with a scribe-scored rectangle then successively hacksaw short straight cuts to build up the curve before smoothing the contour.

Sorry Ian, my background is from Engineering.  My 'woodworking' knowledge is abysmal.  I tend to approach problems 'a la Brunel' (take a block of cast irion . . .) but without the big workshop machinery I was used to.  ie a nice heavy duty bandsaw   %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 02, 2012, 09:50:25 pm
The internal bulkheads are taking some time, and head scratching to get the mechanics right.  

PM received asking “… if you drop the odd crumb of visual history in occasionally I'll love it” , so here is some more info on this strange warship.  At attack speed only the fore and flying decks remained ‘dry’, 18 kts was unprecedented in 1881.   This view from the aft quarter clearly shows the ultra low freeboard, side bulges, and propeller protecting docking booms

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly5a.jpg)
Note the two huge float-off life rafts amidships.

 (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly6a.jpg)

Armament  
Main armament of HMS Polyphemus was its five submerged torpedo tubes, a first for the Navy.  The ram was very much secondary armament.   The only other weapons carried were Nordenfelt four barrel 1 inch anti torpedo boat machine guns, carried in six rotating turrets on the flying deck.  A very early form of machine gun, it was operated by pulling a lever back and forth as this animation shows.  Yes, the turrets will rotate on the model, ganged together from underneath the deck.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/nordenfelt2jpg.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu8GgzDiS90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu8GgzDiS90)

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on July 03, 2012, 08:17:38 am
 :kiss: ............ it was me O0
Thanks Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: victorian on July 03, 2012, 03:04:24 pm
Quote
I intended to use my 40 MHz F14 with the Multiplex Rx that was 'spare' from my sub project as the Rx will be below the waterline.  The main deck will run almost awash underway. 

Some of the (very inexpensive) 2.4 Ghz Rx's have a socket for an extension antenna. For instance see http://robotbirds.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=6222 (http://robotbirds.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=6222). It's only the exposed part at the end that's active.

It would take a lot to persuade me back to 40 Mhz, especially with a unique model like this!

P.S. is it 'Poliffimus' or 'Poly - themus'? I'm still waiting to hear!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on July 03, 2012, 03:33:20 pm
My vote goes on Poly-themus..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on July 03, 2012, 03:39:11 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Polyphemus_(1881)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 03, 2012, 05:42:47 pm
I will check into that 2.4 GHz Rx.  Thank you.  I had opted for 40 Mhz as I already had 'spares' from my submarine projects.

Pronunciation was Poly ‘ fi: mes .  In Greek mythology Polyphemus was the gigantic one-eyed son of Poseidon and Thoosa, one of the Cyclopes. His name means "much spoken of" or "famous".  Polyphemus plays a pivotal role in Homer's Odyssey.

To put this ship in historical context, she was laid down the year before the Zulu war of 1879, and launched three years before the ten month seige of Khartoum in which General Gordon died.  In the Sudan Nordenfelt rifle calibe machine guns were used at the corners of the British infantry square that held off the Dervish army at the battle of El Teb 1884.

Nice video clip shows these guns in action on a gunboat from the movie Khartoum. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkcG5whNQo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkcG5whNQo&feature=related)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on July 09, 2012, 04:20:33 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  Bulkheads

I wish I still had access to Pro/Engineer 3D software.  To have modelled the hull outline from plan sections it would then have been easy to make accurate movable vertical sections for bulkheads and generate all the volume and ballasting data.  With the big side bulges internal space is too restricted to use profile gauges.

So, back to the bath tub to replicate static ballasting, plus two part-filled 2 Litre plastic bottles to simulate additional pumped water ballast.   I need a constant 100 mm width for machinery spaces.  Two strips of ABS were fitted inside the hull equispaced about the keel line, then replicating the vertical bulkhead planes using a balsa frame to create card templates within.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bulkheadsjig2.jpg)

Transverse bulkhead positions are set by positions of internal equipment when levelled on an even keel in the bath.  She will still need about an extra kilo of ballast, allowing for superstructure and electrics.  I plan on using an additional small 12V SLA battery just forward of the mister, which positions the mister outlet nicely under the funnel..

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bulkheadsjig.jpg)

The card templates will then be used to define the clear plastic bulkhead outlines.  Getting this layout correct is essential before committing bulkheads in epoxy.  The trick is to have a level safe sailing waterline with tanks empty, and a level trimmed down attack mode waterline for millpond conditions with tanks full.  Wish me luck !    %%

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on July 09, 2012, 04:54:05 pm
Looking good!

Definitely go for baffles in the tanks to reduce free surface/sloshing effects. Or else!  :police:

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 09, 2012, 05:33:02 pm
If you're running the tanks completely full, or completely empty, you don't need to worry about baffles- water can't slosh unless there is air inside the tanks.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on July 09, 2012, 07:22:35 pm
Thanks Gentlemen.  You are both correct, providing my calculations are reasonably accurate, and fill / empty times are as brief as I hope.  To establish this my next simulation should be to adapt a 2 L plastic bottle of water so that I can pump air in then vent it using a Blagdon air valve.  I guess it would do no harm to add anti slosh baffles, plus a couple of 6 mm brass pipes between tanks, as retro fitting them may be difficult afterwards.  
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 09, 2012, 08:02:52 pm
Big holes at the bottom is the key to swift flood times when you're dealing with only a few millibars of pressure differential. Slots will give a lot of area, and be less obvious underneath the hull. When you test with your milk bottle, don't forget to add a bit of weight to the bottom, otherwise it will take quite a while to flood. A spanner held on with a couple elastic bands will do the job.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), waterlines
Post by: Bob K on July 09, 2012, 08:16:04 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  Waterlines

Excellent advice Andy.   I was intending to use several 10 mm holes underneath, but slots make better sense.  Maybe this is why WWII subs had a profusion of slots in their casings.  Good idea about the spanner, easier to attach than suspended weights

Reason for Ballasting

Sketch showing ballasted and non ballasted waterlines.  Blue line is max practical buoyancy for ‘safe sailing’ under moderate model boating lake conditions.  Freeboard is approx 45 mm with stern and rudder just under water.  Red line is more ‘true scale’ for the ship in attack mode, but is only 22 mm freeboard.  A portion of the bulges are still above water which encourages waves to wash across the deck as per the real ship.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/waterlines.jpg)

Trimmed down mode is for use in millpond sailing conditions only.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 10, 2012, 09:38:46 am
Maybe this is why WWII subs had a profusion of slots in their casings.

Yep, fast dive times were essential to evade air attack. Do you know how long the 1:1 version took to flood tanks?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 10, 2012, 08:39:38 pm
Yep, fast dive times were essential to evade air attack. Do you know how long the 1:1 version took to flood tanks?

Nope.  Online info on trimming down is rather vague, only that she was "partially submersible" and that the "bulging ballast tanks" were one of her most distinctive visual features.  The original plans are very detailed, although without much in the way of sectional views.  Here I am making some assumptions based on contemporary photos and illustrations.  She would have needed sea going freeboard to reach Malta, but the picture showing her breaking harbour boom defenses (see reply #18) looks almost awash like a US Kalamazoo class monitor.  Quite an amazing design feature some twenty years before the RN's first Holland Class subs.

I would guess something similar to the steam powered K class dive time average of around 5 minutes (record 3 mins 25 seconds).
However, the nice big vacuum pump with 1/4" tubing should shift 2.7 Litres quickly.  As soon as I have the bulkheads cut out I will build the 2 L simulation bottle (with spanner !)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on July 11, 2012, 12:05:50 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  bulkheads

The jig worked nicely.  Card template for side bulkheads shown below.  Now all I have to do is cut this shape from hard 3 mm plastic.  Two off, handed. 
Horizontal top sections for the tanks will form the plane for the underdeck.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/cardtemplate.jpg)

From my drawing office days I used to have a Flexicurve, unfortunately long gone, but a strip of lead sheet works well to copy the shape of the lower hull profile for the bases of the transverse bulkheads.

Sectional diagram showing sloping armour backed by coal bunkers.  I am guessing the actual tanks may have been on similar lines to Holland submarines, at the bottom of the bulges and maybe across the keel area too.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/section.jpg)

Note the drop keel which could be released in an emergency, and the float off life rafts.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 11, 2012, 01:15:19 pm
The Holland boats had a large main tank in the keel, and a smaller trim tank housed within the main tank to presumably to allow for different water densities.

They also featured kingston valves (valves on the bottom, in addition to valves on the top), which continued in use for subsequent RN submarines. I believe these were eventually abandoned, and open slots at the bottom and valves at the top was adopted. This was to allow speedier diving, which became increasingly improtant as ASW evolved.

I think Russian submarines are one of the last to have these valves fitted to their boats.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on July 13, 2012, 03:28:23 pm
Darn, after carefully copying the template profiles onto the clear hard 3 mm sheet I then carefully scribed the basic rectangles about a dozen times on both sides with a Stanley Knife, slid a block of 10 mm wood under the joint, gently pressed down - and it shattered like glass  {:-{

I am going to have to think again, and maybe invest in a proper power jig saw with appropriate blades before trying again.  This stuff is very hard and very inflexible, unlike regular polystyrene.  Sorry.  I was hoping to show an assembled bullheads set in a few days.

Subculture:  Thanks for the insight into Kingston valves.  I have been searching the online resources on these.  Fascinating.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on July 13, 2012, 08:18:08 pm
Any use Bob? I was looking for a proper technical drawing really.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=goomAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1188&dq=kingston+valves+technical+drawing&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pnMAULy_FsOb1AW1572oBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kingston%20valves%20technical%20drawing&f=false

Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 13, 2012, 09:03:50 pm
Bob, just get some polycarbonate sheet, that won't shatter, I promise you.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 13, 2012, 09:34:41 pm
Dave:  I just mentioned Kingston Valves after reading up on them after Subcultures interesting post about them.

Subculture:  OK, just feeling a bit down right now.  Never had problems cutting polystyrene before.  Usually not this hard and brittle.  Model boats R&D can often feel like three steps forwards and two steps back.  You know what they say about omelettes and broken eggs.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 14, 2012, 11:16:55 am
The qualities of plastic can vary enormously. I see from an earlier posting you purchased your plastic from B&Q, and that's a bit of a red flag, as the stuff DIY stores sell does tend to be rather brittle.

If you want certainty stick to brands, ICI perspex for PMMA/acrylic, Lexan or makrolon for polycarbonate etc.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 14, 2012, 03:29:13 pm
The qualities of plastic can vary enormously. I see from an earlier posting you purchased your plastic from B&Q, and that's a bit of a red flag, as the stuff DIY stores sell does tend to be rather brittle.

If you want certainty stick to brands, ICI perspex for PMMA/acrylic, Lexan or makrolon for polycarbonate etc.

It seemed like a good idea at the time as I could see it and buy it locally, rather than ordering enormous sheets online and the hassle of vague delivery dates.  All part of the learning curve.  Whatever did we do before internet and Google?  I will do some searches based on those brand names, and sizes in between A4 and "garage roof".  At least I have now invested in a Bosch jigsaw as fret saws etc not much use on big sheets, although I may try using a fret for smaller pieces and under-deck cutouts etc..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 14, 2012, 06:54:45 pm
Here you go- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LEXAN-POLYCARBONATE-SHEET-3MM-CLEAR-210MM-X-297MM-A4-/120745535546?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1c1cfea83a

Wouldn't bother going beyond 3mm thick- the sheet doesn't need to withstand water pressure, just needs to be watertight. 2mm would probably be okay actually.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 14, 2012, 08:04:11 pm
Thank you Andy, I was just searching on those brand names you quoted.  I have opted for 1000 x 500 sheets from the same supplier, one in 3 mm for the side bulkheads which are 820 long, plus two sheets in 2 mm for the under deck and hatches.  You are correct that 2 mm would probably be OK but I have gone with 3 mm to allow for any hull flexing. It has to stay fairly airtight.

Once the transverse bullheads (cellular 5 mm Marlon Polycarbonate) are secured the internal boxed structure should be be very solid. Using clear material will allow me to see what is going on for testing and commissioning.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on July 14, 2012, 10:50:25 pm
Bob,

It has been mentioned by some members that "sheeting" can be obtained 'locally' if you have plastic sign makers nearby.

Plastic and illuminated sign makers us the brands mentioned.

You can generally get off cuts and sizes which are too small for signs but OK for modelling use and doesn't cost the earth.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 14, 2012, 11:37:19 pm
Good idea for a source of low cost offcuts.  Usually rigid signs tend to be a lot thicker, and rarely clear, but usefull information which I am sure will come in useful.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on July 15, 2012, 12:03:19 am
Bob,

My experience here in OZ is,  have been able to get clear perspex in thin sizes 3mm, such as used in built up signs, lettering etc, which are colour back sprayed, which I used to build several disply cases for models.

Sizes varied from 1200mm x 300mm width and in between.

Was able to select the "bits" I wanted from a large heap of clear offcuts at a bargain price.

It also still has the protective film intact which aids in marking out and protects the surface when handling and re cutting to size.

Way to go.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), build notes
Post by: Bob K on July 15, 2012, 12:38:04 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), build notes

All comments and suggestions welcome. 

Although I could just post pics and notes on each completed stage I am attempting to record a more complete process (including occasional setbacks) to show the development of an unusual non-kit model.  Hopefully this R&D effort may be of some use to others.  Previously I have only done bulkheads in ply or thinner ABS.

For anyone interested in building this ship it would of course be so much easier to have a higher fixed freeboard and just go ahead mounting the motors shafts and electrics as normal.  However, I am game for a good challenge.  It does mean though I tend to spend more time in research, trialling and jigs etc, than construction. 
Figuring out how to create the next bit is half the fun. 

So please bear with me.  I estimate this one could take around six months, bearing in mind it is 1/60 so just about all fittings etc will have to be scratch made. 

Thinking ahead

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hms_polyphemus_ram.jpg)

Dry dock view of the ram with torpedo tube bow cap, also showing the twin forward rudders for close manoeuvring inside hostile harbours.
I understand they were not very effective, but that was generations before bow thrusters were invented.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on July 16, 2012, 04:29:28 pm
I'm enjoying reading of your tribulations (the read, that is, not the tribulations) in building this unique vessel. One of the reasons I never got started on mine. I was browsing the other day, and in John Beeler's BIRTH OF THE BATTLESHIP there is a photo of her at speed and this shows the very low freeboard to good effect. Apologies if you've already spotted it. This book has various pictures of Polyphemus scatered throughout, most of which are the usual ones seen before, and a good bit of text.
IJ
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 16, 2012, 08:10:49 pm
Thank you Ian:  Builds like this keeps the ‘little grey cells’ rust-free.  I probably will not find many of them at club events, and it will be fun to sail with the smoke unit and multi cylinder steam engine sound module.

That book sounds like a “must have” book for this project.  I located one on Amazon and ordered it. Thanks.  Is this the illustration you referred to?

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/1215623722.jpg)
Almost awash, more like a surfaced submarine at speed.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on July 16, 2012, 08:36:05 pm
Not that one, which looks like a 'breaking the boom' illustration. The one I mentioned is a photograph, fully broadside, and the bow is hidden by spray nearly to the superstructure.
IJ
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 16, 2012, 09:55:33 pm
The above illustration depicts the Berhaven harbour raid exercise of 1885, so an actual photograph of her broadside on at speed would be invaluable.  I eagerly await the book to arrive.   The shape of the bows would appear to encourage water to build up towards the f'o'c'sle at speed, and that the top of the side bulges being above the waterline even when flooded down would cause water to ramp up over the deck at 17 kts especially in a quartering sea.  Under these conditions I doubt if either f'o'c'sle or main deck would be tenable on an attack run, the ship having to be operated from flying deck level and the armoured conning tower.

Hopefully, if i get everything right on the model, lake trials should replicate this.  
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Ballast rig bath test
Post by: Bob K on July 19, 2012, 02:06:29 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  ballast rig bath test

Before installing the ballast system controls it was necessary to build a test rig to check them out.  An empty 2 litre diet drink bottle (I am following medical advice) fitted with a Blagdon pond style air valve and a pipe to the air pump.  Square slots cut into the bottom plus a ½ inch spanner held on with elastic bands to keep it upright and provide some mass.  Although pump is 12V test carried out using 6V.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/ballastjig1.jpg)

With air valve closed no water ingress for ½ hour.  Passed.
With air valve open it sank in 75 secs.
Close air valve, turn on pump. It fully blew in 45 secs.

With one air valve on each fitted ballast chamber operated by a common servo, and the pump connected to both chambers, this should fill the full 2.7 litres in 51 seconds and blow it in 61 seconds.  Maybe I should opt for the full 12V.  If my calculations on centre of mass for the ballast are not spot on then trimming will be interesting.  If only I still had access to 3D software.

Broadside on at speed.
Was this the picture Ian ?  Shows challenges of low freeboard operation well.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/broadsideatspeed.jpg)
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bowsunderwater.jpg)
“Polyphemus under way. Her hull was designed so that water would flow over it when steaming at speed”

 Clear Lexan sheets have arrived.
Now I can get on creating the bulkheads from the card templates.  More soon.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: rmaddock on July 19, 2012, 02:14:16 pm
I think this is a fantastic build Bob. I'm enjoying it greatly.  You've got a very unusual but fascinating subject and your doing a very hands-on build too. No buying all the trick bits in a magic black box for you eh?
Keep it up!
 :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on July 19, 2012, 03:50:05 pm
The top picture was the one I mentioned. Definitely shows a need for accurate watertight access if your planning this sort of thing.
IJ
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 19, 2012, 04:09:59 pm
rmaddock:  Thank you.  I am having a lot of fun with this one. There were no 'magic black boxes' in 1881 either  O0

Ian:  Fascinating reading material just arrived, I am learning even more about this ship.  Decks awash, sloping armour protected the base of the funnel and conning tower.  The flying deck was on a maze of pillars and largely sacrificial so the ship was very hard to damage by gunfire.  A brilliant concept that was overtaken by the advent of rapid-training quick fire guns which effectively made her obsolete as she became operational.  A common fate in that era.

Hull innards have to be treated as if a submarine, watertight yet in accessable compartments.  Water will tend to flow over at speed.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on July 19, 2012, 04:11:05 pm
I just love all the old photos of her - brilliant :-))

Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 19, 2012, 09:28:47 pm
Blow time sounds about right on 6 volts. I said about 15-20 seconds on a 12 volt system, so 40-45 seconds is about double that- the motor won't be working as efficiently on the lower voltage. I reckoned the specification of 12-15 litres per minute was optimisitic for that pump, I have one of pretty much identical size and it shifts about 8 litres a minute, which is still good going considering it only draws a few watts.

Flood rate sounds very slow however. To get an accurate assessment you should partially submerge the bottle ,as the hull would be, and sticking a bit more weight (more or bigger spanner) underneath will help matters too.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 19, 2012, 10:20:11 pm
Blow time sounds about right on 6 volts. I said about 15-20 seconds on a 12 volt system, so 40-45 seconds is about double that- the motor won't be working as efficiently on the lower voltage. I reckoned the specification of 12-15 litres per minute was optimisitic for that pump, I have one of pretty much identical size and it shifts about 8 litres a minute, which is still good going considering it only draws a few watts.

Flood rate sounds very slow however. To get an accurate assessment you should partially submerge the bottle ,as the hull would be, and sticking a bit more weight (more or bigger spanner) underneath will help matters too.

6V was worth trying, but the full 12V should improve things.  On the test I was using aquarium 4 mm bore tubing, but it would go better with the full 1/4".  Neccessary elbows and tees will restrict bore a bit.  
Batteries for 12V, 6V (motors), and 24V (mister) makes for interesting wiring.

The Blagdon ball valves do their job very well, but are only 2.9 mm bore.  I was hoping air would vent more easily than pumping water out, but it was slower than expected.  Finding a larger airtight stainess ball balve with a very easy turning handle would not be easy.

I love high tech solutions:  Fit a heavier spanner   :-))-   LOL !  I will try that.

PS:  HMS Warrior was still on the active fighting list in 1881, although 'only' 20 years old.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 20, 2012, 07:10:10 am
Festo do ball valves with larger diameters, all compatible with water- http://alshobbies.com/shop/search.php?Desc=Festo+Ball+Valve+with+Arm+-+4mm

But to be honest I doubt the valve is the restriction, it's low pressure plus the drag of the holes where the water come in that slows things down. If you try weighting the bottle down to at least 50% of it's displacement, then open the valve, I think you'll get a much faster dive time.

Regarding all those voltages, would it not be wise to ditch the 6 volt motors for 12 volt, and run the booster I linked to earlier? Then all you need is one 12 volt pack. You could use the three cell lipo pack that didn't fit the sub driver.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on July 20, 2012, 12:23:57 pm
The key advantage of the stainless Blagdon air valves is they take very low effort to turn, making servo operation possible.  You are probably right about low air pressure, and I will try that.  The model will need about 20 lbs of equipment plus ballast.  To half submerge a 2 litre plastic bottle will take 1 kilo.

6V is needed to turn the two inch props slowly, otherwise I will be into more expensive and noisy reduction drives.  I have low RPM high torque Kondor motors from Deans which are made for these kind of applications.  As I wrote before, I am reluctant to have a large RF coil amongst the Multiplex 40Mhz Rx and electronics.  So multiple batteries that I can charge in situ from a single QD sealed access hatch seems the best operational compromise.  Batteries make good fixed ballast anyway.

Hull Slots

Planning ahead, I have made up a sample lozenge shaped sponge plug with a central mandrel, long screw with pop rivet washers, that I can insert into the hull slots before spraying the hull.  This is to prevent paint spraying over the inside faces of my clear bulkheads.


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 20, 2012, 01:06:51 pm
The Festo valves are used a lot by submariners in place of pinch valves. They work fine with servo actuation.

You can use o-ring belts and pulleys for reduction- cheap and quiet as a mouse. Also it removes the need for couplings, so that's a cost saving. You can also get low revving motors for 12 volt operation. Engel do a 500 size motor that does about 500 RPM per volt. It's the same one you have in the 212, and is also used in their Lafayette model.

A switchmode supply can be mounted inside a grounded steel box, if noise proves to be an issue.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Lexan bulkheads
Post by: Bob K on July 23, 2012, 06:32:18 pm
Lexan Bulkheads
I finally managed to cut out the 3mm clear Lexan polycarbonate bulkheads from the jig template.   Multiple scoring on both sides would not create a snapable break line, so the profile was marked onto marking tape over the sheet, then clamping the sheet down I cut it using my new Bosch PST 900 jigsaw.  The jigsaw has a blower and lamp which helped.  Then it was a junior hacksaw for the small radii and finishing off with a rasp file.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/lexanbulkheads.jpg)
Max bulge tank dimensions are 820 long, 50 wide and 90 deep.

Now I am making progress.  I will leave the protective film on until final fitting.  With the panels taped in position and my balsa jig I can then start working on the 100 wide transverse bulkheads, which are only curved at the keel end.

Ballast test jig
I tried this again but with ½ kilo ballast on the bottle.   It took five seconds longer to blow the tank, but submerged in only 40 seconds.  OK, so valve sizes look about right. 

-------------------------------------
Sorry, but no way am I going to fit a huge 11V LiPo underwater then fill the boat with ‘dummy’ SLA’s for ballast.  SWMBO will not let me charge LiPo’s indoors, and it can't be charged in situ.  Whilst the Engel 540-12 from my 212 is an excellent motor it runs faster than my Kondor’s on 6V, and too fast on 12V for big slow props.  I really don’t want to get into fabricating ‘O ring’ belt drives just to compensate for not using the big 6V SLA that will be on board anyway.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Victorian Propellers
Post by: Bob K on July 27, 2012, 01:01:56 pm
Victorian propellers

My special Victorian propellers have arrived from Swan Precision Castings (Prop Shop) and they really look the biz’.   ‘Crocus’ bladed with big onion bosses.  Very nice job.   
Slightly smaller than scale at 48 mm, will hopefully make them a bit less vulnerable when docking.  They do stick out well beyond the hull profile at the stern.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/propellors.jpg)

These complete the internal and running equipment for the ship.  Batteries and electronics were sourced a while back, as were the Raboesch watertight prop shafts, motors and pump etc.  Transverse bulkhead positions and static ballasting have been carried out specifically for this equipment set.

Re my last post:  Comments are appreciated, but suggesting I effectively junk all internals are not really helpful.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on July 27, 2012, 05:27:27 pm
You won't break those- silicone bronze, tough as old boots.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: bikerdude999 on August 15, 2012, 02:12:45 pm
Any more progress on this build? I'm finding it very interesting!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 15, 2012, 06:12:33 pm
Slight delay in progress, sorry, I've been epoxied to the television enthralled with Team GB's Olympic successes.   :-))

The internal bulkheads framework is proving to be a bit challenging.  Having completed the side bulkheads I am working on a dozen Lexan and Marlon pieces, much of which must fit exactly as a 'drop in' assembly.  Catch 22 is that some bits should ideally be created in situ so some headscratching involved to work out the optimum method for ensuring it all goes together precisely when dropped into place, with top edges exactly level for the under-deck.  The balsa jig helps, but the side bullheads have a small curve.  Anti-slosh baffles will be fitted direct to the inside of the hull bulges as these can have slight gaps to the main framework.
When the framework is done I can cut the under-hull water slots, prop shaft slots, and mountings for the three rudders.
Top faces of the ballast chambers will be done last, then after checking for fit it all needs to be epoxied into the hull.  I may do the under-deck in several sections to ensure it is water tight, with all its access plate holes and blind fixings.

Please bear with me, this has become a bit of a 3D jigsaw puzzle !!!!   %%  %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: bikerdude999 on August 15, 2012, 06:44:46 pm
Thanks for the update, sounds like a huge headache! Will you be taking it to the model boat show at Warwick? Would love to see this model in the 'flesh'.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 15, 2012, 08:37:27 pm
Not really a 'headache', just an interesting build sequence that I'm trying to work out an optimum solution for.  No plans to take the duck to water yet, this one will take longer than my previous builds.  No fun or challenge otherwise  {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on August 16, 2012, 07:34:50 am
If you want an exact 'imprint' of a curved area, and using soft wire to obtain the shape isn't cutting it, then I use the following method.

Tape off the required area (parcel tape is good). Apply a release agent to the tape, this can be PVA (not the glue the release agent used for GRP work), wax or even a smear of vaseline. Cut out a rough template of the shape you want, plywood, plastic sheet, or balsa is good. Slather the part where you want the shape in polyester filler, and squish onto the taped off area. Allow to cure for a few minutes (a hair dryer will speed the cure) then pull it away- provided you've been thorough with the application of release agent the part should separate easily. PVA will be more tenacious than grease or wax, application of little water (brush it in) can help here.

Then remove the tape, and you should have a nice clean area, and a perfect template to use for marking out the lexan parts.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 16, 2012, 09:58:58 am
Not really a headache, just trying to work out an optimum sequence for this part of the build.  No plans yet to take the duck to water, this will be a longish build. Challenges are part of the fun.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on August 16, 2012, 01:12:23 pm
You alright there Bob, you're repeating youerself matey!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 16, 2012, 02:27:23 pm
You alright there Bob, you're repeating youerself matey!

Thats strange.  I had replied yesterday but noticed today it was not showing even after refreshing the page, so I wrote it again.  Weird !

Thanks for the tips on managing some of the internal structure.  Ideally I am trying to get as much framing done as I can as a removable subassembly before drilling the numerous hull slots.  Then I can hard-resin it in with the interconnecting brass tubes etc in place.  Tubes are a) balance flow pipes between ballast chambers, and b) wiring conduits between WTC compartments.  Hopefully dousing the ends of the later in RTV sealant will be sufficient.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on August 16, 2012, 04:48:49 pm
You can use something like Sikaflex 221 if you really want to be sure. This is a very strong mastic adhesive that is totally waterproof and very high tear strength.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 20, 2012, 11:07:23 pm
Just go back from a holiday visiting family in N Ireland.  I will try that Sikaflex 221 sealant, having looked it up on Google.
Now I am back home focus will be on the internal framework build. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Marmoi on August 22, 2012, 05:52:22 pm
I have used Wet garb with good success

http://www.bostik.co.uk/diy/product/evo-stik/Serious-Stuff-Wet-Grab/25 (http://www.bostik.co.uk/diy/product/evo-stik/Serious-Stuff-Wet-Grab/25)

Mark
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), internal structure
Post by: Bob K on August 25, 2012, 04:03:26 pm
Internal structure

A lot of head scratching resulted in some lateral thinking.  Instead of looking at the problem as building a ‘House of Cards’ inside a partially enclosed volume I switched to thinking in terms of the space volumes to be enclosed.  So I built the main volumes as balsa sheet boxes, to locate and temporarily attach the watertight panels on to.  That way it could be made solid, square, and with vertical planes.  Once completed the balsa ‘volumes’ would be removed and the framework secured into the hull.

It has taken a while to reach this stage as numerous other considerations have to be factored in, such as how large the access apertures need to be for the watertight hatches.  I now have suitable M3 stainless blind nutserts, a key dimensional factor for the hatch apertures to fit and access internal equipment.

The first balsa box replicates the main 6V battery compartment, including space to twist and lift out the battery.  The second box represents the mister chamber, again with lift out clearance.  A strip of lead sheet was used to copy lower hull profile sections.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/framework1.jpg)

Now assembly can start, knowing dimensions are correct and all is square.  Tape was used to locate panels to boxes, whilst making sure panel edges seat well into hull profile.  Note mini spirit level using balsa strips.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/framework2.jpg)

Moving outwards, the next two chambers only required partial balsa boxes to set dimensions and ensure squareness.  With four of the seven chambers the framework is quite solid and removable.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/framework3a.jpg)

Eventually the panel joints can be epoxied, then the tape and balsa boxes can be removed.  It is intended to seat the framework onto beads of Silkflex 221 air curing sealant adhesive, after all the slots and tubes etc have been built in.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: rmaddock on August 26, 2012, 07:27:46 pm
I like a bit of lateral thinking. Well done that man  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 26, 2012, 07:47:04 pm
I like a bit of lateral thinking. Well done that man  :-))

Ta.  It does look a bit Cornflakes-boxish at the moment, but hopefully as I reinforce and 2-part epoxy each bulkhead into place and remove another section of scaffolding the method in my madness will become apparent.  I aim to use 5 x 5 mm hardwood strips as joint reinforcing, but shops don't open until Tuesday.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), internal structure
Post by: Bob K on September 12, 2012, 05:01:10 pm
Internal structure

A few delays due to non modelling activities, but we are underway again.  Key thing here is that after working out a practical methodology it needed to be carefully planned in stages. 
Masking tape proved insufficient to hold it in place so I used elephant tape instead.  Modified clothes pegs were required to clamp in narrow spaces.

With the balsa boxes in place, start at each end to epoxy bulkhead and 5 x 5 mm hardwood joint supports.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/frame0.jpg)

Working inwards from the ends, remove a balsa box and epoxy bulkheads and supports as each becomes accessible.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/frame1-1.jpg)

Gradually working further inwards add reverse side supports, then remove another of the temporary boxes.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/frame3-1.jpg)

This takes some time as each epoxy operation needs to set off before the next stage can be started.  It’s coming along though.  The complete frame will be removable until all internal structures are finished off, then it will be permanently set into the hull.

PS:   To see some nice photos of a completed HMS Polyphemus model featured on Mayhem Sales this week.
http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=39421.0 (http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=39421.0)

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 13, 2012, 03:38:02 pm
Frame Assembly

I have now completed the basic frame, with everything square in all planes, and components that sit snugly into the hull.  Good start point  :-))

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/frame4.jpg)

Next will be the watertight under-deck in 2 mm clear Lexan.  This will extend to the hull sides to form the top of the ballast chambers.  Openings for the watertight hatches will be cut into this deck.  The deck will then be epoxied to the top face of the frame.  An interesting measuring and cutting exercise as it all has to be very accurate for fit, against a good flat frame surface for bonding.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 23, 2012, 03:24:10 pm
Frame Fitting

Quite a bit of time has been taken to ensure the frame assembly fits snugly inside the hull, with a constant 5 mm from top surface of the frame to top edge of hull.  Using paper ‘feeler gauges’ under each edge to check point-fits, filing back where necessary.  5 mm hardwood strips and micro spirit level were used to check distance from frame top to hull edge.  The 2 mm clear Lexan under-deck must be flat across the frame, plus space for the actual deck which will slot onto it.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/frame5_zps8325389e.jpg)

The under-deck will be in two parts, main deck and fore deck.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dodes on September 24, 2012, 10:50:16 pm
Hi Bob,
Looks good, but I sawyour comment on multiple steam cylinder noise unit, be honest you are wasting your money, have worked on steam recip engine boats and apart from leaky valves to the whistle, there is no engine noise what so ever, used to go down to the engine room and stand between to engines flat out of similiar IHP to the model and speak normaly to the engineer. But what colour scheme do you intend to use, that is what interests me, I have a model of the same size to refurbish and that is what is going through my mind what paint scheme to use.
All the best on your build,
David.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 25, 2012, 12:11:33 am
Hi David.  I have been in several ships engine rooms and found them to be quite noisy, but there are two additional factors here.  This is a fairly early (1881) steam engine, and I aim for a more realistic scale audio distance than most audio powered model boats I see.  If the model is a ships length distant you should just hear it on a quiet day.  Copious amounts of smoke from the mister though, in keeping with the less than efficient combustion of those early coal fed engine systems.

Several models of Polyphemus have been painted with black hulls and white superstructure, which looks very attractive for a Victorian warship.  However I intend to render her in the grey paint which she was one of the first to pioneer as a 'stealth' role ship.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Polyphemuscapturea.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 26, 2012, 07:45:49 pm
Underdeck

Going step by step on this one as I have to plan several build stages in advance.

Thinking about the waterproof hatches I made up a dummy hatch assembly to do some measurements.  I thus figured the underdeck was going to be 1.5 mm too high.
Quite a bit of time was spent grinding down the bottom edges of the frame assembly to lower it a bit, making sure fit stayed intact.

(http://s11.postimage.org/7l07zp4en/hatch_section.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/7l07zp4en/)

Cutting clear Lexan is not as easy as plywood.  Card template, jig saw, and finish with files.  Reasonable fit. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/underdeck1jpg.jpg)

Before removing the protective films I will need to mark out the access cut-outs and nutsert holes, then do some careful drilling and cutting. 
The foredeck will be separate and enclose the various waterproof connectors and switches.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 01, 2012, 11:23:49 am
The new dockyard workers are very keen to get into every aspect of this build.  Unfortunately their inexperience limits their help to playing with the printed strips and investigating the gluing operations.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/dockyardworkers.jpg)

Marking out for Hatches

Using lining tape I marked out the positions of the bulkhead edges.  Using this as a guide I printed out 10 mm strips of paper with 5 mm nutsert holes at 30 mm pitch.  Temporarily fixed with glue stick.  The full length hatch plate is in 2 mm Lexan, to be clamped to the underdeck so that 3 mm pilot holes can be drilled through both thickness.  5 dia holes to be cut at hatch cutout corners, then threading through a fret saw blade to cut appatures.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/markingout-1.jpg)

Once drilled the hatch holes will be opened up to 3.5 dia and c/sk.  Underdeck holes opened up to 5.0 dia for M3 nutserts. 
Drilled hatches then  to be cut into separate pieces so each can be independently removable.
I will be using "U" section greenhouse glazing rubber gasket strip for the hatch edges.  4.0 x 3.8 section.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on October 01, 2012, 11:44:00 am
Underdeck

Going step by step on this one as I have to plan several build stages in advance.

Thinking about the waterproof hatches I made up a dummy hatch assembly to do some measurements.  I thus figured the underdeck was going to be 1.5 mm too high.
Quite a bit of time was spent grinding down the bottom edges of the frame assembly to lower it a bit, making sure fit stayed intact.

(http://s11.postimage.org/7l07zp4en/hatch_section.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/7l07zp4en/)

Cutting clear Lexan is not as easy as plywood.  Card template, jig saw, and finish with files.  Reasonable fit. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/underdeck1jpg.jpg)

Before removing the protective films I will need to mark out the access cut-outs and nutsert holes, then do some careful drilling and cutting. 
The foredeck will be separate and enclose the various waterproof connectors and switches.

Would using an "o" ring style seal be less obtrusive.... something like this (forgive the poor paint drawing)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 01, 2012, 12:08:34 pm
Interesting idea.  Good sketch too.  This would make the overall thickness more compact, but unforunately I do not have the tools to create half-round groves. 
That would probably need a pillar drill and a ball section cutter.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 01, 2012, 12:54:09 pm
You don't need to put grooves in. You just need a piece of flat plastic either side of the o-ring cord- allow a bit of clearance for the cord to squish out.

Also note that it's best to put the bolts on the outside of the seal. If you use a sponge rubber type cord, I would think half a dozen screws per hatch would be quite sufficient- these hatches are not required to deal with water pressure, so you only need a small amount to keep the seal compressed.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on October 01, 2012, 01:03:51 pm
Interesting idea.  Good sketch too.  This would make the overall thickness more compact, but unforunately I do not have the tools to create half-round groves. 
That would probably need a pillar drill and a ball section cutter.

I have used a dremel with a ball ended grinding bit to do mine. made a template of the shape i wanted with a slight recess at the bottom to allow for the ball, then holding the shaft against the template I made the groove.

The shop bought water tight radio box I have in my huntsman actually has flat bottomed channels for the O ring Seal
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 01, 2012, 01:57:27 pm
A square channel is the correct way to do it, and easier to make too.

If you want figures, I would use 4mm diameter rubber cord, either silicone or nitrile (Polymax sell this). Silicone tends to be a bit softer, and is also more reistant to ozone. Nitrile has a tendency to wetaher and age. I would use 3mm thick plastic sheet to form a groove either side 5mm wide. This will allow the seal to squish out as the bolts are snugged down.

http://www.polymax.co.uk/rubber-cords/silicone-cord/
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 01, 2012, 07:36:16 pm
Some interesting suggestions and discussion.

As you said, hatches need to be waterproof, not pressure tight.  My thoughts were that 2 mm Lexan has some flex, hence the number of holes.  Maybe too many?

The intended rubber beading is a “U” section greenhouse glazing bead that can be bonded to the edge of the hatch.   The underside of the removable main deck needs to sit flush with the hatch tops, so not sure if I can fit round section without cutting grooves.  4 dia with 25% compression would mean a 3 mm ‘gap’.  3 dia with grooves might work, if I can secure it to one face effectively.  To do so in one piece the grooves would need to be curved at the corners.  Tricky !
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/beading.jpg)
I was going to curve the hatch corners to have a single bead joint where the hatches abut.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 01, 2012, 09:43:06 pm
Giving this some more thought, it is logical that the seal would be better fitted inside the screws line now you mention it. 
Moving it to the underdeck reduces the access cutouts a bit but saves 1 mm by not having it on the hatch and may save possible handling damage when underneath.
M3 stainless csk socket head screws.

(http://s13.postimage.org/jv8sfcjvn/hatch_assy_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/jv8sfcjvn/)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 04, 2012, 08:07:38 pm
Every time I seem to be making progress I get stuck for something I have to end up ordering.  This time it’s as simple as a fine line marker pen that will write on shiny plastic for marking up the next set of clear Lexan parts, by marking through from the underdeck.

Also I’ve been having further thoughts on the gasketing after doing compression tests on the glazing rubber strip.  Back in my Drawing Office days we used a lot of MIL standard expanded neoprene for sealing cast aluminium electronics cabinets on submarines.  I have found some online and ordered it.  This will alter the design a little, but still keep access cutouts full size.  It will also avoid corner radii.  
Outer brass angles afix to the underdeck, inner to the undersides of the hatches.  OK, the angles are overkill but protects the gasket and aids hatch location.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hatchassy3-1.jpg)

With hatches secured the main deck will lock onto the underdeck.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hatchassy4.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 04, 2012, 08:51:05 pm
Pound shop, look for pens used for writing on DVD's or CD's.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 04, 2012, 09:08:15 pm
Thanks Andy:  I had tried CD/DVD pens but they were too thick-nosed for accurate marking out.  Fine liners don't take to plastic. 
No worries, Faber-Castell Multimark 1513 pens have been dispatched so hopefully should arrive Friday or Saturday. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on October 04, 2012, 10:32:55 pm
you can get some fineline markers in drawing pen sizes, I always had a .5mm one for fine work. I cant find one at the moment but Pentel rings a bell. but I guess faber castell will do the job.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 04, 2012, 11:40:55 pm
If only I still had my old Rotring draughting pens Grendel.   {:-{
They were really precision tools, but it would take a long time for draughting ink to dry enough for handling though.
I mainly used 0.35 0.50 and 0.70 in the D/O.  That was before it all went CAD.
What I am marking onto is not the clear Lexan surface itself, but the translucent protective covering film. 
I am using a sheet of glass with a lamp under to simulate a Lightbox (which I also used to have for PCB work, but not now).
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Kim on October 05, 2012, 12:03:12 am
Hi Bob,

If you can draw in Cad you could probably have the lexan laser cut for the price of buying suitable pens...

An alternative to pens might be..
What about using masking tape (the thin paper type say 50mm width) then use fine line retractable pencils ? the thin masking tape should still allow for light to come through?

Regards,
Kim
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 05, 2012, 12:15:22 am
Hi Kim.  You are on the right lines there, although I no longer have access to CAD either. 
I drew up strips in my DTP and temporally attached the printed strips to the underdeck with Prit Stick  (see image on earlier post).  I now need to accurately trace the hole and line positions onto the hatch panel.  With translucent protective films, hence the light source required underneath.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Kim on October 05, 2012, 12:30:03 am
Hi Kim.  You are on the right lines there, although I no longer have access to CAD either. 
I drew up strips in my DTP and temporally attached the printed strips to the underdeck with Prit Stick  (see image on earlier post).  I now need to accurately trace the hole and line positions onto the hatch panel.  With translucent protective films, hence the light source required underneath.

Hi Bob,

I know you will probably want to do your own thing but if you were to trace the outline i could convert to cad and we could laser the lexan. Probably still cheaper than your fancy new pens :)

I know this sounds like an advert and yes it is but may help others ..

I could also laser the neoprene given we have a neoprene manufacturer just 'up the road '
If i can help I'd be delighted or if you want to do your own thing I'm also happy & forgive my intrusion on your build.
|Regards,
Kim
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on October 05, 2012, 12:57:37 am
I still have a full set of rotring pens (but alas no ink) but more importantly have CAD software as I have an educational copy (courtesy of an educational email address from the open university) you can get any version of the Autocad software as a fully functional version just by having an email address associated with an educational establishment. the drawback is when you print out it places a stamp on the border of the drawing, plus if you open the drawing in a non educational version and copy anything out it infects the new drawing with the educational stamp, and then autocad charge the earth to remove it - once the second time they will prosecute for licence violation.
I learned before CAD then moved on up to keep up with the times.
I use both autocad and its rival microstation (and like the good points of both, hate the bad points of both)
just getting into creating plans for model ships as a new challenge after my former employer decided to axe the whole department I worked in, then got a job part time with one of the subcontractors doing exactly the same work I had been doing, the olympics put most of our jobs on hold as no maintenace was planned during the event so we are now just getting back up to speed.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 05, 2012, 01:06:24 am
Kim

Thank you.  I have been reading the threads on laser cutting with great interest.  If I still had access to Pro/Engineer this whole build would have been much easier as I could have replicated the hull and produced accurate sections for all the frames and bulkheads decks etc.   If I could have done that I would have been more than pleased to send the DXF’s off to you to quote for laser cutting.  Could have saved me weeks. 

However, by ‘traditional’ methods described on previous pages I have had to be manually creative.  If I can trace this I can cut the holes through both thicknesses and the same time etc. 

Grendel

I can't access a student licence, I've looked into that, and would need a much higher spec PC.  I was in Engineering design most of my working life, then got made redundent as the firm wound down.  Sadly Britain is now mostly retail and banking, almost no manufaturing or design left.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 05, 2012, 08:07:39 am
You don't need to spend hundreds of pounds to get reasonable CAD- plenty of free packages out there more than capable for what the modeller requires.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on October 06, 2012, 03:28:41 pm
Have a look at http://www.bustedbricks.com   he will produce laser cut bits (I think he specialises in model railways) and from his website spiel it looks like he can produce from CAD drawings or use your own sketches to get his own (at extra cost).
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 06, 2012, 07:03:17 pm
The stage I am at is that the underdeck is ready for drilling and the 1m x 100mm hatch plate is marked out for drilling through both sheets clamped together to ensure the M3 fixings line up.  After this underdeck cutouts will be made with holes opened up for the nutserts, then individual hatches cropped from the hatch plate.  The black tape indicates bulkhead positions.
On its own a CAD / lasered hatch plate would not line up.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/markingout-1.jpg)

The special marker pens work well. 
Double sided tape used for initial bond, then clamps, then some 3mm acrylic rods as dowels to keep alignment whilst holes are drilled.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 08, 2012, 02:44:51 pm
75 sets of holes drilled today.  Hand-drilled through both panels to 2 dia, them opened up to 3.0 with the Rotacraft. 
Hatch plate removed.  Underdeck holes opened to 5 dia & csk for the nutserts.  All fits so far . . .

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drilling.jpg)  Lexan hatch plate & underdeck, with protective film

One problem with an evolving design process is that procurement lags behind design.  The MIL std Neoprene turns out to be on ‘back order’ and may not now arrive for two to three weeks. 
In the mean time I had equipped myself with some ‘fresh’ HSS small drills, and been surprised that A4 lengths of 3 x 3 mm brass angle are over six quid each.   {:-{
So, I trawled around and found 500 mm lengths at over a Pound cheaper.  I now only need six lengths instead of ten.

Hatch cutouts next.   The risk of my messing everything up here is high  :embarrassed:
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Lexan cutting
Post by: Bob K on October 10, 2012, 12:28:18 am
I did say I was going to report the complete story of the build.  Including the downs as well as the ups.

Progress has been quite good so far, apart from the dive system, and figuring out how to put the frame together whilst keeping everything vertical solid and square.  Using balsa boxes solved the later.

Today I have been attempting to cut the five apertures in the clear Lexan underdeck.  I have ‘discovered’ than Lexan is nowhere near as easy to cut internal shapes into as plywood or styrene of similar thickness.  Had it been styrene a sharp Xacto knife would have sufficed.

Pilot holes for corner radii.  Thread coping saw blade through hole.  I would have thought it just needed a careful hand and steady eye.  
Darn !  The material grips the blade in an almost continuous jam, and making blade direction almost uncontrollable.

A lot more thought needed.  I might end up making over 1,000 chain drilled holes, then having to file it.  Not very neat  {:-{
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: wizard on October 10, 2012, 06:04:57 am
Ty a coarser blade in your saw.

Wizard
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: wizard on October 10, 2012, 06:06:15 am
That was supposed to be TRY a coarser blade.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on October 10, 2012, 07:05:05 am
If I remember correctly lexan heats up quite quickly causing it to soften and this makes the blade stick
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 10, 2012, 08:12:45 am
Thank you.  A courser blade might work, if there is more teeth offset outside the blade thickness.

The Lexan may well be heating up and expanding, making the cut slot tight.  
I used a power jigsaw to rough out the outside profile, but cannot use anything like that for inside profiles.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 10, 2012, 10:28:43 am
Get a small cup of water, you can mix in a little soap too if you like. Brush this on the work with an old paint brush as you cut. The water helps cool the work, and the soap helps the blade slide, the water is the most important bit though.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Lexan cutting
Post by: Bob K on October 17, 2012, 10:15:33 pm
That's wierd, I had posted an update on the 15th which has now dissapeared  :((
Maybe dropped out during the site upgrade.  If I can remember it right:- 

After trying several typres of coping saw blades, with and without water, the blades still kept jamming and wandering the cut badly in trying to cut the internal appertures. 
Finally I tried an X-Acto keyhole saw blade which was stiffer so less jamming, and seemed to cut straighter if angled at 30 degrees to the material. 

(http://s15.postimage.org/hfkuhvuzb/cut.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/hfkuhvuzb/)

Slowly and carefully.  20 more cuts, totalling approx 2 metres.

PS:  Hopefully new photos with good news tomorrow.  Underdeck almost done.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on October 17, 2012, 11:21:02 pm
Bob,
Have you tried liquid soap on the cutting blade.

Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 18, 2012, 12:44:40 am
Hi Bob,

All the cutting done now.  Photos tomorrow when I've fitted the nutserts. 

Water did not help, and when I tried a little washing up liquid it partly disolved the indelible marker pen lines on the protective film.
Challenging stuff Polycarbonate sheet  :embarrassed:
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), underdeck
Post by: Bob K on October 18, 2012, 08:27:41 am
Clear Lexan is not a material I have worked with before, so this is all a learning curve.

The X-Acto keyhole saw worked reasonably well, but still a lot to finish with files.  I have been taking this very carefully against visions of snapping the polycarbonate across the thinner sections. 
The Workmate was handy in clamping and supporting the part over maximum length.

Eventually I had all five cutouts made.  Phew !    Nutsert holes were lightly countersunk to give a flater profile for the heads.  Remove protective film both sides of deck.  Recheck alignments before fitting the 75 nutserts with epoxy.  Working access should be infrequent, mostly one compartment at a time, but one blind nutsert per battery hatch was drilled through to provide a vent with screw removed for charging safety.  (SLA and NiMh.)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/underdeck0.jpg)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/underdeck2.jpg)

Cutting out the individual predrilled hatch plates is much easier.  Straight external cuts.

No hurry, the special neoprene will not arrive for another two weeks.  However the most critical stages have now been done.  The internal structure is in clear material for full visibility.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on October 18, 2012, 06:20:22 pm
many years ago we used to build model car chassis from 1/8" clear lexan, bending it was very tricky but doable, cutting as you say very difficult, we learned to drill corners and cut to the holes as sharp corners allowed stress fractures to start propagating, but then the stresses involved with the cars were very high.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 18, 2012, 08:59:47 pm
That's interesting Grendel.  Lexan is a new material to me, but at least the learning curve has been useful.  I did start with 5 dia holes on the internal corners to start the saw cuts in, but squared them off finishing.  Maybe I should have left radii in as you said as this stuff is not only tough and durable, but is also hard and quite brittle.
If I do a similar exercise again I will seriously consider all-CAD and water cutting.

After the hatches I have to make up the f'o'c'sle underdeck and hatch.  I will use corner radii for that cutout.  That compartment is for the twin bow rudders.

The only other major part in clear Lexan is the removable main deck, mainly because I already have the sheet and it was easy to trace the hull profile from the finished underdeck.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on October 18, 2012, 09:07:09 pm
I dont think you will have any problems in your application, we were using it to form the main chassis for the cars, onto wich everything was bolted, so any hard knocks and flexture to the chassis caused stress, especially twisting the whole chassis. so weak points were to be avoided, other materials used were sheet aluminium and fibreglass board, but the lexan was superior for strength and weight.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), F'o'c'sle underdeck
Post by: Bob K on October 20, 2012, 05:56:09 pm
H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881),  F'o'c'sle underdeck

F’o’c’sle underdeck completed, plus all six hatches, including the new f’o’c’sle hatch for access to the twin bow rudders.  I am awaiting delivery of the special neoprene gasketing and s/s csk Allen screws.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/focsleandhatches.jpg)

The F’o’c’sle is slightly raised which gives opportunity to make it a lift off deck to give easy access to the waterproofed charging connectors and switches.  
Separate connectors and sealed rocker switches for each of the three circuits.  Motors + electronics, pumps, and mister.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/connectorsdiagram.jpg)

Wiring runs between compartments at keel level will be in brass tubes (Engel 212 style) with ends sealed using RTV.
Unlike submarines which need to be pressure-tight I am aiming for a system that allows for frequent sailing without having to keep dismantling sealed parts for charging and on-board manual controls.  

I am not far off the point where I can start to install prop shafts motors and rudders etc.  Frame assy and underdecks will not be sealed into the hull until internal fittings, slots and holes, are all in.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 20, 2012, 07:29:00 pm
What a lot of people us is the bottle tops from fizzy drinks. these are totally water tight once done up, but are quickly released if access is required to a switch or plug. They're usually bonded into the plastic lid.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 20, 2012, 08:07:43 pm
That's a neat idea.  I like lateral thinking  O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on October 21, 2012, 11:55:10 am
You can probably solvent weld them onto the lexan lids, most drinks bottles are made from Pet-g, which is an easy to mould thermoplastic which doesn't absorb much moisture (important when you're using them for drinks). Some might be polypropelene- don't use those, it doesn't bond well.

Try one on a bit of scrap. Trim the bottle back to the neck, then sand on a board to give a nice flat surface. If you want belt and braces you could run a bit of acrylic adhesive or sealant around the bond.

 Oasis bottles give nice large lids, enjoy contents and recylce packaging!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Prop shafts
Post by: Bob K on October 24, 2012, 03:45:49 pm
Prop Shafts

This is only the second set of shafts I have installed, and hopefully I’ve learned from the previous fit. 
I am using Raebosch watertight shafts.  A bit more expensive but well worth the extra.

Lots of measurements taken, inside and out, marking out hull from plans dimensions. 
The big 48 mm props have to be close into the hull profile, with motors positioned within the compartment level and straight. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Untitled.jpg)

‘A’ frames were cut to suit the hull and slots made using my Rotacraft.  From here sight lines were established parallel to the keel.  Hull intersection points marked out with long centrelines as after the initial hole it is important to keep the developing slot centred and in line.  Holes drilled, and opened out into the required ellipses with round files.  File starts off perpendicular to the hole, then gradually angled to create the ellipse. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/shafts1.jpg)

A balsa box that was used for frame construction came in handy to positionally locate the inboard shaft ends

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/shafts2.jpg)

The shafts need shortening.  3 mm off the M4 threaded end, then the brass tube and stainless shaft to suit motors & UJ's.  The inboard bearing sleeves secure with Loctite. 
Recheck evertyhing, hold shafts in place with with Bluetack. 
When all OK set in with epoxy, using reinforcing tape inside, and finish with filler.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Prop shafts
Post by: Bob K on October 24, 2012, 05:03:23 pm
Prop Shafts

The propellers were really big for a ship this size, as this dry dock photo illustrates.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hms_polyphemus_at_chatham_dockyard_kent_1881_3986251.jpg)  (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/propsb.jpg)

The props protruded quite a long way outside the rear hull profile, hence the mooring fender booms in the picture below.  Note also the circular section hull required a fending pontoon.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly5a.jpg)

When the shafts and motors are fully installed I will start work on the three rudders.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Bow remodelling
Post by: Bob K on October 28, 2012, 07:04:27 pm


Fitting the prop shafts went better than expected.  With so much inner shaft exposed it made the free running alignment of the much shortened brass outers with ‘A’ frame bearings a bit ‘hairy’.  All now epoxied filled and sanded.

Bow remodelling

Three rudders.  Start with the bow pair.  However, the underside of the bow looked far too narrow and steep sided to get them on a scale pitch apart. 
The photos below indicate the problem.  The original lower bow was wider and more rounded underneath.  Some remodelling was required.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bow3views.jpg)

To replicate the armoured cutting edges I made up brass plates and secured them to the hull using brass tube for strength.  Not a huge additional volume involved, so using the metal plates as a guide I will remodel the shape gradually building up using car body filler.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bowbrass.jpg)

It may look ‘lethal’ for a boating lake, but so does reversing with overhanging two inch props. 
Double 0 License applied for.


Bob
Double posting removed


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on October 28, 2012, 07:23:54 pm
Very interesting build Bob........but are the props as shown counter handed to the real vessel?......................Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 28, 2012, 07:36:07 pm
Hi Derek,

As far as I can tell the original had counter rotating props, but photos are limited.
I have L.H. and R.H. props, turning inwards towards the hull at the top, which seems to give the best maneuverability.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Liverbudgie2 on October 28, 2012, 11:37:10 pm
You can see from the picture below that the propellers turned out board.
LB
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 29, 2012, 09:53:37 am
LB:  I think I can see what you and Derek mean.  I may leave the props top-inwards until commissioning as this seems to work better on a model.  Easy enough to swap props and motor leads to try top-outwards in the water.
 
I have been advised that the twin bow rudders were not very effective, but I want to try it out for myself.  Maybe getting them the right dstance apart may help.  Hence the bow mods.  A lot of R&D. 
Neoprene gasket strip arrived.  I am now off to get some car body filler
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Bow remodelling.
Post by: Bob K on October 30, 2012, 09:38:45 pm
 
Bow remodelling

Good stuff P38 body filler, although I have not used such filler for decades.  For car dents a very flexible steel rule helps to shape the filler more or less to the dent.  In this case, creating a more complex convex shape, it goes on with as much finesse as royal-icing a Christmas cake.   Hours of filing.  More filler.  More filing.  Only after sanding the final fine modelling putty do the contours transform into smooth curves.  Patience  :-)) . 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bow2.jpg)

I have started sculpting in the bow torpedo tube cap.  With the bow underside filled out I can now start on the twin bow rudders.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Bow rudders
Post by: Bob K on November 02, 2012, 04:11:42 pm

Bow rudders

As stated before, this will be the whole R&D story.  I am into Bagpuss-Hat mode again over the bow rudders, and can see why others may have found they were not very effective.  I've had to remodel the bow to set them a scale distance apart, which means that space is extremely limited to actuate them in.  ie:  on 20mm centres in a hull section barely 40mm wide.  Too narrow for conventional tiller arms.

I used to be into slot racing cars, so due to the almost total lack of dimensional info for model pinion gears online I opted for slot-car sidewinder gears as I am familiar with these.  That defines my rudder spindle size.  The gears have grub screws, essential here.
 (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/rudders1.jpg)  plan view, bow at top

Now I have to wait until the gear sets arrive before making up the rudders set.  3 mm brass spindles in brass tubes. Rudder blades will have to be in brass plate with some silver soldering involved.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 02, 2012, 10:29:12 pm
Good morning.....most images in this thread appear as an ....... X  >>:-( ......Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 02, 2012, 10:43:39 pm
Good day Derek.  That's sad you cannot see the photos.  I have been using direct IMG links to Photobucket for almost two years here and have not heard of a problem before. 
Access to the albums is set to Public, viewable by all.
Maybe something in the new site set up that maybe our Moderators could advise on.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 02, 2012, 10:55:27 pm
Morning Bob....it is with all threads ...not just H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881)...
Remember I viewed the "handing" of the propellors a few days ago.....but those images are now just X

I am sure it will be resolved........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 02, 2012, 11:01:28 pm
Morning to you Derek.  I can see your screen shot OK, if that helps.  Maybe it is a site settings issue.
PS:  I absolutely love the name of your location, it sounds wonderful.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: bikerdude999 on November 03, 2012, 09:26:19 am
I can still see all your photos bob...

Doing a lovely job, and I like the bow rudder set up, so simple.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on November 03, 2012, 11:03:50 am

Hi Derek

Can you go back through the site and see if any other member's pictures are not showing.


ken



Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 03, 2012, 11:21:44 am
Evening Ken.......off thread but...
It is clearly site related & not member related
Earlier this morning approx 50% of images in different threads were just a red X
This evening I find all images in all threads in Model Mayhem are viewable....
Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Bow rudders
Post by: dreadnought72 on November 03, 2012, 12:08:00 pm
Too narrow for conventional tiller arms.

Bowden cable, curving back into more accessible space?

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 03, 2012, 12:41:24 pm
Andy:  I had considered a cable pulley arrangement, even a chain with sprockets.  With around 16 dia slippage would be likely on pulleys.  At least with gears it is direct drive and easy to mount
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 03, 2012, 01:23:26 pm
 %)  Bob......on review....I think your 3 gear concept for the FWD rudders will provide a robust [sized constraint construction] and if securely sealed [o-rings] on the vertical shafts will provide a problem fee assembly
Would you be considering some reverse [Y lead] type functioning between the FWD & STERN rudders? ....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 03, 2012, 04:50:32 pm
 O0  Derek . . .  I had realised that the servo throw was reversed, but not quite figured whether to reverse it electrically (ie on Tx), put in an extra linkage arm, or as you suggested maybe working them in combination with the main stern rudder.  Interesting !  I had considered a 4th gear.  Can you get reversing 'Y' leads?
 
Spot on with the importance of sealing.  The brass tubes are a close fit with the inners, will be 80 mm long extending up almost to the 'deepest draft' waterline.
At present I have 3mm ID 'O' rings for top and bottom, so hopefully with prop shaft grease they should stay dry.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Bow rudders R&D
Post by: Bob K on November 08, 2012, 11:29:11 am

Bow rudders R&D

Gears arrived.  I have been trying out various combinations of options to allow effective rudder arm swing without fouling other parts and whilst keeping top of rudder tubes above waterline. 
Also need to keep servo actuation below underdeck and nutserts   ( See diagram on Reply #155 )

More bits are on order.  This idea will allow drive gears to be as close as possible to underdeck, with allen key access to all grub screws, by mounting servo lower in the bow using a toothed belt drive about 50 mm below the central driver gear cog. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/beltdrive.jpg)

OK, maybe getting a bit complicated, but I have to be able to service all parts with the underdeck epoxied into the hull. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 09, 2012, 09:16:50 pm
Bow rudders R&D

Feeling a bit miffed with a UK electronics supplier (who shall be nameless).  I had purchased the item pictured in my last post, and was surprised the delivery ETA was longer than expected.  Turned out it was coming by UPS from their shop in Germany.  It arrived today, but only the plastic belt.  Called the UK supplier.  They said I had to order the belt wheels separately despite the photo on their web site, and she was not too sure which one was which.

You have to resourceful in R&D.  I went onto the German site of the same name and found a PDF data sheet, in German of course.  Good old Google translate!  I managed to figure out what the column headings meant.  Most of the smaller gear wheels had no fixing screws.  This could be a challenging fit in the space having to use larger gears.

I tried to order the bits straight from Germany, made sense and should be quicker.  Wrong.  When it cam to entering my address I found that amongst the 150 odd countries to pick from there was no UK, United Kingdom, Britain, or England etc. I was almost tempted to pick Pitcairn Island.

Writing down the full part numbers I went back to the UK site, which failed to recognise my e-address and password as an existing customer, then tried to throw me out as ‘some details’ appeared to match an existing customer.

Finally I placed the order for the ‘missing’ toothed gear wheels.  5 to 7 days delivery.  Even then I will not know if it will do the job until I try to fit it all together.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Stormbringer on November 09, 2012, 10:38:11 pm
yehh we won the war but germany is winning the peace  <:(
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 10, 2012, 11:31:03 am
I find HPC gears are excellent for belts, gears, chains etc. UK supplier, you'll get your parts within a day or two, no mucking about. All top quality too.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 10, 2012, 12:44:28 pm
Subculture:  Now that looks a good site, all the dimension, data in English, and in Chesterfield.  A little more expensive but would have saved loads of hassle.  They do smaller wheels with grubscrews, so if the other lot on order does not fit the tight space I will try them:
 
PS:  Thanks for the tips on cutting slots in hulls.  Having now got some diamond burr bits and diamond burr needle files these are quite controllable.  Five per side, at bottom of ballast chambers, 4 x 25 mm.  Going well !  Thanks.
 
Whilst waiting for Germany I am preparing the internal frame with neccessary air/water tube inlets plus electrical ducts.  The darned twin rudders drive has been holding things up.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Ballast tank slots
Post by: Bob K on November 10, 2012, 08:09:47 pm

Ballast tank slots

Whilst waiting for another batch of bits from Germany I am working on the hull.  Five slots each side at the bottom of the ballast tanks and parallel with the inner bulkheads. 
4 x 25 mm each.  Marked out on inside, very small pilot holes drilled through end radii, then opened up from the outside using diamond burr bits and dressed with files.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hullslots.jpg)

This should allow reasonably quick water filling when air valves are opened at top of tanks.
 
Next to make up is a set of oversize sponge blocks with handles to prevent spray ingress after the clear Lexan frame assembly and underdeck are epoxied in and sealed. 
Once the hull is sprayed the blocks can be withdrawn from the outside.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 16, 2012, 12:33:19 am
Some progress

Whilst still waiting for parts from Germany I have made some headway.  The single stern rudder mounting is fitted, in a very narrow hull section.  A bit fiddly to get close in as it is to replicate a hinged rather than centre swivelling action. 
 
Question:  Why do rudder actuator arm manufacturers always put the grub screw, or cheese head screw, at an angle impossible to tighten in a narrow hull end ?  It should be 45 degrees from the arm, not opposite it.  As usual arm redesign is required.

Two partial baffles per ballast chamber built in, with a small gap to the frame and holes to allow flow without high-mass sloshing. 
Also added at this stage are brass tube stubs in the frame for ballast tank air and water pipes.

When the toothed belt gears arrive I can get back to the twin bow rudders.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 16, 2012, 03:53:24 pm
Stern Rudder

Started off with a standard riveted brass rudder and trimmed excess brass from the outline. Extended centre spindle in ABS tube and fitted U channel to hull for the spindle to run inside to replicate a hinged rudder.  A bit of detail added to represent gudgeons and pintles whilst ensuring maximum rotation in the U channel.  ABS sheet used to sandwich the brass plate to size and filed to shape.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/sternrudder2.jpg)

Toothed belt gears arrived today !   Now onto the bow rudders !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 16, 2012, 05:49:00 pm
On the Kehrer modeelbau site, they use blets to hook up the rear vanes and rudders on their neat little 1/100th Alfa kit. ALfa's are a teardrop shaped boat, so space is extremely tight at the stern.

Here are some pictures of the set-up, may give you a few ideas.




Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 16, 2012, 08:09:30 pm
Interestingly they appear to use toothed belts....but flat faced pulley wheels.... :o
Would they not get better grip if the belts were reversed ...flat face of belt to flat face of pulley? ....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on November 16, 2012, 08:37:34 pm

How weird    Perhaps they allow for slippage.


ken

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 16, 2012, 08:45:52 pm
My goodness !  Now that is a handsome piece of confined space engineering.  My new Conrad cogs look vast compared to that.  20 dia were the smallest they did with grub screws (ie: not free rolling).  Strange use of non-toothed pulley wheels too.  Probably the rubber belts are less likely to slip than my fine wire reinforced nylon belt.
I do like the simple nylon belt guides illustrated. I was going to construct tensioned idlers.
 
It is also strange that extensive searching on Google did not bring these up, or the HPC gears recently recommended.  Even with very specific sets of keywords Google loves throwing in tons of non relevant rubbish.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 16, 2012, 09:25:07 pm
I expect they do use toothed pullyeys on the shafts of the hydroplanes, but don't bother for the other end which just act as a tensioner.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 16, 2012, 11:45:41 pm
Thanks Subculture...that would make sense O0 ...but from the images I cannot see how the rotational moment is created or applied to the driven pulley wheel......Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 17, 2012, 11:07:00 am
Yes it's tricky to work that one out. The way it works is thus- the resin pieces which are connected to the metal control rods in the picture latch onto the toothed belts. So as the control rods move in linear fashion the belt is pulled with it- make sense?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 17, 2012, 12:25:04 pm
Please do not expect my belt geared twin bow rudders system to be that sophisticated  %%

Its just in a very restricted space, with multiple hull curves in all directions, and underneath a waterproof access hatch.  Upper platform mounts the three gear pinions.  Lower platform mounts the toothed belt drive and servo.
 
Getting the three shafts aligned will be fun.  I am aiming for a full +/- 45 degree rotation. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus, Bow Rudders Drive Train Installed
Post by: Bob K on November 22, 2012, 08:19:46 pm
 
Bow Rudders Drive Train Installed

This 3D puzzle has been challenging as most of it is positionally critical to almost everything else, in a very restricted space. 
Here goes . . .

First stage was to build the servo sub frame exactly parallel to the waterline.  This was built up in blocks so I could get all the profiles right. 
Using this as a template I then made the ply platform to sit on it.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Untitled-1.jpg)    (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain2.jpg)

I next made up the upper platform that would support the pinion gears, and drilled it for the three brass bearing tubes.  Tacking everything in place I inserted the brass tubes.  Checking for verticals I marked through the rearmost tube onto the servo platform, and using this as datum I marked out the platform to drill the holes and servo cutout. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain3.jpg)

Before fixing the platforms in (whilst I still had room to operate a Rotacraft flexi drive inside) I used a dab of paint on a satay skewer slid through the rudder tubes to mark the exit positions onto the fibreglass hull. 
Drilled hull, very carefully.  Opened vertical detents with conical diamond burr, then drilled through vertically.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain4.jpg)    (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain5.jpg)

The cog holes are 3.2, but the toothed wheels are 4.0 I/D.  This required three sizes of slide-together brass parts.  Dry assembly checks before the bearing tubes could be epoxied to the platforms and platforms to the hull.  Small blobs of Blu-Tack were inserted in tube ends during epoxy operation then pushed out with 1/8 rod to ensure epoxy did not get up the tubes.

Despite several assembly dry runs the actual gluing was fraught as tubes kept jamming whilst set time seconds ticked away. 
It was therefore necessary to open a couple of chilled beers afterwards, before assembling the drive components the next day. 
Hey.  It works  :-))

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain6.jpg)

The rudders will be fairly straightforward.  Brass, silver soldered, with washers and O rings top and bottom.

 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 23, 2012, 05:27:10 am
This looks the part Bob :-)) ...............I am sure those few cold beers helped....... <*<
1. Will you paint or preserve the timber support sections?................
2. Will you be using a programmable R/C setup?...... where you can limit/adjust servo travel in each direction & hence obtain optimal rudder movement
Derek
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/drivechain6.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 23, 2012, 08:13:50 am
Thank you Derek.   By the time I had completed the epoxy sequence the beers were essential ( Tee hee !)

1)        The wooden parts will get protective varnish.  As the bulkheads frame structure and under decks are clear Lexan for maintainence visibility I am painting the rest of the insides white.

2)        Servo throw has been a concern.  The gearing and rudders will turn more than 90 degrees, plus the centre drive pinion has less teeth than the two rudder pinions.  Hopefully this will allow the servo to turn slightly more than +/- 45 with the rudders slightly less.

The part I cannot check until I wire it up is getting the rear rudder to work in unison with the bow rudders, using a Y lead.  If I have to reverse the linkage side on the rear rudder that may mean reversing the channel on the Tx.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 23, 2012, 10:35:29 am
Most servos can be made to move up to about 180 degrees throw. You just need a pulse stretcher, which are readily available, often described as servo extenders.

Beyond 180 degrees, they're usually mechanically limited by a stop which is moulded into the final output gears, although some servos don't have this. The feedback potentiometer on a servo will read up to about 270 degrees, so if you remove the mechanical stop (I file it off) you can get a large movement from your servos. A lot of the folk into robotics modifiy servos in this way.

Many digital servos are software limited to about 90 degrees of throw. Some of them can be programmed to move beyond this, but if you want a servo that is easy to modify the older analogue models are the easiest to tinker with.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 23, 2012, 11:02:08 am
That is really useful to know.  However in this case I want the servo around 90 degress, 110 max.  I have three Sanwa SRM 102 3 Kg servos.  ( 2 for rudders + 1 for air pump / water valve).  The later will be run on a cam with a microswith for the pump and an arm for the valve.
 
My concern was possible overthrow damage to gears, after my experience with the special servos that Engel had specified for the 212A sub.  If I go beyond the mechanical limit I could strip the gears.  Data on these does not quote operating angle, but others I have had are around 90 degrees
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on November 23, 2012, 12:51:06 pm
Standard opeartig angle is 90 degrees for the normal 1-2ms pulse that is squirted out by pretty much all radio systems. Servos are usually mechanically limites to 180 degrees, never encountered any limited to 90 degrees.

The limit is put in to protect the servos potentiometer.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 23, 2012, 01:26:01 pm
A normal operating angle of 90 will do just fine.  I was referring to max left / right Tx stick operation, translated to actual servo angle generated through the on-board Rx.   Due to my bow gearing if I want to bow rudders to turn left when the stern rudder also turns left I may have to reverse that channel on the Tx.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Progress on internals
Post by: Bob K on November 29, 2012, 11:13:30 pm
Progress on Internals

Have I bitten off more than I can chew here?  A host of techniques and materials that are mostly new to me.  Had I opted for a safe but non-scale waterline and just fitted the shafts and motors etc this ship would be sailing by now.  Stiffness of joints precludes me from being able to kick myself. 
A partly submergible Victorian warship complete with funnel smoke and steam engine sound is my goal.

Stern Rudder Servo

Fairly conventional, a ply platform epoxied to the hull sides.  Care needed to ensure everything clears the nutserts beneath the clear underdeck. 
Lots of room underneath for ballast.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/29-11-12a.jpg)

Motors Mounting

I had been advised not to rigidly fix the motors in to reduce vibration, so instead of standard motor mounts I built a wood cradle with rubber strips.  Bonus:  Easier to remove for maintenance.  When the epoxy has set I will fit a 12mm wide shaped brass retaining bar with rubber pads.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/29-11-12c.jpg)

Bow Rudders Snag

I hit a snag on the drive train.  Tension in the belt was trying to wrench the toothed wheel forwards out of the servo.  A 3mm Lexan top bearing plate was added. 
At least the drive train now looks a bit like Victorian engineering.  {-)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/29-11-12b.jpg)

Almost ready to fix the Lexan frame assembly into the hull.  Around 2m of watertight joints.   {:-{
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on November 30, 2012, 09:25:26 am
With the old Olympus Belt Drive units, you were advised not to tighten the belt fully and to allow a little slack, the benefits of a toothed transmission I believe. It may be worth easing the servo forward a millimetre or so.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 30, 2012, 09:39:11 am
That sounds sensible.  I was wondering if the 3kg servo could cope.
Moving the servo by half a fixing hole diameter could be interesting at this stage.  I will get my Bagpus hat on.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on December 07, 2012, 06:27:15 pm
Hi Bob


Following your build with great interest. I was skimming through some old books I bought a few years back and found these pictures which you might be interested in.


(http://i47.tinypic.com/257emo6.jpg)


(http://i47.tinypic.com/2itqvfa.jpg)


(http://i45.tinypic.com/qqrejm.jpg)


(http://i49.tinypic.com/acgbgp.jpg)


They are from a book called 'The Royal Navy in Old Photographs' by Wilfrid Pym Trotter. There are some very interesting pictures of RN warships but also of the crews and the equipment they used.
Hope this helps.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on December 07, 2012, 06:30:39 pm
Just realised that two of them are very similar to the others earlier in your thread, hope the third and fourth help! :embarrassed: :embarrassed:
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 07, 2012, 09:06:26 pm
Thank you Nick B:   Some of those photos I have, but not your third one showing her extreme low freeboard (far right).  A poor sea boat indeed, water drove over the focsle and along the main deck at speed, but as the fleet exercise proved she was highly effective at penetrating hostile harbours with little visible for shore batteries to fire at.    She broke the harbour boom. The bow rudders would have snagged if she tried to pass over it.

Keeping the waterline realistic is why I am spending so much effort into watertight compartments and water ballasting trim-down system.  This will be fun to sail  %%

In the next few days I hope to have the next photo chapter of this build.  All going well so far.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), frame assembly
Post by: Bob K on December 09, 2012, 09:18:22 pm
More Internals

Servos

Thanks for the tip to leave more slack in the toothed belt to reduce axial force twisting the servo gear. 
It took some rework to move the installed servo mountings by only 2 mm. 

Jump Leads set up

Not wanting to wait until I can get the Futaba F14 working I ran some long servo leads from the Rx in one of my other ships to set up the two rudder servos. 
Both operate nicely.  Stern linkage set up and checked.  Bow servo toothed belt operation now feels a lot better.

Set in Sealant

Now I can get the bulkheads frame assembly in.  I marked the positions of the seating edges onto the hull in pencil, then applied a bead of white Silkaflex 221 sealant along each of the joins.  Seated in the frame, adding some temporary weights, and left to set off.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/09-12-12c.jpg)

When set I filled each frame compartment one at a time with water to check for leaks.

Fitting and sealing the clear Lexan underdeck will be interesting.  This has to seal the two ballast tanks and keep water out of the frame compartments. 
Next instalment coming soon !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Guy Bagley on December 09, 2012, 09:23:01 pm
looking good bob !

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), under-deck
Post by: Bob K on December 10, 2012, 09:04:05 pm
Thanks Guy. 

Under-deck

This stage has perhaps my greatest potential for messing up, as everything up to this point depends upon the under-deck fitting exactly with some 4 metres of sealed joints all doing their job.  Once set in place opportunities for remedial corrections become limited.

Seating planes

The open top frame assembly is in, with compartments seeming reasonably watertight.  Additional hard wood strips were next epoxied to the hull edges in sections, taking care to check each was level with the Lexan frame top edges. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-12-121.jpg)

Extending the sealing edges beyond the frame towards the stern used temporary alignment strips to maintain a consistent parallel supporting surface. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-12-122.jpg)

Fitting the under-deck

Using more Silkaflex 221 white sealant I carefully applied beads of just enough sealant to make sure it was waterproof, but without having too much unsightly excess oozing out beyond the joints.  I would rather err on the side of a little ooze than incomplete joints.

Not so easy using a two foot long mastic gun.  Any leaks, especially on the top faces of the ballast tanks, could be terminal. 
This was a single stage apply glue and fit deck operation.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-12-124.jpg)

Hopefully, after checking integrity of joints, I can now start fitting out the electrics and running gear
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), el momento de verdad
Post by: Bob K on December 14, 2012, 12:20:18 pm
 
El momento de verdad

The moment of truth.  Preliminary tests pouring water into individual compartments looked good.  Now was the long awaited bath test to see how the ship held up under fully loaded water pressure.  It was also the time to see how my mass distribution calculations panned out in practice.

Mounting trays were made up and fitted for the key items such as the big 6V battery and Mister.  Three other smaller battery packs, air pump, P94 and motors were loose fitted in their intended positions.  Boy, is this a lot heavier than my previous boats, and almost fills the length of the bath!
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/14-12-12.jpg)

The good news

Seems to float on a reasonably level keel, and not far off what was intended.  As expected the SLA battery has its centre of mass offset to the side opposite the terminals.

The bad news

Water pressure under displaced loading forces the levels in the ballast tanks to rise a third the way up the tanks.  More than I had expected.  Water is not compressible, but air is.  She thus floats lower than anticipated.  I am having second thoughts on how effective the ballast blow and fill system will be.

After several minutes there was slight water ingress into three of the six compartments, one of which was the bow rudder chamber, so  I need to better seal off the rudder tubes exits, no problem.  More worrying was a slow water ingress into the SLA and mister chambers.  This will be a little more tricky to fix.

More work to do.     O0
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 14, 2012, 12:29:04 pm
Just use the pump to put a little extra air pressure into the tanks
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: steve pickstock on December 14, 2012, 01:07:25 pm
As the idea is only about altering the waterline of Polyphemus would some blue foam blocks in the flotation tanks - effectively reducing the amount of water into the f/tank initially - do any good?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Snowwolflair on December 14, 2012, 01:16:03 pm
Submarine dive bladders inside the spaces connected directly to the pump.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 14, 2012, 01:22:52 pm
Unfortunately adding anything inside the ballast tanks is no longer an option as they are now both fully sealed in.

Hopefully part-pressurising them from the 12V air pump will help.  I will try that after I have sorted out the remaining slow leaks.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 14, 2012, 01:28:01 pm
Looking at the pictures, it appears you've been very sparing with the sikaflex. You need a nice thick bead to get the best out of this stuff. Think along the lines of how you'd caulk your bathtub.

Also a third of the tank filling sounds a lot to me- think you have an air leak in the tanks somewhere.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on December 14, 2012, 02:01:54 pm
Hullo Bob....watching from afar [22,000km]...... :embarrassed: water & air in compression certainly don't mix....it is the air pocket that is the issue & the result is the physical instability of the water sloshing around that can un predicitably alter the vessel's trim or heel......  >>:-( ......I would take counsel from member Subculture here .....
Do you remember an older family member detecting a leak in a motor vehicle tyre tube?..... by immersing the infated tube in a water container %% .......
I think the family home bathroom [bath] is going to be fully booked for some time to come ........good luck.......Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 14, 2012, 02:05:42 pm
OK Subculture.  I was aiming for a balance between effective and neat with so much clear Lexan used its like a display case inside.  At least clear Lexan allows to me to see what is going on inside.

I have almost used up one tube of 221 due to combined length of joints, and have now ordered another.
 
Derek:  I do have sets of baffles fitted inside the tanks to reduce sloshing.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on December 14, 2012, 02:43:07 pm
 :o  ....Bob...baffels will only retard the rate of sloshing ......if you have an air pocket it can only be compressed by the pressure generated by the pump  >>:-(  You could consider low pressure check valves to displace the air pocket .....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 14, 2012, 04:57:33 pm
This type of ballast system should be run completely empty or completely full. If you run with a partially filled tank, then you will most likely experienced instability problems, especially if the tanks are long and thin.

Differing water densities (affected by temperature and mineral content) will affect the trim of the vessel, but only by about 1-2% of the boats overall displacment, and that can easily be taken up by a small amount of lead weight placed on the vessels C.G, which can be added or subtracted as required.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 14, 2012, 07:22:52 pm
This type of ballast system should be run completely empty or completely full. If you run with a partially filled tank, then you will most likely experienced instability problems, especially if the tanks are long and thin.

The design intent was always to run the tanks either full or empty, to recreate either trimmed down attack-mode or higher riding for when the pond is not so calm.  The two 1.2 litre tanks are open vented with slots at their bases.  Air is either released via ball valves, or forced in via a 12V air pump, both at the top. 
 
Air tubes will terminate near the top of the funnel which will have two concentric tubes, the inner for the smoke to rise from, the large outer for air inlet for the Mister.
 
I am indebted to expert submariners on Mayhem as the principles involved are akin to scratch building a submarine, hence the subject title.  I still have much to learn in this field.   %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 14, 2012, 07:52:39 pm
You shouldn't have any difficulty then. The system you have is basically a large snort system, minus the gas back-up, which is unecessary as you're not going fully under (you hope!).

In ballast system terms, things don't get any simpler than this. If you have problems tracking down very small leaks, I recommend you try the old gas fitters trick of mixing up some dishwashing liquid with water, and brush that around all the seams, pipes etc. to do with the tanks. Place it in the drink, and any leaks should make themselves apparent by blowing bubbles!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), more sealant
Post by: Bob K on December 20, 2012, 12:00:11 pm

More sealant

After the initial bath test I ordered another tube of white Silkaflex 212, this time applying more generously with the mastic gun around all the compartment joints. 
I had hoped for a much neater job, but not at the risk of inadvertently recreating a rare and intricately carved Glug-Glug Box. 
( See http://www.hitrecord.org/records/313435 (http://www.hitrecord.org/records/313435) )

Before adding more mastic I first applied Slo-Zap thick CA along the edges of the inter compartment hardwood reinforcers which had previously been epoxied.

One day to set off, then refill the bath.

Another bath test

Bare hull floated in bath, no apparent leaks. Left hull a couple of hours to make sure, no problems.  Odd thing is that when you heel it over to one side that ballast chamber becomes lower in the water, fills more, and stays at that angle of list when you let go.   Not self righting.

Adding the mass of batteries etc this effect is much more pronounced, almost to the point of risking capsize. 
I may need an extended keel ?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 20, 2012, 01:49:57 pm
This design of boat has much less powerful self-righting moment than a more conventional boat owing to the reduced buoyancy.

Looking at your layout, you have a lot of heavy objects quite high up in the hull.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 20, 2012, 02:38:02 pm
This design of boat has much less powerful self-righting moment than a more conventional boat owing to the reduced buoyancy.

Looking at your layout, you have a lot of heavy objects quite high up in the hull.

I agree.  The section amidships is nowhere near as straight sided and flat bottomed as a more conventional warship for fitting electrics.  Also the ends are rather narrow not providing much bouyancy.  The mister is bulky but not heavy, and the motors are almost down in the base of the hull.  The air pump sits in the keel curve.
I may need to go to a smaller 6V battery, whose width defines how low it can go, and use more lead in the keel spaces.
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/section.jpg)
 
Interesting.  At least it floats !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on December 21, 2012, 12:39:50 am
All fascinating stuff for me - great build thread Bob.  :-))

Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 21, 2012, 07:19:31 am
I'm still concerned about the ballast tanks filling up. The air inside should provide a 'spring' against that, Even if you have the thing fully underwater, you should have no more than a tenth of a PSI pushing against the air inside, which is close to nothing.

Have you got the tanks fully plugged when testing??
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), pressure tight ?
Post by: Bob K on December 21, 2012, 08:58:33 am

 
Pressure tight ?
 
Everything appears watertight.  Water level does not come up as much in the tanks.  Washing up liquid test did not show air leaks around the underdeck to hull joins.  The four 4mm brass tube stubs for ballast air control tubes have been plugged with well kneaded Blu-Tack.  I would have expected more resistance to listing with the retained air volumes acting as buoyancy floats.
 
What I may now have to search for is whether the ballast tanks are air pressure tight, but that will involve removing both servos and going for full depth immersion.
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 21, 2012, 09:19:58 am
Looking at the pictures, the vents look like they're right at the bottom of the tanks, which is correct.

You'll only need a minute leak to create a problem.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on December 21, 2012, 09:29:34 am
Bob....please corect me if my thoughts are not on track  :((
 
If your ballast tanks are not self bleeding for air ....when you commence to fill/flood/pump water into the tank you are attempting to compress the entrapped air at 1 atmosphere or approx 14.7 PSI
 
A simple test would be to ballast the hull to the required depth by adding lead material ...... then weight the lead....you can simply then repeat with water & base the water as 1 kg/litre
 
Re-reading the communication string below suggests that a design concept is not quite right...... :embarrassed:  ....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Subs 101
Post by: Bob K on December 21, 2012, 12:30:39 pm

Submarines 101

101, to use an American college expression.  Although I have built boats before, in this field I am learning the hard way.  One evident design weakness is in the considerable mileage of joints that need to be completely airtight as well as watertight.

Derek:  Each ballast chamber is measured at 1.2 L, making approx 2.4 Kg of ballast when both full.  I have had it floating with principle heavy items installed. 
It floats level and not too far off expected waterline.  Air tubes at the tank tops are temporarily sealed off.

As Subculture pointed out even the tiniest air leaks can be fatal.  It should be an almost sealed system unless air is either valve released or pumped in.  I should be able to push the hull almost under without levels in the tanks increasing appreciably.

Total submergence test

Servos removed.  Seams lathered in washing up liquid, then gradually forcing the hull under water.
I found two small air leaks on the starboard side where the frame meets the underdeck, but none apparent on the port side.  I need to re-caulk the entire length of the tank side frames at the top joints, which are now inside the compartments so I will have to work through the access hatch openings.

 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-12-121.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on December 21, 2012, 01:31:50 pm
Bob,
One of my concerns is the longevity of the system.
With dissimilar materials and the need for the tanks to remain 100% watertight.

Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on December 21, 2012, 02:16:45 pm
Because Bob has used a flexible adhesive, which is very strong, he shouldn't get any issues at all. The bond permits a certain amount of expansion and contraction, unlike if he'd used a resin type adhesive e.g epoxy or polyester. But as I pointed out earlier, you need to ensure a good bead of it to work well.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Icing the Cake
Post by: Bob K on December 31, 2012, 01:54:09 pm

Icing the Cake

Adding loads more mastic sealant will hopefully get this complex assembly finally airtight, even if it does end up looking more like a royal icing Christmas cake than the neat job I started off with.  The lower joints all seem watertight, but access to joints on the undersides of the clear Lexan under deck is beyond the reach of a standard mastic nozzle.

Icing Nozzle

On the cake decorating theme I made up a curved icing nozzle extension from alloy tube secured with a reinforced joint using layers of high strength epoxy. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/31-12-12a_zpsca11e8fc.jpg)

I had to get an all-metal mastic gun as the pressure snapped the plastic trigger handle.

The nozzle did just about take the gun pressure until almost the end.  The aim was to squeeze the mastic direct up under the joint corners and in between the nutserts.  Looks reasonable, even if now very messy.  I could have used non-clear material for the under deck.  Sad.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/31-12-12b_zpse5d12f49.jpg)

Back to the Test Tank

If this isn't watertight and airtight then . . . .   >>:-(

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Back in the Bath
Post by: Bob K on January 01, 2013, 10:58:03 pm

Back in the Bath

After News Years Eve re-caulking mastic with my special icing nozzle it was time to re-test the air and water integrity of the many metres of joints, particularly those around the two ballast chambers.

The full push down forced sinking test revealed a couple of small air leaks near the stern end of the tank plates, so a thorough dry down followed by a third layer of mastic over those areas, which were now half an inch thick. 

Finally however no further tiny air bubble streams were seen and it appears that the chambers are at last airtight.  When dried off again and pushed down to full draught waterline less than 5 mm water was in the bottom of each tank. 

Next test will be adding the principle heavy items, opening up the tank air vents and checking where the waterline will come to.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on January 01, 2013, 11:34:48 pm
There you go, I said you'd get a result once the thing was gas tight.

Now, next time you use sikaflex, you might want to try the old trick of masking off either side of where you want the bead, apply the caulking then use a wet finger to form the bead into a pleasant bead, remove tape and you should have a very neat seam.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on January 01, 2013, 11:54:52 pm
Thank you Subculture:  With hindsight, if I had known then etc, I would have built the ballast tanks separately and sealed them to the hull using less joints.  Compartments in between only need to be reasonably watertight.  Where I had arrived at precluded masking tape as the key joints were all between the under-deck, hull and side frames.  Even with a wet finger this is darn sticky stuff to work with.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Ballast R&D
Post by: Bob K on January 05, 2013, 11:26:24 am

Ballast R&D

After finally getting the ballast tanks fully airtight it was back to bath testing to adjust ballasting requirements.

With tanks empty and air tube outlets sealed the hull floats nicely, with or without major mass items fitted. 
 
However with the tube outlets open to air and an empty hull there are problems.  After a few minutes one side or the other dips slightly, admitting more water, and lifting the other side.  Eventually whichever side starts the list completely fills and the hull capsizes.  I need enough low fitted ballast to keep it level.

I now have a smaller 6V battery, the same footprint but almost half the vertical depth, and have ordered 2Kg of lead shot.  Mass needs to be as low as possible.  Whether enough lead can be spread in the keel areas to gain stability, with or without internal equipment, will be an R&D evaluation.

Should the amount of lead shot required exceed my total ballasting calculations I may have to opt for an under keel mounted pod instead, perhaps on a 100 mm keel fin, to provide leverage and even lower C of G.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on January 05, 2013, 02:33:26 pm
If you ever look at fast electric racing boats, you'll see that many of them have a free flooding chamber on one side of the boat. This is to (hopefully) self-right the boat when they capsize in rough water. You're experiencing the same thing, albeit in reverse.

This shouldn't be a major issue once you get some weight in the hull, but that weight must be low down and well centralized.

I said it before, I'll say it again, I think the layout you have is going to be top heavy. Too many batteries high up in the hull. I would simplify things to one single battery pack, and get that pack as low int he hull as possible.

I would have also run a single main ballast tank in the centre of the boat, and not used saddle tanks. That would have given you a much more stable boat indeed, as the tank fills and empties in in one go and the boat effectively remains wider, meaning bigger righting moments across the width of the hull.

The same central tank could also do a double job of acting as a water reservoir for the water mister/smoke unit. Dismantle the unit you have, and put the mister unit inside the tank, and mount the fan on top of the ballast tank. This would save additional weight, which could then go in the bottom of the boat as lead ballast
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Ballasting continues
Post by: Bob K on January 08, 2013, 09:36:28 pm

I refuse to be discouraged, or be told to scrap the hull and start again. 
Internal structures are now embedded in up to half an inch of rock-hard mastic.
 
Ballasting Trials Continue
 
Full size subs have side ballast tanks, either saddle or double hull, so the system should work. 
Ref: http://w3.shorecrest.org/~Lisa_Peck/Physics/All_Projects/photojournal/paul/submarines.html
 
This model's tanks extend down to the effective bottom of the hull, minus the keel ridge, almost the same as in a circular section hull. 
The base of the new 35 mm high main 6V 7Ah battery is level with the bottom of the 100 mm deep tanks, as is the Mister. 
 
The R&D stage I am at is determining ballasting for both deep and shallow waterline running. 
With tanks empty and main internals added she rode level and fairly stable.
 
With tanks flooded the dry space beam to o/a length ratio is still better than my destroyer which is very stable.
 
Please remember the latest bath test was on a completely empty hull, unstable with open vented tanks, but many model warship hulls might be unstable without any internals or ballast.
 
Moving almost a Kilo much lower
 
So, we need to transfer a lot of mass to much lower down in the hull. 
The new 7Ah battery is 930 gm lighter than the original 10Ah, and 17 mm lower.   
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/08-01-13b_zpsdce95736.jpg)
 
The original ship had detachable keel ballast, so 550 gm in lead sheet strips is being trialled underneath the keel ridge. 
Around 400 gm of lead shot is also being added inside the keel spaces. 
Together this almost a Kilo of mass transfer should generate much greater righting moment at between 60 mm and 100 mm below the deep waterline. 
All other mass items are centred well below both waterlines.
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/08-01-13a_zpsc8531c77.jpg)


There is now nothing of significant mass in the top 60 mm of each compartment, which is vastly more than in my surface warships. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Ballasting continues
Post by: dreadnought72 on January 08, 2013, 10:38:43 pm
I refuse to be discouraged

 :-)) Hurrah!

I can't wait to see this in her element.

Andy (avid reader)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on January 09, 2013, 03:46:10 am
I do admire tenacity Bob. I'm still enjoying the build too.
Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Yippee !!!!
Post by: Bob K on January 09, 2013, 04:55:33 pm
 
Yippee !
 
Today has been Most Bodacious (to quote the Bill & Ted movie). 
Polyphemus has been sitting in the bath all day, steady as a rock.   :-))
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/09-01-13_zps03d24bc3.jpg)

Maybe I should not annotate this build as a page by page, but only after significant steps forwards.

Stability Achieved

After fitting the 900 mm long lead keel and 400 gm of lead shot in some of the keel spaces the hull floats with significant stability, even with all tank vents open.  Prodding down one side or the other results in an instant righting effect.  Just 950 gm in the lowest possible areas made all the difference..

I did say this was R&D.  ie: A lot of trial and error, hair clump pulling etc

OK, with hull empty and open vents the ship is now stable. 
Next up was loose fitting all the principle mass items.  Batteries, motors, pump, even the lightweight mister box.   Still solidly stable, bobs back level on side prodding, and with waterline not too far off optimum allowing for the extra weight of hatches wiring and superstructure. 
The lighter 6V battery also helped, and I now have healthy scope to trim further using more lead shot if required.

Maybe now I can get on with building the actual boat?    O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Historical Info
Post by: Bob K on January 19, 2013, 11:31:50 pm
Wiring Redesign
 
I can no longer run the wiring between compartments in brass tubes along the keel ridge, Engel-style as planned, with one and a half cartridges of mastic in the hull.  I am now making small cutouts near the tops of the bulkheads, to be sealed with RTV afterwards.  The mass distribution appears solved, so I can now make up the wiring looms.. 

Additional Historical Information

   
Whilst researching for info on the ships badge / crest I came across this remarkable biography of W.H.May who commanded HMS Polyphemus 1881-84, and later went on to become Admiral of the Fleet.  Chapter VI gives interesting insights and further information on this ship.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/HMSPolyphemus1881-1884.jpg)

http://www.archerfamily.org.uk/bio/may_wh.html (http://www.archerfamily.org.uk/bio/may_wh.html)

The 2,400 ton ship only had 500 tons of buoyancy to keep it as invisible as possible.  There were twelve 20 ton emergency drop keel weights in case a compartment became holed.  Remarkable insights into the early trials and tribulations of Whitehead torpedoes and submerged tubes.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/poyphemuscrest2.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Semi Submersible
Post by: Bob K on February 04, 2013, 12:47:21 pm
Some more progress . . .
 
Lead Keel
 
  For ballasting trials the lead keel was held on with duct tape, so now had to be properly fitted in place.   After preparing the hull step and lead strips the later were attached in layers using impact adhesive, and bonded at outside edges with epoxy.  Another Isopon filler application was needed to blend in to the hull profile.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/4-2-2013a_zpsbf7fc82c.jpg)

Bow Rudders

1/8 shafts were silver soldered to brass plates, then clad in thin ABS, shaped and detailed to the plans.  There is still quite a lot of work to do blending in the shaft mounting holes which have M3 washers to match the rudders for O ring bearing surfaces.  Also to be finished off is detailing the ram side plates and bow torpedo cap.
 
I have since discovered that these rudders were retractable, but no way am I going to attempt that as well !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Switches & Scockets
Post by: Bob K on February 10, 2013, 02:20:05 pm
Some ongoing R&D work on Switches and Connectors
 
F’o’c’s’le Under Deck
 
Cut from clear Lexan in same style as main under deck, with 40 mm section aft of the bow watertight hatch. 
Access cut-out just large enough to get to f’wd battery and bow rudders mechanism.  Not fixed in yet.
I may lower the 40 mm section to main deck level.
 
  (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-02-13b_zps78d05478.jpg)

Switches & Sockets

Having several power supplies I need them each separately switchable, plus charger access.

Component Shop do excellent SP on/off rocker switches with waterproof covers.  Later I found Maplin did SPCO illuminated switches that are a perfect fit for the waterproof caps.  Saves wiring in LEDs.  I intend to recess these in and seal with RTV.  I also need a 4P CO for the 24V, and have a found suitable switch with a waterproof boot cap.  NB:  CO switches allow either ‘On’ or ‘Charge’ positions.

Access caps / cover needed for the charging sockets.  I had tried Oasis bottle screw caps, but they were far too deep.  Nearest I could get were kids bubbles at 32 mm dia x 15 high.  I also found some soft rubber square end caps which were very low profile.  I have also been considering resin casting a rectangular hatch from a plug made from sections of a small Tesco food box.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-02-13a_zps6ca8c9f8.jpg)

Basically, I have 40  x  100 mm  to work in, although I could mount the switches on the main hatches.
Bottle caps would need to be part recessed in tubes as they have to be 10 mm max height to be flush with the underside of the f’o’c’sle deck.

Interesting!

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on February 10, 2013, 02:30:11 pm
Do check the current draw on the illuminated switches: you might prefer to leave 'em dark.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 10, 2013, 02:42:08 pm
Good point Andy.  No info on packaging or Maplin website, so I will have to wire one up and measure it.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Netleyned on February 10, 2013, 03:05:27 pm
If they are LEDs then about 20 MA max

Ned
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Semi Submersible
Post by: Bob K on February 15, 2013, 10:03:18 am
Gradual progress

  Next will be getting the motors and 6V battery wired up. 
A lot of wiring in this ship, so I am taking it one step at a time. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on February 15, 2013, 12:11:48 pm
Hullo Bob K....it is good to read .....Planning, planning & yes  :-)) more planning.....
As you may understand I am firm believer in the 'ordered state' ....without such, how would we be able to understand the success's or and failures in our build efforts....... O0 ....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 15, 2013, 01:02:05 pm
Sincere thanks Derek.   Wading around is maybe a sign of being close to out of ones depth, hence the slow progress.  True semi submersibles are not done that often, especially by those of limited experience (tee hee!).   Lots of R&D, trawling through Mayhem and Google, breaking the problem down into bite sized morsels, and thinking several stages ahead.

Almost half this build involves totally new challenges.  Even when I get the hull operational the upperworks will be 100% scratch due to the unusual scale.  1/60
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on February 16, 2013, 02:16:40 pm
Comment from my stepdaughter (8) who is learning English


"Is it called scratchbuilding because you look at it and scratch your head lots?"
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on February 21, 2013, 09:25:22 am
Control Panel

First trial fit of the control panel.  This slopes backwards from the raised F’o’c’sle down to the Main Under Deck, which will be covered by the removable final decks.  The rocker switches are mounted on an alloy back plate.  A hardwood framework supports the sandwich that will be sealed with aquarium sealant. 

In the end I used the two soft rubber caps to plug the charging connector recesses.  On completion the wired assembly will be fitted and sealed in place.  The slope should hopefully discourage water laying over it, but in any case it is all waterproofed.
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/21-2-13_zps81cb0477.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on February 21, 2013, 10:33:41 am
Looks like a prop from a Gerry Anderson flick!:D
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 21, 2013, 05:48:44 pm
Looks like a prop from a Gerry Anderson flick!:D

Tee hee !  It does a bit  O0    The object was to keep all the power and control swiches, plus charging connectors, in one waterproof section to minimise removing watertight hatches.  LED's were added to give visual indication when the various voltages were 'on'.  I did try to use drinks tops, but ran out of space.  At least each bus section is isolatable for commissioning.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on February 25, 2013, 10:32:20 pm
6V Electrics

  The 6V wiring is in and tested.  Big SLA, P94 controller, P19 BEC, rocker switch, charging connectors and LED.  DC wiring is run along the port side, through small slots at the top of the transverse bulkheads, which will be sealed with RTV.  C/O switches are used so batteries can only be charged in the ‘off’ position.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/25-02-12_zps8bc750f2.jpg)   Switch / connector panel

I have just upgraded the MMB Mister for a throttle controlled variable speed fan.

Next will be the 12V and 24V circuits.  A bit ‘busy’, but that was my choice.
Servo leads will be routed opposite on the starboard side. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on February 25, 2013, 10:58:30 pm
Hi Bob K


Looking forward to seeing this on the water or should I say in the water. The work you have put into the development of the hull and all the equipment you deserve more than a pat on the back!
I don't know if you have read the book Early British Destroyers by Norman Friedman but the initial chapter goes into some detail about the Polyphemus and her development including suggestion of a sister ship to be built but never was. I'll fetch it out over this weekend and write up the info for if you have not got it already. Hope to see you at Wicksteed Park this year.
Regards


Nick B
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 25, 2013, 11:24:08 pm
Welcome back to Blighty Nick  :}
 
I don't have that book, so any specific info you have on this would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.   I will be at Wicksteed at the end of May, but whether Polyphemus will be ready by then is in the lap of the Gods.  At best it could be a decked over hull.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on February 27, 2013, 08:53:08 pm
More Electrics

  There is something very satisfying after checking wiring connections several times, you switch it on, and everything works. 
I doff my cap to ACTion once again, having four of their modules aboard this build.  The huge props turn nicely, in the right direction first time. 
The Deans Kondor motors have good torque at low RPM.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/27-02-13a_zps9d8c6975.jpg)   Motors Compartment

Now was the time to tidy the cable runs so far.  A lot of servo leads. 
Three rudders with servo reverser.  Ballast tank controls.  Throttle controlled Mister fan.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/27-02-13b_zps89e453de.jpg)   Mister Compartment

12V

Nice and simple.  The 12V air pump is operated by a servo cam microswitch, so it remains off unless you move the Tx stick to max up.  Just a charging socket and LED to add to the wired pump.

24V

Another change of plan.  I did get a 12 to 24V DC to DC converter, just to try it.  However it is too large and heavy to fit onboard.  Googling I found a ‘medical’ mains charger with 24VDC output suitable for NiMh batteries.  This way I keep the weight in the workshop, and charge the two series connected 8 cell packs in situ.  Beats having twin 12V charging sockets plus 4 pole switch under the deck.

 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on March 01, 2013, 07:37:09 pm
Hi Bob


Here is the info from British Destroyers From Earliest Days to the Second World War by Norman Friedman.


HMS Polyphemus was an alternative solution to combining torpedoes with the deployable fleet. Conceived a decade before HMS Vulcan she was a dead end because without large calibre guns she had no viable peace time role. Despite her conventional appearance she was semi submersible ship with a three part raft superstructure designed to float free if the main hull sank.


Polyphemus


Sartroius' ideas collided with those of DNC Sir Nathaniel Barnaby to produce the Royal Navy's first sea going torpedo vessel, the torpedo ram 'Polyphemus'. On 26 September 1874, apparantly on his own initiative, Barnaby proopsed an ocean going torpedo ship- he had been considering the idea for some time. The ship should be able to operate in whatever weather the ironclad batleships could fight, maintaining fleet spped for 10 hours. To keep her reasonably small, he wanted her to draw her supplies and relief personel from a larger ship with which she would be associated with (possibly even tow her on over long distances). At this time the only torpedo tube in service fired underwater, so Barnaby armed his ship with one submerged bow tube. He argued that current engine technology offered the sort of high sea going speed such a ship would need. Barnaby initially proposed a fast single screw 1560 tonner (200ft x 27ft) with most of her hull underwater, presumably to avoid exposing much of her side to gunfire. The design was practicable only if her machinery was no more than half as heavy as in  a conventional ship. Barnably cited Thornycroft's recent successes in building small high speed launches as proof that light weight engines could be built. Board action on Barnaby's design was deferred because promising experiments at HMS Actaeon showed that torpedoes could soon be fired from the broadside.  In June 1877 Barnaby sketched a new design for a 2060 tonner but the version he submitted was for a 2340 tonner  (250ft x 37ft x 24ft) and 5000ihp for 17knots. The ship was armed with one underwater bow torpedo tube (with 9 torpedoes) and with four broadside tubes (16 in total). Her main protection was the water covering most of her hull but its turtle back upper portion was armoured and she had 6inch vertical armour on hatchways. As built the flying  deck above the hull was built in sections to form rafts in the event that the ship sank, She was ordered from Chatham Dockyard in January 1878.
Polyphemus was probably the first torpedo ship for which high speed was crucial, she was intended to dash out of the mass of ironclads to close with enemy ironclads and torpedo or even ram them. Like the torpedo boats then being built, she needed unusually powerful boilers. Locomotive boilers were chosen because they promised the most steam for their weight, they had been used successful on land using clean water without condensors and they had been successful in torpedo boats. They could also handle a high rate of forced combustion, however, torpedo boats only used one boiler, Polyphemus required 10! A special supply of reserve fresh feed water was provided (50 tons), even with this reserve the total weight of machinery was 2cwt (224lbs) per ihp, compared with the usual 3.75cwt. Space occupied by machinery was also considerably less, as was the cost. The boilers proved disappointing, the Chief Engineer reported that on her full power trials she only developed only 4800ihp rather than 5500ihp expected, and it was only half an hour before her boiler tubes began to leak so badly that the ends put out fires were nearly put out before she could steam down the Maplin to the anchorage at Sheerness Harbour. The Engineer in Chief proposed replacing the boilers with more conventional boilers as used in the Comus and Satellite classes, which could be forced to get the required power. The ship was re-boilered and she was commissioned for limited torpedo trials. Polyphemus was rated at 5520ihp at natural draught (17.85knots) and at 7000ihp forced draught (18knots).
A second ship was ordered from Chatham on 30 December 1881 but cancelled it (it was not laid down) on 10 November 1882, shortly after Polyphemus was completed. Another was ordered from Chatham to be named HMS Adventurer on 6 March 1885 presumably as part of the Northbrook Programme but cancelled on 12 August 1885.


Hope this is of some interest


Regards


Nick B
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 01, 2013, 10:20:25 pm
Thank you Nick B

  I greatly appreciate your having taken the time to transcribe that information, adding more depth of detail about this unique experimental ship, a fascinating prototype vessel on so many levels.

A Technical Problem

Another bout of head scratching coming on, trying to get both ballasting controls operated by one throttle stick.  RH stick up/down, channel 2. 
   The later means translating half the servo rotation (~30 degrees) into 90 degrees of valve lever rotation.
Seems like this could require a bell crank of some kind.  Ideas ?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on March 01, 2013, 11:30:12 pm
Sorry Bob......in OZ we have different translations for different words  :o
Technical would in this case apply to motors & pumps & valves & RC linkages or any thing nautical but normal   :-)) ...however using abbreviations or words like  RC Control is considered akin to the supernatural like ....... Black Magic...... >>:-( O0
I also enjoyed the posting by raflaunches................. although I did not understand that the reported increase of 1480 ihp [5520 to 7000] = a 27% increase in power, however this translated to produce an increase of just 0.15 knot [17.85 to 18] which is only an approx 2 1/2 % increase ???????????????................Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on March 02, 2013, 12:01:35 am
You're not the only one confused by this Derek!
I copied word for word in the book and couldn't quite understand the difference either. The only other thing I have seen similar to this is the speed references regarding the Queen Elizabeth class Battleship HMS Warspite after her re-construction in the 1930s. It stated that she could achieve 23knots at normal speeds under normal circumstances but at forced draught she could achieve 24.75knots at overload speed which seemed to me as weird  because I assumed that an over load speed would increase the speed dramatically not just by 1.75knots. Perhaps someone else could explain how this works because I have no idea that pumping that much extra power would only increase the speed by such as small percentage! 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on March 02, 2013, 01:35:29 am
Nick B...there is such a thing as maximum hull speed design & irrespective of the extra power provided is of little increase in resultant speed
I sort of understand this  {:-{ %% but the % as shown do not answer my quandary either.....
The only Naval Architect I am aware of as a Mayhem member is XION [sorryfor the incorrect spelling] ......a French ex Naval Officer possibly could shed some light here.........Derek  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: suffolk1928 on March 02, 2013, 12:50:31 pm
Hi Bob
Could you use one of the action 'servo morph' thingys to increase the sweep angle of your servo to operate your valve lever?
Very much enjoying this build!
James
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Arrow5 on March 02, 2013, 01:06:10 pm
Xtian, is Christian`s name on Mayhem.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on March 02, 2013, 01:18:08 pm
To get 90 degrees of motion from 30 degrees of servo movement you just want a three to one lever e.g. 45mm larm on the servo, 15mm arm on the valve
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 03, 2013, 10:34:24 am
My technical head-scratcher:-  Trying to explain the problem is not easy.  If it were just translating the full swing of the servo arm into a full quarter turn of the valve handle then it would just be arranging arm lengths to achieve the desired movement.

However, the valve handle needs to be operated by just the full left to neutral position portion of the servo arm movement, without being pulled further when the servo arm moves from neutral to full right.

It seems like I may need a cam plate, sprung bell crank, or something like that.  The diagram below shows how just linkage arms will not work.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/servoswing_zps0acfdf10.jpg)

It could end up as another creative solution, like my bow rudders mechanism.
Bagpuss Hat mode commences  {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on March 03, 2013, 11:00:53 am
I see. Perhaps the valve could be operated from a cam on the servo instead of a crank, and the valve returns via a sprung loaded plunger- e.g. the way poppet valve on a four stroke engine works. it would require a bit of expermentation with spring tension to ensure the valve fully returns each time. If you used tyre valves, which I think I originally suggested, this is already done for you.

Another way is electronic. A microcontroller between the servo and receiver would throw the servo when the stick is moved one way, to actuate the valve. When the stick is thrown the other way, the servo is kept in it's closed position, and a transistor or relay is operated to switch on the pump.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on March 03, 2013, 11:33:34 am
2 servos on a "Y" Lead operating seperately?

Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on March 03, 2013, 11:56:56 am
Don't see how that will solve the problem Bob. Two servos off separate channels would work fine, not very elegant, but dead simple, if you have the channels to spare.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: dreadnought72 on March 03, 2013, 01:03:26 pm
...sprung bell crank, or something like that.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/servoswing_zps0acfdf10.jpg)


I agree with subculture's mechanical method.

Going the other way, the spring moves the valve back.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on March 03, 2013, 01:23:29 pm
what about using a solenoid type air valve?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RC-Submarine-MINI-Solenoid-valve-L-DC4-8v-24v-/281051675420?pt=US_Radio_Control_Control_Line&hash=item416ffc3b1c


would be a lot neater
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 03, 2013, 01:49:46 pm
 Interesting suggestions and good food for thought.   Thanks.
 
Not sure if the servo can 'turn' the valve plus overcome spring tension too, but I can try it.
 
I do have 6 channels on my F14, including a slider plus a 3 position switch, so using 2 channels would indeed be simpler.
 
2 servos on a Y lead would break it into two 'easier' seperate problems, but would still need to overcome cancelling out the Neutral to RH arm swing.
 
I will check out that solenoid link, might be large but would come down to just two microswitches.
 
Plenty of ideas to be working on.  Many thanks  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on March 03, 2013, 06:02:37 pm
what about something like this instead of the servo - http://www.dimensionengineering.com/products/picoswitch, plugs in like a servo but is a direct on off switch...
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on March 03, 2013, 06:05:57 pm
whole bunch of similar stuff here, one might even do both functions.
http://www.technobotsonline.com/interfaces/radio-controlled-relays.html
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 08, 2013, 10:17:34 pm
A couple of setbacks, but some good progress as well.

  Mastic

Still having problems with the white mastic sealant, springing leaks even after three thick layers.  Now using fibreglass to line compartments.

  Change of Tack

My ballast mass calculations went out the window after it turns out the new “24VDC” charger will not charge 24VDC batteries after all. 
A bit miffed, I thought I had it all sussed out at last.

So, out go the three 12VDC battery packs, one was for the air pump and two in series for the mister, being replaced by a single large12VDC SC NimH pack.  This saves 80 gm but now I have to squeeze in a 300 gm 12 to 24V DC converter.  No choice but to fit it on top of the 6V SLA. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/08-03-13a_zps8c1c12f0.jpg)
   DC / DC Converter


The changes also forced me to move equipment between compartments, largely negating my trim trials. 
The new 5 Ah pack just shoehorns in alongside the air pump and Rx, with neoprene foam sheet between.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/08-03-13b_zpsf00c7f94.jpg) 
   12V battery, pump and Rx


Even more equipment being fitted.

‘Dive’ Controls

Pneumatics plumbing installed.  Flexible 4 mm I/D silicone tubing.  Brass tube stubs epoxied through bulkheads.  Aquarium T pieces opened out for max air flow.  Aquarium sealant around joints.  Intake and vent are via the funnel outer tube.

After a day playing with a large box of springs and my quarter turn air valve I opted instead for a slightly larger version of the solenoid air valve suggested.  A servo cam operates two micro-switches. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/08-03-13c_zpsc78e2efd.jpg)   
    servo cam assembly


RH stick down to vent air from the two ballast tanks.  RH stick up to pump air in. 
Not quite a submarine (with any luck).

Reballasting

With everything fitted, bar the P64 sound system, it was back to the bathroom for trim testing.  Surprisingly the changes still had her floating correctly and stable.  In fact a little more ballast will eventually be required both fore and aft to achieve vented deep waterline.  Bank coin bags are handy, one can hold up to three quarters of a Kilo of lead shot.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on March 09, 2013, 12:03:25 am
Bob....I have never see so much Red & Black spaghetti  {-) {-) {-) ...keep up the good work  :-)) ..........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 09, 2013, 12:16:53 pm
Derek:   I was considering some scale replica Bolognese sauce, but couldn't find a home workshop DNA tester. 

What makes this look complicated is having external controls and the ability to charge in situ.  Avoids having to frequently dismantle watertight panels both at home and pond-side.

Only bit I am worried about is that although the solenoid valve has 4 mm OD outlets the holes were under 2 mm.  I might have to open those out or it could take ages to vent two and a half litres of air.
I had considered another pump, but that could end up spraying water from the funnel when the tanks become full.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on March 09, 2013, 12:54:19 pm
You could fit two working in parallel. Or use the tyre valve like I originally suggested- cheap, easily replaced and plenty of area.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 09, 2013, 01:23:33 pm
Subculture:  Two in parallel would indeed double airflow. I will see how it goes.
 
I really did like your idea of using a tyre valve, but what I could not work out is that if it was operated by a cam etc then it sounds like it would vent into the volume where the valve/cam was fitted.  Apologies, maybe I'm not quite seeing what you mean, but when the tanks become full I am visualising water coming through next?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on March 09, 2013, 03:29:42 pm
The valve would be fitted on top of the lid at a 90 degrees- right angle. A cam also mounted outside run through the lid into the watertight enclsore to connect with the servo.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 21, 2013, 02:31:20 pm
All up weight is now 8.3 kg ( 18.3 lb ).  Final mass calculated for around 20 lb, so allow 2 lb max for deck and the fairly minimal superstructure.  It should be within limits.
Without ballast tanks an extra 2.5 kg would be needed.

 

Batten Down The Hatches

With ballasting having gone well it was time to start fitting the six waterproof hatches.  Strips of s/a MIL grade expanded neoprene were fitted to the under deck, trimmed to suit the hatch profiles, and spotted through with a fine bradawl for the stainless countersunk screws. 
At least with the hatches on the interior looks better.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/21-03-13b_zps3adaaa9b.jpg)    After hatch

Sound System

The last item of electrics to be fitted, a P64 ‘micro’ multi cylinder steam sound unit. 
A bit of lateral thinking here.  I am using a 20 mm section from a 65 dia down pipe connector to mount the speaker under the motors hatch.  Clips fasten the speaker, with an RTV seal around the speaker beading.

A 40 mm tube passes through the hatch, to go up inside the aft superstructure.  The drain pipe connector thus forms a tubular ‘sound box’, with the opening about 80 mm above the waterline.  Even if water were to broach into this assembly it can only get as far as the speaker cone. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/21-03-13c_zps96d091d3.jpg)   Sound box, underside

The aim is for the engine sound to be audible when close to, not from 3 m away which would be unrealistic.

  Funnel 

Another 40 mm tube passes through the mister hatch, concentric with the mister exhaust tube.  The inner tube emits ‘smoke’ whilst the space between the tubes draws in air.  I still need to separate air inlet and steam exhaust to prevent recirculation.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/21-03-13d_zpsc8d6e121.jpg)   Funnel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on March 21, 2013, 03:03:34 pm
I hope you are bringing this to wicksted!


looks great
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 23, 2013, 01:23:47 pm
I hope you are bringing this to wicksted!
looks great

 
Wicksteed may be possible.  Albeit in a rather unfinished state.

Sound System

Full marks to ACTion, their little P64 may not be as versatile as their Noisy Thing but does what it says on the tin well.  A very compact unit.  Set to minimum volume, maximum rate.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/22-03-13a_zpsd5899fdd.jpg)

Control Panel

Hopefully no longer looking like a ‘Gerry Anderson’ creation.  Fitted, and with soft rubber bungs protecting the various charging connectors.  Simple two switch controls, one for the main 5V and the other for the 12 and 24V systems.  Four LED status indicators.   Quite a bit of wiring involved.

Two brass strips locate the panel against the seating beads, with a little aquarium sealant around the edges.  Front strip wedges under hatch edge, rear strip screwed down.  Being a sloping panel the aim is for water to run off it. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/23-03-13a_zps2bef03ed.jpg)    Control Panel

Bow compartment is my favourite.  Picture below shows forward steering gear and ballast controls

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/23-03-13b_zps7383e330.jpg)    .Bow Compartment

Shot along Polyphemus’ under decks.  Reminds me of the torpedo systems I used to design PCB’s for a long time ago.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/23-03-13c_zps9f5e9d2e.jpg)     Under decks

Next:  Hull preparation, including further detailing, ready for spraying. 
Then comes construction of the removable main decks.

( Sorry, the 'new' Photobucket is a disater IMO, randomly turning images through 90 degrees on uploading!
Even after editing back, shows correct in Photobucket but the link spins it back again )
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on March 23, 2013, 02:51:32 pm
what are the plans for hull colors, because of some recent research I've done have found that many ships of this vintage had green anti-fouling paint on the underwater body, most of the colorized prints of the period show red, thinking that the printers didn't want to make another plate for the green, red was already present in flags. I resprayed my VESUVIUS this week and think my cruiser Brooklyn will get the same.  keep working on the strange stuff..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Norseman on March 23, 2013, 05:19:32 pm
Bob, I sure hope you sail this a lot ... The thought and work you have put into it deserves a gold medal. ... And maybe some sponsorship from the sealant people too.

Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on March 23, 2013, 05:57:02 pm
^+1  :-))

She's very impressive! I can't wait for those first sea trials.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 23, 2013, 11:16:07 pm
Thanks for the encouragement, there have been times . . .
 
She has already spent many hours in the bath, but the lake will be the best place for frequent flier miles.

Colour scheme:  She is documented as having been grey, one of the earliest RN ships to depart from Victorian livery due to her stealth role.  Probably darker (battleship) grey in early years, then lighter grey in the Med’.  No waterline stripe as per photos afloat and in dry dock.  I believe the lower hull was a red oxide type anti fouling.  Although B&W photos cannot confirm this many contemporary paintings indicate that was common.
 
Now I have the technical challenges sorted the rest of the build should be conventional and relatively stress free.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on March 30, 2013, 01:23:12 pm
Main Decks

Using quality tracing paper enabled me to get a really good fit for the 1.5mm styrene main deck and f’o’c’sle deck. 
3mm styrene used for the reinforcing under edges alongside the watertight hatches plus square brass tube across the hull between the hatches. 
Should be quite strong, leaving virtually no space for water to collect between under-decks and removable main decks.
The two 40mm tubes serve to locate the main deck.  Small Neodymium magnet pairs will be used to clamp the decks down.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/30-03-13a_zps7a8bbfd5.jpg)   decks


Hull Detailing

Additional hull detail is in progress.  4 sets of side access steps, the curved strakes from the ram, torpedo tube cap and ram side plates have been added. 
More to do . . .
The finely detailed bow and stern crests include intricate gold filigree surrounds.  After trying to Dremel-carve in hard wood I am opting instead to use FIMO modelling clay.  FIMO is suitable for acrylic paints, so will be modelled in sections, baked, then affixed with epoxy.  The oval crest is in four quadrants, and appears to be the Royal Coat of Arms. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly6_zps0f99e97a.jpg)   Bow detail
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on March 31, 2013, 12:11:27 am
FIMO should work well for this.  It won't shrink in the oven, and you can carve (if needed!) additional detail with a dremel once it's set.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on March 31, 2013, 01:25:15 pm
I have had to deal with the same crest work on my build of the USS Brooklyn 1/96th scale, used the computer image editor to get pics adjusted to the correct size,flipped one image so both port and starboard sides were created.. printed images were placed side by side on cardstock, taped a small thin piece of plex(lexan or whatever clear) I could the work the fimo type clay directly above them images, when complete mold material was poured over and crest were able to cast them in resin, the center section was modeled in fimo also(but I had an extra bow section from a hull that wasnt worth finishing)a mold was made from this also, a craft store fake gold leaf kit was used to finish the cast parts,, the crest look good, but still thinking about using some thickened epoxy and small syringes modified as micro cake decorating tools to make a better master.. no pics of the process but if you find my brooklyn build on RC groups scaleboats pics are there(have to get back to work on detailing out the brook)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 31, 2013, 02:07:31 pm
Interesting tghsmith.  The crest of your USS Brooklyn does look quite similar.  Nice job on the gilt work.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4036597 (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4036597)

I intended to use the only three reasonable photographs of the Polyphemus crests, then scale and print them for use as a master to copy from.  Sections are up to an inch long, so should be copyable using FIMO.  I like the idea of using gold leaf.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on March 31, 2013, 02:21:25 pm
the leaf covers well well without loosing details, fimo is about on the edge of usefullness on this level of detail, adding a thinning agent to it might be helpfull, I did try carving the reverse in jewelers wax, that might have worked if I had better micro carving skills..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 03, 2013, 02:20:13 pm
Deck Mounting

Going reasonably well, although does not photograph well.  Sides built up alongside hatches.  Magnets fitted.  Main decks to have side strips underneath, also with magnets to secure.  Intent is for not a lot of space for water to collect in between.  (Tape is protecting funnel hole)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/03-03-13a_zps5840f593.jpg)

Colour scheme

Confirming the ships colour scheme as built, this is the half block shipbuilders model now at the N.M.M. at Greenwich, dated 1881.  Battleship grey and red copper oxide.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/NMMmodel_zps8e2da954.jpg)
“The hull is painted a coppery brown below the waterline with the upperworks and bulwarks painted grey, and divided by a thin white line along the waterline.”  N.M.M.

When I have the decks fitted I can finish the hull detailing, then prepare and spray the hull.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on April 03, 2013, 05:41:06 pm
Looking good Bob :-))


I have considered using magnets before on some earlier projects, but never got round to using them. This has given me the inclination to continue with my WW1 armoured cruiser project which I started almost 7 years ago! Can't wait to see her in action!
Regards


Nick B
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 03, 2013, 06:46:58 pm
Nick B:  I first used magnets on my WW1 HMS Amazon access hatches, and they have proved remarkably successful in keeping the insides dry.  Tip: Slightly oversized holes needed, otherwise a disc magnet that is well fitting 'dry' will jam part way in once you add some epoxy.
 
Which Armoured Cruiser are you building?  I would love to see pictures of her.   O0
How about a Victorian / WW1 warship corner at some of this years events?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on April 03, 2013, 08:08:20 pm
Thanks for the tip, Bob, I'll try to remember it when I build the model.
I was building a 1/96 scale model of HMS Kent, the Monmouth class armoured cruiser from circa 1900, but  I only got as far as cutting out the bulwarks and the casements for the small bow and stern chaser guns. I stopped after studying the plans and realised that access was going to be the big problem so I put it away for when I was a better modeller (or when someone else came with the answer  :embarrassed: )
The hull is available from Deans Marine, I was going to build her during the battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914 during the SMS Nurnberg chase!
Love to see a Victorian/WW1 section in some of the events there seems to be a rising in that era recently judging by the current forum activity at the moment.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 03, 2013, 09:51:48 pm
HMS Kent would make a wonderful model, especially with connections to your stay in the Falklands.  As for internal access, there is an excellent model of HMS Niobe (Diadem Class) that I have 'drooled' over at the last two Deans Open Days.  It might be worth a visit to check out how the access is achieved.
 
On my HMS Amazon I built in three large magnet-clamped rebated hatches, making the joints almost invisible by building them to line up with the deck planking joins.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on April 04, 2013, 08:33:35 pm
I think I'll fetch the hull out again when I'm finished my HMS Coventry cruiser at work to give me something to do at night! I think I know which model you drooled over, because I think it's the same one I drooled over too!  :D
I'll have a look at my photo album to find her. I think another read of your excellent build of HMS Amazon would help too.
Look forward to your next instalment.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on April 04, 2013, 09:15:09 pm
played with remaking the Brooklyn's bow ornament today, layed the photocopys of correct size under a thin sheet of lex, thinkened epoxy resin(silica thinkener) to the constantancy of thick cake frosting(no sagging or flowing) loaded this into a small syringe that I fitted with a small tip, applied  this on the plate , some working was done with flat toothpicks to make adjustments, found as the resin was setting it could be worked with clean wax carving tools(picked up a set cheap a while back) the result is now curing and will be worked a little more once hard(dremel tool or some micro carving tools) it looks much better than my other attempts.. much more 3D with open spaces that were lacking in the other.. then to make the mold and cast in resin.. several US ships of the period used the same basic castings with different objects in the oval.. will post some pics as this progresses..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 10, 2013, 01:26:03 pm
Deck Mounting

Deck securing magnets epoxied in, being careful to match polarity with magnets in hull.  Slight countersinks both sides as magnet is same thickness as deck.  Main deck interlocks with f’o’c’sle deck, with two pairs of larger magnets.
Slight snag.  There should have been sufficient space for 1mm reinforcing strips under the deck edges.   It may have been a build up of epoxy thicknesses.  So, 3/32 brass angle will be used on deck edges.

Kit vs Scratch

I am coming to appreciate more the work that goes into fittings supplied with kits.  Instead of just identifying part A27 from the plan, then picking the resin or cast part from the tray, I am having to fabricate each item individually.  Interesting, but very time consuming.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-04-13b_zpsb9670401.jpg)
Taking shape.  A lot more to do on the hull, plus finishing.


Now to start on the FIMO gold filigree work at the bow and stern.  Scaled photos under clear Lexan, plus a shaped former for the main crest.  Top set to work from, bottom set to make up on.  Another former will be required for the stern embellishments.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-04-13a_zpsdec4bf79.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 10, 2013, 04:18:36 pm
Bow Crest
 
Not too bad, my first attempt at using FIMO to produce model boat details.  With more practice I am sure I could improve.  Note: I should not use a biro that still writes  ;D
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/10-04-13c_zpsb19f0b39.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on April 10, 2013, 11:59:37 pm
Bob......easy for me viewing when standing on my head from 22,000 kms away....... ;)
The domed jewel centrepiece in the original vessel crest image appears to be centered on the vertical
Your first cast/build appears to have the same reference domed face at say 30 degrees up from the vertical  :(( ........
Just visualise a 30/60/90 triangle :-)) .......Derek
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly6_zps0f99e97a.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 11, 2013, 12:07:08 pm
Derek:  Now I look at it again, ooops, you are right.  I believe I got the three sections about right, it must have been how they seated together during fitting.  Corrections in progress.  :embarrassed:
The three sided thing is about an inch long.
 
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/11-04-13_zpsde06a78a.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on April 11, 2013, 04:02:37 pm
Looking at the photo I think it might want to ride a little higher up on the bow, it looks closer to the hawser hole and above the centre line of the structure behind it, depends how critical you want to get really, it is a grand bit of work though.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 11, 2013, 07:52:15 pm
There is a jack staff mounting frame in that 3mm above the crest, not yet fitted.  This whole area is only an inch long. 

Whilst there are many modellers on this forum whom I greatly admire, my skills in new techniques and materials are not in their league and probably never will be.

However everything I am doing on this model has been new challenges.  Whilst it would be easier not to go overboard on detail, it is in my nature to push my luck to see what I can manage to replicate, all part of the learning curve.  The tips of the filigree should end much higher too.

Please bear with me, I am enjoying myself   O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on April 11, 2013, 08:54:04 pm
yes these are tough little @#$!! to get to look correct, think about hunting a craft/ hobby store for the center oval, they often have beads and findings along these lines, the right sized one set into place could look great.. you have it easy, I have to put an eagle on the one I'm working on, ps got the 6prds working out.. best luck..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 17, 2013, 12:12:43 pm
  Slow Progress

4th attempt at bow crest parts, getting better, but when FIMO thickness is down to 1mm or less it tends to break up. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13a_zps557d069d.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13a_zps557d069d.jpg.html)

Stern crest was even fiddlier as the parts were much smaller.  The ‘banner’ was made using clear ABS to make tracing easier.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13b_zps82b2634b.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13b_zps82b2634b.jpg.html)

Detail work on the removable deck sections continues.  The angled anchor platforms took a couple of days. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13c_zpse9b7f85c.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/17-04-13c_zpse9b7f85c.jpg.html)
Now I am working on the four superstructure islands.  Odd shapes, some are well offset from the centreline, and all have angled armoured bases.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Arrow5 on April 17, 2013, 05:52:43 pm
I presume that the coat of arms in the centre of the bow ornamentation is the Royal coat of arms of the period.  I did a search for military badges that might have such a device that could be used.  There are few about the right size (I think) but very pricey, in the £40 -£80 range depending on the rarity.  I wonder if a RTV mold could be taken from one and cast in suitable resin.  Perhaps a plea to a dealer in these items might pay off.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 17, 2013, 06:39:47 pm
Thanks arrow5:  As close as I can make out the crest emblem is an oval version of this Naval ships crest of same era.  Note Rampant Lion is on a plain background.  The 'dome' is approx 7 x 4 mm.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/coatofarms_zps0ab748e3.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/coatofarms_zps0ab748e3.jpg.html)
Frankly, I may have more luck with the micro paint brushes  %%
At this scale embossing depth will be about paint thickness anyway.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on April 17, 2013, 07:24:41 pm
I used to put the pupils on 1/72nd scale model figures (thats just 25mm high) using a magnifying glass and a single hair plucked from my head, the whites of the eyes were relatively simple with just a very small brush.
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on April 17, 2013, 09:02:25 pm
my flexable arm magnifier with LED's lights has been becoming on of my favorite tools as of late,, finding myself looking at pics of the early bow and stern crest that the USS Olympia sported just to make myself think things are that tough after all.. having some good luck using millaput white (fine)it may not apply perfect, but machines well with dremel burrs on slow speeds after its cured...
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Arrow5 on April 17, 2013, 09:13:44 pm
I should have said that the military badges in the photos I used were from the very interesting site  www.glamorganantiques.co.uk   Full of interesting details and objects, military and naval.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: steve pickstock on April 18, 2013, 07:32:49 am
I paint 1/72nd scale figures - it has been my experience that painting things like eyes fall foul of the law of diminishing returns - I used to put a lot of effort in for no good result. The point is hold a 1/72 scale figure up and compare it with a person standing far enough away to appear to be the same as the figure. Can you even see the whotes of their eyes let along the pupil?

The same goes for heraldic crests, the size of the plaque and the size of the figures on it would suggest to me that a "suggestion" of the figures would be sufficent. Carefully placed 'sqiggles' and 'blobs' (these are technical terms that painters of heraldry in 1/72nd scale use) would work for most observers, who see them and register them in their minds and who then say "Jeez! You've even painted the heraldry!". Though seeing the effort that Bob K puts into his work I'm not sure it would be for him.

A 1/72nd scale viking chief - all of the detail on this figure has been 'suggested' by cunning paint work.
(http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb97/steve_pickstock/Vikings%20and%20Friends/DSCF0228.jpg) (http://s207.photobucket.com/user/steve_pickstock/media/Vikings%20and%20Friends/DSCF0228.jpg.html)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 18, 2013, 08:28:44 am
Remember that 1/60 is not that far off 1/72 and the detail being included will be finer than many models I see.  “Carefully placed 'squiggles' and 'blobs'” is a good description, I have no intention getting the right number of harp strings.  However, it should be recognisable even though my close work eyesight is far from what it was in my teens.

See crest on my 1/96 HMS Amazon completed last year:
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Amazon/HMSAmazon4.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Amazon/HMSAmazon4.jpg.html)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on April 19, 2013, 08:37:22 pm
Looks fantastic Bob, sometimes trial and error can be fun. Sometimes not!  ;) I have lost count the number of times I have had to restart certain unusual fittings.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 19, 2013, 09:02:31 pm
Thanks Nick. The only manual on this art is Model Boat Mayhem, and for pushing personal boundaries Trial and Error is indeed par for the course. Each build I learn new skills. Following other build logs inspires me to take time to do the best I can.   O0
 
Right now I am constructing external stanchion supports, 3 mm tube cut into semi circle sections fitted along the outside of the hull between the access steps.   I could 'cheat' but that would spoil the fun !
 
PS:  Many thanks to John R Haynes for being able to supply 16 mm 2 bar RN etched stanchions  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Superstructure
Post by: Bob K on April 22, 2013, 09:49:47 pm
Superstructure

Started work on the four superstructure islands.  Most are offset from the centreline.  Note slopping armour.  The later required remembering my old manual draughting skills, projecting development of cones. 
Styrene parts were warmed in non boiling water for shaping.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/22-04-13a_zpsd3f3dc9d.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/22-04-13a_zpsd3f3dc9d.jpg.html)    Superstructure.

On top of this will go the flying decks.  Lots of pillars like Brighton Pier, with Daleks on top.
Do I make the Nordenfelt turrets revolve?

Stanchion supports amidships are external to the hull profile, which involved over a hundred shaped sections. 
I am not too far off preliminary painting.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), semi submersible
Post by: Bob K on April 26, 2013, 03:58:07 pm
Hull Painting

Initial primer coats using Halfords rattle cans.  Fine rub down between coats.

Persevering in learning how to use an airbrush on my last model was certainly an asset.    :-))
Right % of thinners.  Everything worked well first time.  Two light covering coats.  Airbrush thoroughly cleaned afterwards.
I used Tamiya XF-66 as it is a slightly darker ‘battleship’ grey. 

Leave for 24 hours.  Mask up for the red oxide (makes up 85% of the hull).  Turn hull upside down and fit temporary wired sponge paint guards into the ballast slots.  This was to prevent spraying into the clear Lexan innards. 

The next day it was time to apply the thin waterline.  I had thought about using three tapes, removing the inner and painting that, but after some trials I used 2mm Trimline tape instead as it was hard to maintain a visually constant width across the various curves and plating detail.

BECC imperial depth markings were added.  I sourced a craft paint with gold particles in suspension.  The coat of arms was fun.  ‘Squiggles and blobs’ was an apt description. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-13f_zps61a975c6.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-13f_zps61a975c6.jpg.html)

The lettering on the stern was in 3mm BECC vinyl. With all external surfaces painted, including areas alongside the masked-off under decks, it was not easy to keep finger marks off the fresh matt paintwork.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-131_zps24cebb42.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-131_zps24cebb42.jpg.html)

Two light coats of Plastikote satin spray varnish to seal and finish off the hull. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-132_zps5a858efe.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/26-04-132_zps5a858efe.jpg.html)
 
Flying decks (or Hurricane decks) will be the next task to do.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Netleyned on April 26, 2013, 05:15:37 pm
It's looking really good Bob,
Is plasticote OK ?
A lot of paint experts on here say it's a no no.
But if it works for you who can complain?

Ned
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 26, 2013, 05:54:16 pm
Hi Ned:  IMO Plastikote satin spray varnish is ideal for the job.  It does not react to either acrylic or enamel paints, and gives a hard wearing protective finish.  I have two boats that have had over a hundred two hour sailing sessions and their hulls still look pristine.  All I do is give the hull a wipe down after getting home.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus, Beale Park Test
Post by: Bob K on May 02, 2013, 11:50:09 pm
HMS Polyphemus Beale Park Test

Hopefully not premature, but my semi submersible Victorian torpedo ram is scheduled to get its first test run away from the bath tub at Beale Park on Sunday.  Shallow water is a positive technical advantage.  How will it ride in the water underway?  Will the twin 50 mm props over drive it?
Will I have to fish it out with a rope?

Superstructure is only at early stages of construction, partial, with some unpainted styrene and litho plate, but enough to get an idea on the eventual shape. 
 
My first 40 MHz system. I have equipped the Tx aerial with sponge ball and frequency flag, plus made up the ID clothes peg.


Wish me luck  %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on May 03, 2013, 12:07:09 am
We have every faith in you Bob...... :} .   .......& your build  :D ..just post pictures.....Derek  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on May 03, 2013, 12:43:55 am
just as long as it stays not quite a submarine all will be fine, best luck with the sea trials...
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), temporary setback
Post by: Bob K on May 12, 2013, 11:09:40 am
First sea trials at Beale Park

Best laid plans etc.  After hours of trials in the bath and control systems testing the first sea trials at Beale Park should not have presented major difficulties. 

However, despite pre flight testing before I left home, as soon as I booked out the peg and put her in the water all channels went randomly out of control.  Weird.  It felt like someone else was on the same channel.  Nothing I did on my Tx had any effect.

Eventually a rescue was effected from the other side of the lake.  Back home.  Dried out.  Everything now seems to work fine.  A major leak in the aft compartment was a failure of the adhesive joining the sound system sub assembly through the watertight hatch.  Apart from that just some superficial damage due to repeated bank-bashing.

A couple of weeks in more tests before I try it again.  More silicone applied to hatch joints.  More time in the bath with props running.  My confidence in 40Mhz has been shaken.

Thanks for the photo Guy, and the rescue
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9610/p1010130w.JPG (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9610/p1010130w.JPG)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Yee Haa !
Post by: Bob K on May 16, 2013, 04:02:17 pm
Second sea trials,  Black Park

Yee Haa !    Finally, today I have an operational torpedo ram.

Bow shot
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13k_zps57aa4aef.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13k_zps57aa4aef.jpg.html)

First sea trials attempt at Beale Park was a disaster.  No response to my Tx, she ran haywire, then an epoxy joint failure where the sound system tube went through a watertight hatch.
Returned home.  All dried out and inspected.  Everything worked well.  Nearly two weeks of extensive strip-down tests followed.  Hours of re-testing in the workshop, bath and Koi pond.  Still working well, so off to Black Park Lake for a re-run with fingers crossed.

First time using a 40MHz system (Beale Park did not count) and it responded to my input.  At 25lbs I expected inertia / momentum would affect things so I got underway very gingerly.  The Kondor motors from Deans are ideal for the twin 50 mm props.  At 6V the slow rotation nudged her forwards away from the bank.  With more stick there was more than enough power to go way beyond scale speed.  Compartments all stayed dry.

Under Way
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13j_zpsa59fdb53.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13j_zpsa59fdb53.jpg.html)

Manoeuvring was better than expected, thanks to the three rudders and ACTion P94 unit.  Not sure if the bow rudders have as much effect as I would have expected though.  Sound system and Mister were both effective.

Still some more rework to do.  One ballast tank had more effect than the other, requiring blowing ballast from time to time.  Thinking cap on.

Apart from that a very successful day in bright sunshine.  It will take a while to adjust the trim, and plenty of work to do on the superstructure.

Blowing Ballast
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13h_zpsc866a2a2.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/16-05-13h_zpsc866a2a2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on May 16, 2013, 04:04:53 pm
What was the problem Bob?
 
Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 16, 2013, 04:13:28 pm
It was nice to meet you at Beale Park Bob.  Still no idea why my Tx did not work.  I had the official peg before turning it on.  Some have suggested either interference, or someone in gazebo 'testing'.  Mystery.
Two ton expoxy does not seem to bond with polycarbonte (Lexan). That stuff normally sticks the proverbial to a blanket  %%
 
All watertight now.  Amazing what a difference it makes having a ship actually respond to your Tx stick movements.  I feel a lot better today  :}
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on May 16, 2013, 04:17:31 pm
Did you rough up the Lexan before sticking?
Nice to meet you at Beale even though you a bit disappointed with the result of her first sailing.
 
Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 16, 2013, 05:27:59 pm
Did you rough up the Lexan before sticking?
Bob

Yes, both the 40 mm cut hole plus about 3 mm around it.  Strange, I would have thought the plastic waste pipe might be a problem but that adhered nicely.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on May 16, 2013, 05:38:49 pm
Devcon Plastic welder or another modified acrylic adhesive will bond permanently and watertight to polycarbonate, and you use it just like epoxy. To be honest though epoxy should work, I always stick with 24 hour araldite when using epoxy, you can't go wrong with that stuff. Just make sure you leave it a few days to fully cure through if it's going to be submerged.

With the ballast tank, it could be that moulding isn't fully symmetrical or possibly trapped air- now you know why I favour a single central ballast tank- much easier to control in model form. You can trim this by placing foam in the larger tank to reduce it's displacement.

Front rudders are never going to be great- they don't benefit from prop wash, and are closer to the boats centre of gravity.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 16, 2013, 09:25:21 pm
Thank you Andy.  That joint is above the waterline, but needs to be watertight as water comes over decks when under way.  As you know I have been way over my depth on this project, but it was so nice to finally see her sailing today.
Not sure what is causing the slight list today, never done that before in the bath or pond.  I must recheck the internal pipework for possible blockage.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), further progress
Post by: Bob K on June 03, 2013, 10:43:51 pm
Further Progress

  Alford Model Boat Show
What a super event, as always.  An excellent opportunity to put the latest updates to the test. 
She ran well for an extended period, stayed dry, and resisted listing quite well (see below).  Still requires quite a bit of way on her before the rudder takes effect.  Maybe I should swap the scale rear rudder for a much larger one.  11 kg plus up to 2.5 kg of water ballast is a lot of mass to swing around.

At least I ran her at full ‘stealth’ depth on Sunday for the first time.  Water just flows over the f’o’c’sle and main deck most realistically.  Almost submerged.

Dynamic Ballasting
There is more to ballasting this type of model than I had imagined.  I had to trim test at varying levels of ballast water, plus allow for the dynamic effect of the hull and shaped ram when underway. 

Materials & Adhesives
I am learning a lot about materials and adhesives on this project.  However, the technical aspects of the design seem to be working well.  If I had to do this again I would use 2 mm fibreglass sheet instead of Lexan.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Guy Bagley on June 04, 2013, 12:27:57 am
bob i will post the pictures in the next day or so from alfold, - just need to kind the charger for the camera first !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), a major setback
Post by: Bob K on June 11, 2013, 06:54:28 pm
A Major Setback
 
Running well, but . . .

After three long sailing sessions without mishap or any water ingress, including two sessions mostly at attack depth in less than calm waters, I thought I had finally overcome failing internal seams.  In addition I have lost count of the hours she has spent in the bath and koi pond in numerous tests’ including holding the hull underwater to check for air bubbles.

Finally I had the trim remaining level under varying water ballasting, and in attack mode ‘sea’ just broke over the f’o’c’sle and along the main deck realistically.  Internal compartments remained dry.

A setback

However, on Sunday after an hours sailing in slightly choppy water without apparent problems the ship suddenly went into bow-down attitude then fully submerged.  Luckily a long pole with a grappling hook saved the day.  Below is an early photo of the internal structure, mainly in 3 mm clear Lexan polycarbonate.  Eight independent sealed compartments.  Even flooding two non-ballast compartments she should still float.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/focsleandhatches.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/focsleandhatches.jpg.html)
Basic internal structure and hatches

Autopsy

One of the two 1 m long longitudinal ballast tank bulkhead joints had failed, despite being set in up to half an inch of Silkaflex sealant, flooding four of the six watertight compartments.    Either a temperature difference or slight flexing of the whole structure proved sufficient to spring the joint.  Getting anything to permanently stick to Lexan has been the bane of this project.

Limited Options

At least I have proved the design works as intended, it’s just the choice of materials.  Frankly I have tried everything over the months and it is clear that had I used 3 mm fibreglass instead of Lexan for bulkheads she would have remained watertight.  With the sheer quantity of Silkaflex and other adhesives there is no way this can be ripped apart without destroying the hull. 

The only realistic option at this stage is to seal off the ballast tank vent slots and fill the side voids with foam.  No longer a semi submersible, but at least a working ship, and the satisfaction that had I used other materials my design was sound.

Seeing propellers spinning above the surface is a sure sign something is not right. {:-{

 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 11, 2013, 07:44:12 pm
Its sad to see a failure but no one can say you didn't stick with it and explore every avenue


A real shame as I really enjoyed this build.  Please carry on posting updates to the build
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Snowwolflair on June 11, 2013, 07:59:00 pm
Bob
All I can say is she went down gallantly, and dare I say quite realistically. 
I like the idea of the foam to fill the sides, just add weight to make them neutral bouyent and then use a peristatic pump and a bladder in the flood compartment to change depth.
NB I have probably got a spare pump if you need one to try.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on June 11, 2013, 08:07:03 pm
Hi Bob k


Sorry to hear about your near sinking, however the model is fantastic example of her period, hope you have her dried out and ready to go again soon. To quote everyone following this build thread, I love the build so far and look forward to seeing her one day in the flesh.
Good luck once again and fingers crossed it was a freak incident. :-))


Nick B
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 11, 2013, 08:50:48 pm
Bob
All I can say is she went down gallantly, and dare I say quite realistically. 

You did have a ring-side view  :embarrassed: .  Thanks for the pump offer. First I need to get my thinking cap firmly attached.
 
Thanks all for your kind comments. 
She appears to be drying out well, so hopefully no major internal damage. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on June 11, 2013, 09:36:27 pm
Thanks, Bob, for posting the bad with the good during this build. It's been a fascinating journey - and it's not over yet.

Regarding the bond between lexan and sikaflex, the sikaflex website (http://www.bluemoment.com/downloads/sikaflexmarinehandbook.pdf) states that there shouldn't be a problem with a seal, especially given that there was no obvious UV allowed to damage the sealant.

It might be worth dropping them an email and seeing what they say about the failure of adhesion. I've no doubt they'll be fascinated by your experiments, and may be able to offer clues, an explanation or advice.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on June 11, 2013, 11:36:08 pm
Bob K.......I too have read & watched this thread from day 1.........& understand your limited options as noted below & your disappointment
1. without destroying the hull......
2. the only realistic option at this stage is to seal off the ballast tank vent slots......
Having said this ...& as dreadnought72 says......I would also recommend talking with the SIKA people........ Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on June 12, 2013, 01:25:10 am
having built many things twice what about pulling all the internals and starting with a new hull.. converting  to standard running will give you a ship, but not the ship you want!!!! to neat of a project to give up on it...
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: steve pickstock on June 12, 2013, 07:03:03 am
I am gutted for you. To have to make such a compromise at this stage must be heart-breaking. You have my sympathies.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on June 12, 2013, 10:22:31 am
Bob,
Please do not fill the gaps with gap filling foam.
This will add another different (far higher) expansion rate.
You must be gutted after all your hard work and development time.


Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 12, 2013, 10:27:48 am
Is there nothing on the market to disolve the sikaflex
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Snowwolflair on June 12, 2013, 10:30:04 am
What about the substance that disolves bath sealant, its the same chemical base.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 12, 2013, 01:05:21 pm
Sikaflex is polyurethane based, you'll have to cut it out with a sharp scalpel, although I must say I'm perplexed why the bond is failing this way. I wonder if the prop of the materials is adequate, e.g. thorough degreasing with isopropanol alcohol, key the plastic with first (both the GRP and the lexan).

GRP sheet would be better, I would use polyester resin and chopped glass to join the sheet to the hull. You could make your own sheet up very cheaply by purchasing some 450 gram chopped strand matt, and resin, and laminating onto a waxed board.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Snowwolflair on June 12, 2013, 01:24:52 pm
Sikaflex is not resistant to organic acids, alcohol, concentrated mineral acids and caustic solutions or solvents.
 What you want is a sealant remover with
Dimethyl Formamide(DMF) (http://www.rcfltd.com/index.php/products/ind-products/50-articles/art-ind-products/79-dmf) as a component, which works for silicone and Polyurethane (fingers, skin, bone, fiberglass, etc, so treat it with care). 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on June 12, 2013, 02:04:48 pm
My first thoughts were rip it all out and replace with fibreglass bulkheads built to match what you have already created in lexan, but looking back over the build thread it would take a brave soul indeed to undertake that course of action.
How about an alternative, line your existing ballast tank longitudinal bulkheads with thin fibreglass sheet, bonded to the hull where it touches with a suitable adhesive. The only issue being if you already have a large amount of sikaflex or similar within the ballast tank hull joint, this would cause major issues bonding to the hull. IF you were able to bond to the hull, this would effectively seperate your ballast tanks from the lexan part of the structure, while the lexan bulkheads could carry on flexing when they feel they must, your fibreglass saddle tanks wont move. Difficult and only you know the build well enough but it would be a shame to lose that capability.
Red lines suggest where you could fit the fibreglass bulkheads.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on June 12, 2013, 02:22:39 pm
If you removed the ballast tanks you could use plastic bottles of the right size for ballast tanks.
Internal Tanks are terrible to seal for any length of time.


Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), became a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 12, 2013, 02:49:44 pm
Thanks for all the ideas. 

Some further info:  Knowing how problematical getting a good seal has been, and the large quantity of sealant plus various adhesives now inside, the only practical way of removing the innards would be with a Rotacraft grinder.  Everything from the under decks downwards.  The sealant has set quite hard.  Bound to go through the hull though.

3 mm Lexan is very rigid, much more so than ply.  It is the hull that is thin, and maybe slightly twistable.  The hull and bulkheads were cleaned as if for painting.  The cut edges at least should have permanently bonded.

I like the idea of lining the ballast tanks with fibreglass sheet, but now the only access to the inside of the tanks is through the vent slots.  Liquid rubber ?  ‘Emergency’ tyre inflator liquid?  Air bladders? (if I can get them inside).

My thought of filling the tanks with sealing foam, before filling in the slots, was just to provide permanent buoyancy.  However, that would end submersibility.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not giving up yet
Post by: Bob K on June 13, 2013, 10:52:03 am
Not giving up yet

I am going to try something before I seal off the ballast tank vent slots and resign to a surface runner.  It will either work, or not.

Looking at a chandlers site I came across “Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack Cure”.
http://www.yachtshop.co.uk/store/product/801/Captain-Tolleys-Creeping-Crack-Cure/?gclid=CKC7lfXK37cCFY3HtAodABUAIA
Designed for ‘real’ boats, to fix leaks in inaccessible spaces. 
ie:  Pour through ballast vent slots, swill all around tanks.
Anyone used this?

Also I am looking into liquid rubber, the kind of stuff used for sealing the primary layer of flat roofs or damp proof membranes.  Supposed to adhere to almost anything, but in any case should set as a continuous rubberised coating. 
Hopefully thin enough to pour rather than brush on.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: rmaddock on June 13, 2013, 10:59:30 am
What about the stuff the pour into vintage car fuel tanks to seal them?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: grendel on June 13, 2013, 11:20:55 am
or a liquid rubber swirled round to create a balloon inside the tanks?
Grendel
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tghsmith on June 13, 2013, 11:55:46 am
fuel tank sealer is sold by POR15 over here, adhesion to lex test may be needed, its interesting stuff that reacts with the air, open cans must be used, unused product (waste) is set in water to stop ignition.. I did several motorcycle tanks a few years back with great results.. other products not so great... por15 includes instructions of how to remove and prep after other stuff was used and failed..
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 13, 2013, 02:54:13 pm
fuel tank sealer is sold by POR15 over here, adhesion to lex test may be needed, its interesting stuff that reacts with the air, open cans must be used, unused product (waste) is set in water to stop ignition.. I did several motorcycle tanks a few years back with great results.. other products not so great... por15 includes instructions of how to remove and prep after other stuff was used and failed..


Sounds a lot like this stuff
http://www.shop4glue.com/fuel-tank-sealer-for-motorcycle-bike-car-lawnmower-petrol-diesel-alcohol-fuel-leaking-repair-rust-612-p.asp (http://www.shop4glue.com/fuel-tank-sealer-for-motorcycle-bike-car-lawnmower-petrol-diesel-alcohol-fuel-leaking-repair-rust-612-p.asp)
When we did the zetor tractor restoration (See other thread) we had a small leak from one of the tank seams so used the stuff above... worked perfectly.  Was all very odd, the tank was tested prior to going to paint but then stated to leak when we put it back together. only thing I can think of is that somehow the seam weakened during the painting/baking.
Anyways 4 weeks on and still no leaks
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on June 13, 2013, 11:51:43 pm
Bob & E2V.......the product below has the name coding ..... Product Code: PETSEAL001Brand: StarLoc Hesketh Automotive Isn't Mr Starloc a member on MBM? ....or is this another similar trade name?.......I would be inclined to post an e-mail to the supplier as the data sheet suggests the product is for metal tanks........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not intended as a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 14, 2013, 12:27:36 am
Thanks Derek and E2V.  I will investigate that.
I am still intrigued by liquid rubber or latex.  A thick balloon liner.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 14, 2013, 08:57:57 am
Bob & E2V.......the product below has the name coding ..... Product Code: PETSEAL001Brand: StarLoc Hesketh Automotive Isn't Mr Starloc a member on MBM? ....or is this another similar trade name?.......I would be inclined to post an e-mail to the supplier as the data sheet suggests the product is for metal tanks........Derek


We have some more in the workshop, If Starloc doesn't notice the thread then I'll do a test with some tupperware type containers next week
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not giving up yet
Post by: steve pickstock on June 14, 2013, 10:35:35 am
The poured and swirled latex liner sounds like a good idea but anything that goes by the name of
“Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack Cure”.
has to be in with a shout for the name alone.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Ian K on June 14, 2013, 12:34:44 pm
Hi Bob,
 
You can get Por 15 tank sealer from frost.co.uk
 
Regards
 
Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), now a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 14, 2013, 01:09:16 pm
Thanks for the link Ian. 
However their blurb on POR 15 tank sealant says "Not Suitable for Plastic and Fibreglass Tanks."
Maybe try the Captain Tolleys first, then find a latex rubber to coat the tank innards with
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 15, 2013, 12:24:22 pm
Did you use a Sika primer on the lexan before applying the Sikaflex?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 15, 2013, 12:53:44 pm
Did you use a Sika primer on the lexan before applying the Sikaflex?

No.  Interesting.  I cleaned and prepared both the Lexan and fibreglass hull as if for painting primer, then followed the instructions supplied with the Sikaflex 221 cartridge.  There was no mention of a special Silka primer, or that it may be required.
 
Looking at the online info for that one-part primer now the primer is for porous or high moisture content surfaces and for ease of brush application.  The later is odd as the sealant is a nozzle cartridge.  221 is an "adhesive and sealant", the spec making no mention of a special primer.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 15, 2013, 09:00:35 pm
I depends on the use, Bob. If it's underwater then they advise the use of a primer. they also advise the use of a cleaner before application of any sealant. I expect this to remove any possible contaminants, especially grease, isopropyl alcohol usually works for me, but if you have any doubts it's probably best to use their cleaner.

http://usa.sika.com/dms/getdocument.get/34823a6c-1669-3622-a3f4-eafbcb59173c/pds-cpd-SikaflexSealAdhPrimers-us.pdf

It's like many things e.g. a normal model boat made from wood, resined and painted will stay pristine for years. Try the same technique in a model sub, and you'll see problems occurring very quickly, because the coating is having to withstand complete submergence, higher expansion and contraction rates, and hydrostatic water pressure.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 15, 2013, 10:12:20 pm
The data sheet for 221, which I found ealier today, quotes "Resistent to fresh water", although its general sales description extols its waterproofing qualities with no mention of primer.  The max depth of the tanks are no more than the almost horizontal prop shaft outers, fitted in the usual way for model boats, without problems.  The last sailing was well over an hour before it suddenly failed.
Pressure should be no more than in a normal deep draft hull, until it sinks.
 
My error was in not going for 3 mm fibreglass sheet, bonded with matting reinforced resin across all joints.  In the end it would have been much stronger and lighter.  I used almost 2 cartridges of 221, so added a lot of weight whilst coving much of the clear Lexan and losing my aim of visability.
 
That's now water over the Bridge (and wheelhouse).  My aim now is to seal the tanks via the only access remaining, the vent slots.
 
Has anyone used Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack sealant, from marine chandlers?
 
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 19, 2013, 11:13:54 am
Bob,


Was perusing some old model boats magazines looking for an article and found another model of HMS Polyphemus in 1:60th scale.  Won the C2 class gold medal at the 1988 Model Engineering Exhbition.  There's a couple of Photos and a very brief desription.  It's in the April 88 issue, not sure if you have a stash of old mags but if not drop me a PM and we can work something out
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), in for refit
Post by: Bob K on June 19, 2013, 12:40:03 pm
In for refit

E2V:  That is the original model from which this hull is taken from.  Amazing build.

Everything is disassembled and drying out, waiting to see what permanent damage done to the electrics etc, and for the Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack Cure to arrive.
Worth trying.  A chandlers solution.
See demo movie http://www.captaintolley.com/movie/movie.html (http://www.captaintolley.com/movie/movie.html)

As said before, I have had three fair length lake runs with minimal ingress before the failure at Black Park. 
Hopefully this fix will be effective.  If not then try liquid rubber.

Photos from successful one hour run at Alfold event, with thanks to Guy Bagley.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfoldb_zps3d1a251a.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfoldb_zps3d1a251a.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfolda_zps6857ddb1.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfolda_zps6857ddb1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on June 19, 2013, 08:24:38 pm
Have to say its a stunning model even tho the pictures in the magazine were only black and white
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 19, 2013, 09:37:02 pm
Front cover picture of that magazine feature in colour.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/MS0asmall_zpsa5acda76.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/MS0asmall_zpsa5acda76.jpg.html)
The model by Jon Hollis was indeed amazing, and won several awards. 
If I can finish mine a tenth as good I will be well pleased.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), autopsy
Post by: Bob K on June 26, 2013, 06:46:18 pm
post sinking damage

After the surprise sinking in 6 feet of water two weeks ago I carefully rinsed innards with tap water and allowed two weeks to thoroughly dry out.

The 40 MHz Rx, ACTion P94, servos and 5V SLA appear to have survived. 
However, the motors, 2 x 12V battery packs, 12V air pump, solenoid, plus control switches (that were solidly waterproofed but only from the outside) are all ex parrots.   >:-o
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on June 26, 2013, 08:50:19 pm
post sinking damage

After the surprise sinking in 6 feet of water two weeks ago I carefully rinsed innards with tap water and allowed two weeks to thoroughly dry out.

The 40 MHz Rx, ACTion P94, servos and 5V SLA appear to have survived. 
However, the motors, 2 x 12V battery packs, 12V air pump, solenoid, plus control switches (that were solidly waterproofed but only from the outside) are all ex parrots.   >:-o
 


I feel for you Bob, loosing batteries and motors like that is more than annoying. A few years back we had an motor fire in our springer tug submarine, the water cooling tube wrapped around the motor got blocked and the motor seized. Luckily the fuse blew before it took out the ESC but the first thing we knew about it was a puff of smoke coming from the periscope! We got it back in and lifted the lid to see the entire inside go up in smoke! The only thing salvageable were the batteries and the ESC! We repaired it with a new motor and rx equipment but she preceded to do it again luckily only taking the motor this time. She is now retired!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), the Glug Glug Box
Post by: Bob K on June 26, 2013, 11:31:14 pm
Thanks Nick  %)   Luckily I am sufficently determined (or pig headed) to persist in getting this working, eventually, so apologies that this thread may go on for a while.
 
Perhaps I should buy replacement bits for those that failed in sets of three, just in case the Captain Tolleys does not cut the mustard.  If all else fails I can always fill in the ballast tank slots, but I have had nearly three hours charging around semi submerged in the water to start enjoying the possibilities of a deep draft racing raft.   :D
 
See http://www.hitrecord.org/records/313435 (http://www.hitrecord.org/records/313435)
 
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 28, 2013, 02:05:48 pm
I can rebuild the airpump if you send it to me.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 28, 2013, 03:01:58 pm
Deep thanks for the offer Andy.  That pump came all the way from the States.  At present the 12V side of the electrics look to be "Pining for the Fjords", even the swiches and connectors are corroded.  I need to unwire the pump and connect it to a good 12V source to be sure. 
Fingers crossed.
 
Retrospectively it would have been far more sensible to scratch build a USS Kalamazoo twin turret monitor.  Only one solid watertight hatch needed. 
1100 x 180 mm at 1/96, twin shafts, almost zero freeboard but a fixed draft and therfore very simple controls and minimal joints to leak.
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 28, 2013, 03:17:46 pm
In all fairness, Bob, I'd have gone about the project in a different way. You treated it as a surface ship with the hatches bolted down. I'd have treated it like a submarine which didn't have to fully submerge.

Put all the equipment in a watertight cylinder of sufficient displacement, streamline the power system down to one battery pack, and use a single, centrally placed ballast tank (nuke the saddle tanks). Holes could be let into the bottom of the hull to make it free-flooding.

This would be much lighter to cart around, easier to service, as the cylinder can be made removable and much easier to keep watertight. Also should you get rammed by another boat, your boat will remain afloat, as the outer hull is just a shell.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on June 28, 2013, 07:03:07 pm
Already been through this…..

At the start I did try the 100 mm tube module from my Engel 212A but that was too deep to fit the hull, and nowhere near large enough volume to contain the equipment.  About a third of the hull volume is drainable water.  Weight is more a function of internal equipment and depth of draft.  .

Prior to the materials/adhesives failure it has been a successful build, and worked well until the bulkhead joints failed.  The design requires three voltages.  Slow turning large props, an effective large pump, plus funnel 'smoke'.
 
Remedial solutions would be greatly appreciated.  When I can overcome the materials failure I should be back in business.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Subculture on June 28, 2013, 07:24:52 pm
I know, but I keep pushing because I think your design is flawed. Sorry.
 
I've had a good look at most of the boat in the pictures, and the equipment you're using, and I reckon you can get everything you need in a fairly small tube. 70-80mm diameter is sufficient- I'm sure that will fit- no?

For a start, you don't need very big servos for this model. 9 or 10 gram servos would be quite sufficient to actuate the rudders. The cheapest models from hobbyking are little beauts and cost a couple quid a piece. I use these in model aeroplanes of up to four foot wing span, and they work great. http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__16257__HK15178_Analog_Servo_10g_1_4kg_0_09s.html

Also if you use some controllers with modern surface mount components, they take up a lot less real estate.

Lead acid batteries can go in the drink.

All the different voltages can be largely harmonized, by careful selection of motors. The mister unit is the elephant in the room, but I did recommend a boost converter for that. If you're worried about noise from the unit whack it in an earthed steel box.

The mister unit could be placed inside the ballast tank or in the free flood area, and get shot of that heavy bulky box it comes in- try and make items do two jobs.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on June 28, 2013, 10:25:20 pm
Bob,
I must agree with Subculture.
I have known several good modellers try and fit internal ballast tanks and the majority have leaked after a fairly short length of time.
I put this down to several factors:
The different materials all have different coefficients of expansion.
The different materials each have their own individual strengths.


These two factors seem to combine to cause small leaks after a while.


The sucessful ballast systems that I know of are made outside of the model and fitted as a seperate unit(s).
This is for pumped and free flooding.


Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 04, 2013, 01:48:24 pm
Yes, it would have been a lot easier to build a high freeboard tug.

However

After assessing the water damage from 6ft deep I have been getting replacement electrics for parts damaged.  Mental note to get quality servos in future, esp those that have seals on the shafts. 

Next onto the Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack Cure.  This stuff is like a cross between a multi-material CA and penetrating fluid.  Quite thin, intended for cracks rather than gaps.  I used a 4mm silicone tube to access inside the hull voids.

Hull right way up, went in without apparent dripping through.  OK.

Hull inverted, using the ballast vent slots, several places where the fluid dripped through.  Drained off surplus.  It thus appears that the slightly sprung joints are between the top bulkhead edges and the sealed under deck.  So now at least I know where the problems are. These are joints 15mm above the deep-draught waterline so not pressure bearing.

Leave 24 hours then reapply.  If nothing drips through I have two coats of a strong adhesive seal.

Design

Had I make the bulkheads from f/glass and not used that duff mastic I would not have the problems.  Far too much equipment to fit into a 70mm tube, even if I dumped the sound system and mister. 
I was looking at the internals of a large Engel sub at the weekend.  Similar compartments and screw down acrylic hatches. Engel have used f/glass for the compartments though.

This ship had had three one hour sailing sessions before the accident, and performed very well.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Shipmate60 on September 04, 2013, 10:22:25 pm
Bob now you have gone this far would it be worth considering a bag inside the tank.
Belt and braces!!
Use what the sub boys use and should be sorted.


Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 05, 2013, 01:10:51 pm
Good idea Bob, unfortunately the only access to those compartments now is through the 5 mm vent slots.  In any case I am going to have seal those compartment joints.
 
The three stage plan is:
1)    Use Captain Tolley's penetrating sealant.
2)    Coat the inside of the tanks with liquid rubber.
3)    If all else fails, f/glass in the vent slots for a fixed waterline hulled 'surface runner'.
 
Step 1, then 2, lastly if I have to go to 3 I will still have a working vessel, albeit without variable depth trim.
If I have to lose the vent slots the hull reverts to 'standard' with only prop shafts and rudders penetrating.
The hatch covers are gasketed screw-down, same as the big Engel's.
 
Fingers crossed  :-))    Polyphemus will be sailing, hopefully in variable depth mode.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 05, 2013, 04:09:20 pm
I should mention re my earlier post that none of the three steps involve scrapping the model and starting again.  I should have used f/glass bulkheads with reinforced f/glass for the joints, but you live and learn.
 
The joint leaks now identified are hairline, anything larger and she would not have sailed over an hour before the low freeboard bouyancy became affected.  I am being positive and optimistic.  This is a major R&D project.
 
 
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 07, 2013, 10:34:14 am
Second internal application of penetrating sealant, swilling around, syphoning out surplus after 1/2 hour.  This time nothing coming through.  Brush coated sealant into compartment side of joints.  Wait 24 hours to cure off.
Tomorrow I will fill the inverted-hull ballast tanks with water and leave to stand overnight.
 
Whilst the original mastic recommended is flexible and secures the parts, it does not bond with Lexan hence the hairline leaks. The Tolley's should penetrate these fine gaps and bonds to "Perspex, fibreglass," etc etc.
 
New servo for the forward rudders now operational.  Next repairing the control panel, replacement switches arrived.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), hull rework
Post by: Bob K on October 02, 2013, 04:23:32 pm
To try to avoid flak I am only posting successful stages in the repair / rework stages.
These are taking time as I am being careful and running trial tests before each stage.

  Captain Tolley’s

After two applications of Captain Tolley’s Creeping Crack Cure the hull appears leak free.  Flooding the inverted ballast tanks via the inlet slots, the tanks hold water without the level dropping over a long period.  Subsequent examination showed no sign of internal ingress. 
Aye aye for Captain Tolley !

  Liquid Rubber Lining

Just to make absolutely sure I then coated Plastidip “Liquid Tape” around all the inside surfaces of the tanks.  An adhesive air-drying synthetic rubber insulator, lining the tanks.  When it came I found it was slightly too thick to pour, so after contacting them I ordered 1/2 litre of their special thinners.  It didn’t need much to achieve an ideal just-runs viscosity that could be slowly swilled building up layers of rubber.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/02-10-13_zps3f2401c9.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/02-10-13_zps3f2401c9.jpg.html)

  Bilges Alarm System

Because of the ultra low freeboard, and being trebly cautious, I sought the advice of Hunter Systems having had excellent results with their bilge control systems.  It turns out that their controller sensors are effectively on / off and can be multiple connected.  Six sensors, one in each dry compartment, connected to a single controller.  Instead of a pump bright flashing LED’s are activated if any of the six bilge sensors detect water.

All rudder tubes end above the waterline and lubed as per the prop shafts.  No problems there. 
Screwed down 3 mm thick hatches are seated on neoprene gaskets with silicone grease, similar to the big Engel subs.
 
After further tests I will then rework the internal electrics, including fitting a much better solenoid valve to vent air from the tanks.
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on October 02, 2013, 04:49:38 pm
 :-)) Got my eye on this!

Good luck!!

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), hull rework
Post by: Bob K on October 02, 2013, 07:08:33 pm
Thank you Andy.  Much appreciated.  I will get there
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), hull rework
Post by: dreadnought72 on October 02, 2013, 07:51:44 pm
...Instead of a pump bright flashing LED’s are activated if any of the six bilge sensors detect water.

The School of Belt and Braces would have me leaning towards connecting the tank pump and LEDs into one, unified, get-me-home special.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), hull rework
Post by: Bob K on October 02, 2013, 09:01:41 pm
Nice one Andy, saves doing it manually if the alarm lights flash.  With tanks blown she should still float with 2 of the 6 'dry' compartments flooded.  What I really need is a very shallow lake for trials, just in case.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on January 19, 2014, 05:12:28 pm
Hi Bob


Hope the Polythemus project is still going on, and be on the water again.
I found this interesting book about the Victorian navy with an artists impression of Polythemus on the dust cover.


(http://i44.tinypic.com/esouqh.jpg)


It's got some pretty amazing pictures of other vessels, my favourite is HMS Powerful at speed.


(http://i39.tinypic.com/2vxmz54.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on January 19, 2014, 06:02:45 pm
Thank you Nick.  She looks beautifully "odd" in that picture, which is why she fascinates me,
 
I have to admit I have not been able to do much in the workshop lately.  Pressure of non boating activities.
She is still on the workbench, waiting for the rebuild of the electrics (for which I have most of the parts).
Side tank sealing appears to have gone well.  The Capt Tolley's sealant and liquid rubber internal coating.
What I could really do with is a shallow body of water for serious testing.  ie  Wadeable.  You can only generate so much confidence with a bath tub, not being able to get it up to speed with wash coming over the foc's'l'e. This time I will have a Hunter bilge pump controller monitoring the compartments.
 
No way will 'C in C Home Forces' allow me to start another build untill I complete this one. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on January 19, 2014, 07:23:29 pm
Hi Bob


Glad you liked the picture, and good news that Polythemus will be operational again once C in C Home Forces has released you from shore duties. You could always say that Polythemus has transferred to the Mediterranean and a new ship is required for the home fleet!  %)
I've not been able to work on the Majestic last week due to shore duties too, not from my C in C Home Forces but the junior service management and a variety of torque wrench calibration checks keeping me busy for many hours! <:(  Oh well like they say, that's life in a blue suit! {-)
Look forward to your progress when the build restarts.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 19, 2014, 09:49:05 am
HMS Polyphemus

This project has been on the back burner for some months following some major technical problems, not least of which required recovery from 2 m depth.  This semi submersible torpedo ram was a bit ambitious with its twin bow rudders; smoking funnel and engine sound.

The Story So far

The main problem was in using clear Lexan for bulkheads and underdecks (for visibility) and that Silkaflex 221 mastic did not provide a reliable bond to the hull and saddle ballast tanks.  As previously detailed remedial work involved Captain Tolleys Creeping Crack cure, a “swilled” additional epoxy resin internal coating, plus liberal application of liquid rubber in each tank.  Numerous hours of bath testing has raised confidence in its longer term watertight integrity. 

I could just seal off the ballast tank slots, but that would be a last resort.  The original ship was semi submersible and the aim was to replicate that function, which it did semi successfully over three one hour sailing sessions.

In trimmed down attack mode the original ship had seas breaking over the f'o'c'sle and along the main deck.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfoldb_zps3d1a251a.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Alfoldb_zps3d1a251a.jpg.html)  Trimmed down

Back in Dry Dock

After immersion at depth a major rework on the electrics is necessary.  For simplicity during testing I will temporarily remove the Mister and sound system, and trial it on a single 12V SLA.  Quite a lot of extra ballast will be needed for this phase.  The control panel will need to be rebuilt as this has both physical and electrical water damage. 

I now have a Hunter Systems bilge pump controller with separate sensors to each of the six compartments. Rather than fit six pumps the controller output will flash 10mm blue warning LED's if any compartment starts flooding.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on August 19, 2014, 10:48:20 am
.......... %) .....this has been a long term project for you Bob.......& we have read every line of every post to date  {-) {-) {-) ...including some of the challenges.......:o ......good luck  keep us posted......O0....Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 19, 2014, 11:31:23 am
Much appreciated Derek.  Thank you.

For any new to this build, this photo shows HMS Polyphemus at low profile full speed.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/broadsideatspeed.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/broadsideatspeed.jpg.html)
A massive ram to break harbour defence booms, five submerged torpedo tubes to cause havoc once inside, and six four-barrelled Nordenfelt machine guns in turrets for defence.  Most of the light superstructure was 'sacrificial', an early stealth ship.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on August 31, 2014, 10:01:21 pm
I have just found this topic Bob and having read the whole piece I am amazed at the tenacity you have shown in not throwing it against the wall and going for several pints of something hoppy and perhaps amber coloured!

My one worry with the swilled sealants and gap fillers is what they have done to your valve ports. Are they clear? I assume they have not been irreplacably clogged or locked shut and that they are easily accessible to poke clear or replace. Like with so many huge projects, experienced advice aside, it can be a one step forwards-two to three steps back. I have to admit to seeing the early installments of your project and thinking you should have gone for common materials to make your ballast tank walls.

Still, take heart in the enjoyment you have given us and the skills you have learnt from your efforts and the ideas and advice that fellow Mayhemers have contributed over the years. You are nearly there Bob, there is a steam ram shaped light at the end of the tunnel and it is quite large!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on August 31, 2014, 10:23:22 pm
Thank you for taking the time to read through the whole saga (tee hee!)

The inlet and exhaust air ports are bonded-in brass tube stubs which are easily accessible. I had removed the flexible plumbing before remedial work so will fit new pipework, valve and pump, later.  Ballast is vented through four slots in the base of each ballast tank, which I used to insert the additional sealants.  Easy to clean up as they are in the base of the hull.

I am currently working on rebuilding the control panel, switches and charging connectors, this time using miniature IP67 sealed 5A switches with shortened rockers.  Not a lot of room !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on August 31, 2014, 10:45:05 pm
ballastanksian....sometimes we have thought Bob's project in thixotropic sealing materials did display a great degree of tenacity  :o

Bob K....whilst the micro switches may be rated to IP67 how about the wiring connections?  :embarrassed:

That coding is still a little vague as the 67 signifies "protection against immersion" where as 68 is "protection against submersion"

Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on September 01, 2014, 06:47:42 am
In the words of vic reeves "you wouldn't let it lie!"


Bob I really admire the hard work you have put into this
Not much hair left now I'm guessing
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 01, 2014, 07:02:17 am
"thixotropic":  Sounds like a word from an early issue of Readers Digest. There have been times when a Shaken (or) Stirred Martini would have gone down well, and I have been tempted to fit a duff LiPo and give it a full Viking funeral  %%

Previously I had used standard rocker switches with sealed-in splash proof covers. Using IP67 toggle switches should give better protection from any water breaking over the bow.  Providing the watertight hatches and bulkheads stay sealed it is just the external part of the switches that are exposed. IP67 is supposed to be good for immersion up to 1 m.  Much of the internal water damage was from when the internal bulkheads to hull joints failed.  Hopefully I have fixed that.

The main impetus for completion is that C in C Home Forces will not allow me to start another build until I have finished this one.  For my next challenge . . .

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/jelly_zps9be4a5d7.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/jelly_zps9be4a5d7.jpg.html)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on September 01, 2014, 07:36:47 am
 %).....your glues that never set when adhered to Lexan...... {-)

"Thixotropy is a shear thinning property. Certain gels or fluids that are thick under static conditions will flow over time when shaken, agitated, or otherwise stressed. They then take a fixed time to return to a more viscous state".............................................courtesy of WIKI..........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on September 01, 2014, 09:28:31 am
Also, Thixotropic agents are added to substances such as silicone rubber and resins to allow you to paint them over items to be moulded/cast without them running (albeit slowly in the case of RTV silicone!) off the master.

Now remove that block of jelly from the roof and make a nice dessert with it. Go on, waste not want not:O)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: rickles23 on September 01, 2014, 09:43:45 am
A bit late but you might find this interesting:

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/polyphemus.html

Regards
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 04, 2014, 06:45:31 pm
Yes, I have those images, thank you

HMS Polyphemus

One disheartening aspect of rebuilding a sunken ship is every time I look inside it is such a mess that I put it away again.  However, a start must be made.  First up is the intricate control panel which suffered significant water damage when the compartments flooded, not from water getting in topside.  Even so, improvements can be made.

Control Panel
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/23-03-13a_zps2bef03ed.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/23-03-13a_zps2bef03ed.jpg.html)  Original

Rather than use rockers with waterproof covers this time I am using IP67 protected toggle switches, good up to 1 metre depth.  A mounting structure was fabricated from ABS into an almost solid block, which also supports the sides of the two sealed charging connector compartments.   Levers shortened to clear the multi-magnet secured f’o’c’sle deck above.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/switchblock_zps22c73990.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/switchblock_zps22c73990.jpg.html)

I dislike lake-side dismantling, and unnecessarily disturbing connections under WTC hatches. The circuit below shows how the main power/charging switch works.  Rated 5A at 28VDC, it does not switch under load but I have still ganged two poles.  The other switch uses each pole to switch the other batteries at low current.  Ensures everything is off when charging.  LED’s confirm when ‘on’, plus LED’s to indicate pump and air release valve operation.

Power / charging switch
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/switchcircuit_zps7af66051.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/switchcircuit_zps7af66051.jpg.html)

The control panel is sealed down.  Soft rubber deep-sleeved plugs over the O-ringed 4mm charging sockets. These sockets are additionally epoxy sealed around the terminal pins. 

Just remains to rewire everything behind there.  Not a lot of room.   %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tonyH on September 04, 2014, 08:13:04 pm
May the force be with you Bob!

Just to let you know that I took three models to Mayhem this year and ALL of them started to sink. One French Cruiser, a 1908 submarine and a modern waterjet launch. I'm, therefore, in the same situation as you and will be immensely happy to buy you a pint at Mayhem 2015 when your fortitude will be shown to have been worthwhile!!!

Cheers in advance :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 04, 2014, 08:33:41 pm
Much appreciated Tony.   Once the control panel is rebuilt there will not be much to photograph for a while. Lots of rewiring: Replacing pump, air valve, micro switches, connectors, batteries etc. Even wiring fittings are corroded as it was on electrical power when it went down. 

When I can get all that done the light at the end of the tunnel will be laying the deck planking, finishing the superstructure and building all the fittings. Almost all fittings will be scratch due to its unusual scale.  Detailing is what I love most  O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Ian K on September 15, 2014, 11:17:29 pm
Hi,
As Bob K requested I post pictures of my HMS Polyphemus, bow torpedo tube and retractable rudder system, here are some shots.


Descriptions, explanations replied to if needed.




Regards


Ian




Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 16, 2014, 08:28:21 am
That is so impressive Ian, not only in getting the bow rudders to work in such a tight space (like mine) but in getting them to retract too  :-))  Also loved the working bow torpedo tube cap when I saw it at Deans Open Day.  With your bow section free flooding I take it that this is all removable for periodic cleaning and maintenance. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on September 16, 2014, 09:25:47 am
Bob, I keep dropping in to check progress, and see how the various problems are being solved. Did you expect to still be at this stage two years after starting? Any completion date in view yet?
Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 16, 2014, 10:41:26 am
From starting the R&D it has indeed been two years, but it had been put on the back burner for almost a year.  After catastrophic bulkhead failure/s I have been in no hurry just to patch up and re-launch.  I needed to assess the issues and trial solutions.  After the tanks reinforced and compound sealed she has spent a lot of time in the bath, testing.  No hurry, no deadlines.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Ian K on September 16, 2014, 11:34:11 am
Hi Bob,


To answer your question on maintenance, yes everything is either held in place with brass hex head bolts, stainless shafts and grub screws and nylon material or brass gearing/toothed racks.


The strip down takes about 3 mins, putting it all back together..........a good bit longer, due to setting all the alignments and gear meshes.


The only part that is sort of semi fixed, is the micro steering servo for the bow rudders, this was stripped, water proofed and fitted inside a water tight box, with 2x 'o' rings on the square drive shaft. the complete servo module was then bedded down on clear sikaflex 291 i cure.


Sorry for the dusty look of some of the parts, should have given it all a blow off with the air line first!


Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on September 16, 2014, 08:14:12 pm
That is impressive to see the ram. I did expect you to then show a brass torpedo along side suggesting some sort of launch system.

Polyphemus has to be the most fantastic looking vessel, even more so than the Novgorods.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Ian K on September 16, 2014, 09:13:26 pm
Hi Ian,


Sadly due to space restrictions inside the bow area, there is no way to make a launching system.....believe me I tried to figure it out.
Everything fits into an area 20mm wide, by 50mm long for the bow torpedo cap system.
The cap swivel gearing, blanks off any available space, as does the bow rudder mechanism. Which occupies an area of 85mm in length and a maximum usable width of 55mm.


The four beam firing submerged torpedo tubes, could have been made to work, quite easily, but I wanted to keep the scale look constant through out the model. I chose to use one on each side as the pumped ballast intake and outlets.


The Whitehead torpedo's at this scale are only 5.75mm in diameter, and 58mm long so couldn't really be reliably self propelled.....at least not at this moment in time.


I really do not want to hijack Bob's build thread, Only he asked me to post images, after our chat on Saturday.




Regards


Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on September 16, 2014, 09:38:28 pm
Hi Ian.

No, that is fair enough, thread-jacking is easily done.

It interests me how this vessel as a model seems to attract innovation and experiment above the usual ship model, but then its semi submersibility and the other unique elements make this almost a requirement.

I originally thought it a shame that the hull was not 1:96th, but then seeing Bob and your work, I realised that it is hard enough fitting the gubbins in it as it is, without miniaturising the space further. Hull weight would increase proportionally thus effecting boyancy etc so increasing the challenge of fitting out.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on September 16, 2014, 10:22:20 pm
1/60 scale is enough (just) to get all the equipment fitted for a semi submersible and other working features, plus smoke and sound system.  Not saying that at 1/96 it couldn't be done but you'd be into the realm of watchmaking.  Nice to see two of us are working to replicate the functionality of the original.  Of course building it as merely a surface runner would be easy, but that belittles the fascination of this unique warship.  Its very nature invites you to push your limits.

Progress
I have almost finished the redesigned control panel.  Reworking the large amount of wiring is not made easy by my having opted for six separate watertight compartments, besides the two ballast tanks. Looms are sealed in where they pass though the bulkheads.  The intent was that even if two compartments flooded there would still be sufficient buoyancy to bring her in.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on September 17, 2014, 09:53:27 pm
Excellent. I do hope you or Ian get Poly on film as it would be a unique sight especially the submerging/rising effect.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 14, 2014, 11:32:26 am
Gradual progress is being made on the control panel refurbishment (follows on from my Reply #394).  All very tight for space with wiring behind.  IP67 switches mounted in ABS frame, which includes a neoprene stuffing box and cover to limit water collecting above the switches.  New charging sockets fitted, the rear terminals of which are sealed with epoxy.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/controlpanel2a_zps04f267b9.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/controlpanel2a_zps04f267b9.jpg.html)

As stated before, the water damage was from the inside, but I am being ultra careful now.
Now I am building in a support frame made of brass angle underneath.  This will have neoprene gasketing, not relying on RTV sealant around the edges.  The soft rubber sealing plugs are for the charging socket recesses.

The re-wire behind will be challenging.  Once this is done I can get on with the internal wiring rework and air tube plumbing.  New air pump and much better air release valve.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on October 14, 2014, 08:39:14 pm
You must feel like you have built three polyphenus' by now Bob! If my electrics in future projects are a tenth of the complexity and work, I will be quite smug:O)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 22, 2014, 04:25:04 pm
HMS Polyphemus

The control panel is a lot simpler than it appears. One circuit each for the two battery voltage sets, each with a changeover / charging power switch, charging sockets and some LED’s for function indication.  Avoids having to open it all up to charge or turn on/off.

Armament

Now this is more exciting.  Contacting Shapeways.com about producing the guns for this ship I was pleasantly surprised at their rapid response.  Despite being an unusual variant at an odd scale I received a PM within hours saying it was now available to order on their catalogue.  Less than two weeks later I had a set of six immaculate 3D printed 4 barrel Nordenfelt machine guns on my workbench.  The barrels are hex, and even training gear threads are there.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Nordenfelt-3d-1_zps222faed5.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Nordenfelt-3d-1_zps222faed5.jpg.html)    Gun is 24 mm long

Speed of response, quality and low cost all Five Star IMO.  Only problem is, do I make the turrets out of clear acrylic for a sectioned view inside, otherwise all you are going to see are the ends of the barrels poking out through a slot.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on October 22, 2014, 10:06:09 pm
Do as you suggested but have a couple of part clear/part painted turrets (Make the turrets out of clear acrylic tube possibly available from J.Perkins or EMA at Sepperton, then you only have to paint one side and mask the rest off). This effect should not be noticable out on the water but will be when on display at shows etc where you could have larger print outs of your CAD design displayed to help explain the armament.

Sorry if you explained this before Bob, but did you draw the program for the guns? If so you could sell them to other Polyphemus builders to recoup your costs? They do look gorgeous, I can see them selling in different scales for other warships.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 23, 2014, 07:51:33 am
Sorry if you explained this before Bob, but did you draw the program for the guns? If so you could sell them to other Polyphemus builders to recoup your costs? They do look gorgeous, I can see them selling in different scales for other warships.

Good idea re turret painting. I only need to make up the cylindrical support bases

All design credits to Mayhem member Marmoi (Mark) at Shapeways.com
See https://www.shapeways.com/model/2767369/polyphemus-nordenfelt-4-barreled-x-6-1-64.html?li=aeTabs (https://www.shapeways.com/model/2767369/polyphemus-nordenfelt-4-barreled-x-6-1-64.html?li=aeTabs)

Bob K
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on October 23, 2014, 08:36:03 pm
EMA is a mecca for model makig materials. I hope you find a tube of the right diameter!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 25, 2014, 03:08:08 pm
Nordenfelt Machine Guns

Gently cleaned the 3D printed parts, rinsed and left to dry.  Cutting from the printing sprues was a delicate operation, but very little trimming required. 
The two supplied 3D parts, the gun and the traverse mounting, were exactly as original but incredibly fragile at this scale.  Sorry, I cheated, and fitted a square ABS shim between the two to give the gun assembly some handleable support. The most fun was in making the magazine handles from very thin brass wire.

I had to fabricate the deck mounting columns, measuring deck to barrel height from the plans and found some good close up photos of the mounting. I used ABS tubes and a Litho ring as base plate to accommodate the deck bolts.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/scale-noredenfelt-x6_zpsbd10c4ca.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/scale-noredenfelt-x6_zpsbd10c4ca.jpg.html)

Very pleased with the result, although they will be inside turrets which should at least help protect them from damage.
I will leave two turret doors open so the guns can be seen.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on October 25, 2014, 08:36:41 pm
Now where did your crewmen come from? They look like figures from a wargames company.  28mm figures are quite suitable for the scale you are building in!

The guns look awesome; I am impressed.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on October 25, 2014, 09:24:33 pm
Thanks ballastanksian.  The figures at this unusual scale were indeed from a wargaming firm, in Canada.  They took a lot of online searching for.  I am gradually building up items for this ship so when the wiring rework is complete hopefully things may progress more rapidly.

PS:  Video of how the guns work:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu8GgzDiS90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu8GgzDiS90)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on October 25, 2014, 09:59:08 pm
Well pace yourself Bob one step at a time and get ot all working fine for the lake.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: nic1002 on November 10, 2014, 03:57:18 pm
Bob,  I'm a wargamer and have been following this post with a great deal of interest although the Polyphemus I've made is at 1:1200 scale.

I saw the figures you have sourced and was wondering whether you have seen the UK firm, Ironclad Miniatures, range which includes a Nordenfeldt and two crew.  Here's the link:

http://ironcladminiatures.com/en/british-victorian-sci-fi-figures/72-nordenfelt-machine-gun-british-naval-crew.html (http://ironcladminiatures.com/en/british-victorian-sci-fi-figures/72-nordenfelt-machine-gun-british-naval-crew.html)

I have asked the guys at Ironclad if they will produce a helmsman and deck officer with a megaphone and they tell me that these should be out by Christmas.

Good luck with the model, it's a fantastic piece of work!

Cheers

Nick
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 10, 2014, 07:33:30 pm
Thank you Nick:  28 mm Victorian sailors are indeed rare.

Wiring Rebuild

Rebuild inside the hull is progressing slowly, incorporating some design improvements.   
Replaced motors as old ones were water damaged.  Internal hull clean up, matt white paint, plus cleaned and re-greased all shafts.

Main 6V SLA has to stay as Kondor motors are 6 to 9.6V, plus 12V SLA’s of similar Ah tend to be very much larger. 
3 hour minimum run time retained.

Rethink for Mister.  I am now using the smaller MMB 24V Mister so I can have 2 x 10 pack NiMh packs in the same compartment as the Mister. 
A weight saving of 250gm less water almost compensates for the extra 10 AA cells added.
Removing one of the old 12V packs, plus the bulky step up converter, leaves one dedicated 12V NiMh pack up for’ard to run the new air pump and better spec air valve.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Mister-comp_zpsf2e39324.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Mister-comp_zpsf2e39324.jpg.html)

It did mean some rework on the completed control panel as now three voltages involved, although same number of battery packs.  Additional 24V charging socket fitted. The starboard c/o switch now uses one pole each for the 12V and 24V. (Port c/o switch is for the 6V).

Improved layout for the for’ard compartment [below] after losing one of its battery packs.  Some sculptured Neoprene to nestle the larger items in place.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Pump-comp_zps2b432bfa.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Pump-comp_zps2b432bfa.jpg.html)

I wish I had done it like this the first time, but you live and learn. 

Foggy

The smaller MMB Mister runs for about 40 mins instead of 80, but still draws a little over half an Amp so it just means bringing it alongside to syringe a measured amount of water down the funnel to rekindle the ‘puff’.  It has an internal cut out for low water level.

Plumbing

I had filled the four brass vent tubes with Blu-Tack before lining the ballast tanks, so they were easy to clear with a 4mm drill bit. 
Re-plumbing the pneumatics was fun, space being limited as you can see.  New tubing and fittings of course. 

I just have the air valve and Hunter bilge controller to install, then into the bath for ballasting adjustments.

Bob K
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on November 10, 2014, 09:23:12 pm
I wish you well after all remedial the work you have doneBob. Crikey, three voltages! I will be chuffed if my first projects work first time on just one.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 10, 2014, 10:17:14 pm
Most of us run at least two voltages, main power for motors, plus 4.8V for receiver and servos etc.  The later usually supplied from the ESC or a BEC circuit board.

Where I have bitten off a mouthful is wanting a smoking funnel (on a submersible), engine sound, plus diving controls.  Foggy units are great, but require 24V to work. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on November 11, 2014, 10:30:34 am

You could try a voltage  'doubler'  circuit board Bob.  I have one but never got around to connecting it to the 12 volt supply, so cannot verify if it has the amps to do the job.

Cheers

ken
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 11, 2014, 03:40:06 pm
I did have a 12V DC to 24V DC converter fitted before, but it was almost as bulky as a small battery pack and almost certainly put out a lot of EMC through its coils.  Straight 24V in is simpler.

No extra batteries involved as I took out one of the two 12V 2800 mAh packs for the pump/valve ballast tank system.  2800 should be more than enough for occasional use.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on November 11, 2014, 04:02:43 pm
Just out of interest have you considered a 6 cell lipo for the Foggy? should give plenty of runtime and in a smaller, lighter package
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 11, 2014, 04:59:54 pm
If you mean a 22.2V  35C, at similar (3000) mAh they are still quite large, and no means of (safe) external charging via a w/proof two pin connector.  Once the hatches are sealed with all the screws torqued I am not stripping everything down and re-testing just to access/charge batteries.  That is why the control panel is a bit 'busy', to avoid keep pulling apart the electrics.  All my boats have internal control panels and have had excellent electrical reliability.

Each watertight compartment hatch has up to 16 screws.  In each all but one go into blind nutserts, with one thru-nutsert so just one screw out ensures ventilation whilst charging. In practice they never even get warm as I charge at a low rate.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on November 11, 2014, 07:09:22 pm
Fair enough...... was just a thought
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on November 11, 2014, 07:31:29 pm
Thoughts always appreciated . . .  O0

Sorry this is dragging on folks, but I am trying to resist the temptation to rush the last bits of wiring plumbing and testing. Fingers crossed for commissioning then ballast trimming.

I might even get to start the deck planking after that  {-)

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), hull rework almost done
Post by: Bob K on November 26, 2014, 01:53:00 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881)

Plumbing

I have replaced almost all of the flexible pipework with copper, including silver-brazed tee’s. This will hopefully make them more secure as they need to be kept airtight, especially around the tank-tops.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-pipes_zps5ce64592.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-pipes_zps5ce64592.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-circuit_zpsfff9417c.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-circuit_zpsfff9417c.jpg.html)  Air System Circuit

Bilge Control

With six separate compartments it is not practical to install a bilge pump and controller in every one.  Having checked with Hunter Systems I have fitted individual sensors in each compartment, wired in parallel to a single Hunter Controller.  The output is wired to a mini 12V Piezo pulsed alarm of 105 dB. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/bilgecircuit_zps76154921.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/bilgecircuit_zps76154921.jpg.html)

At the first hint of ingress I will hear about it and can rush for the shore.
Being ultra-careful with my resurrected ex-Polly’ as “Norwegian Blues stun easily”.

Systems Commissioning

Double checking all the wiring, yet again, then testing the various control systems individually.
Tx on, power & Rx on. Servos for the 3 rudders OK, props working, air valve and pump operation optimal. 
Popping one of the six bilge sensors into a cup of water was instantly deafening.
Yes, we have ‘smoke’, with throttle-variable fan speed and engine sound.

Too complicated?  Certainly !   

Re-cleat wiring looms then fill the dry dock (bath) for re-ballasting and another long leak soak.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on November 26, 2014, 09:54:24 pm
Hi Bob........just a thought...... %)

1. the water pump has nylon type suction & discharge male stud tubes.....these also have a cast in barb on the OD
2. it would be advantageous to install miniature cable ties or DUBRO fuel line wire clamps for added security
3. you can also soft solder a ring of copper wire around your copper tubing to act as a barb for the same attachment with clips or cable ties etc

Not sure how the water side of your bilge system is designed  :embarrassed: ...with six suctions in six individual compartments....if a sensor detected water in one flooded compartment ...it activates the pump?...OK...I see the electrical control of this  >:-o

But do you have six solenoid valves to ensure that the other five compartment suctions are not drawing air & hence negating suction in the flooded compartment?

In many real marine builds....each hold has a bilge, however in a model application could you not have each of the six compartments connected to a common bilge? & then only one sensor or two for added security/redundancy in this one common bilge suction?.......

or have I totally misunderstood this and the sensors are for an alarm only?....& not for control of a pumping function?  :o

Do the sensors work with fresh clean water or do they rely on metals/crud or contaminates in the water to make contact?

Too complicated or too simple?.......keep us posted

Derek  :-))

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), plumbing
Post by: Bob K on November 27, 2014, 08:57:50 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881)

Many thanks for your detailed input Derek.  Both the pump and valve have barbed nozzles, so I will take your advice and source some fuel line clips which should help greatly. 

Most subs appear to be plumbed in flexible tube.  The silicone tube is an extremely tight fit on my 5 mm O/D copper.  My key thought was to have a rigid pipe between the opposing tank top stubs, again a close fit, sliding flexible tube sleeves over the end-butted joints so it could not easily be pulled out.
I will look into having clamps over these joints.  Thanks.

The bilge controller’s twin-prong sensor utilises the significant difference in electrical resistance through water versus air.  When water bridges the prongs a threshold is tripped which switches on the output circuit.  If any one of the sensors gets wet it will trip.

In my case I am using this to set off a single alarm, rather than multiple pumps. 
The original idea of 6 compartments was that if 1 or even 2 flooded it should still float.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on November 27, 2014, 10:49:52 pm
Almost there Bob! And then on to finishing the superstructure IIRC.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), bath time
Post by: Bob K on November 28, 2014, 11:13:06 am
Indeed ballastanksian !   I almost can't wait, however she is currently doing an all-day bath test.  Four hours static, then power up and test the trim control levels.  So far so good.  Only needed 200 gm ballast adjustment, to port rear, to get her exactly level.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), smoking in the bath
Post by: Bob K on November 28, 2014, 01:47:53 pm
I am excited !  Five hours in the bath and not a hint of water ingress.  Ballasting controls have her going up and down by just over half an inch, and keeping an even keel whilst doing so.  Excess air bubbles evenly from both groups of tank-bottom vents nicely when fully blown. 

At this point I am so pleased that I was pig-headed enough to persevere with the internal restoration and problem solving.
 
However, if the Lady of the House finds out that I have been funnel-smoking in the bath I could be in deep water.   <*<

Time to start fitting the six compartment covers, sealing the control panel, and recommencing work on the decks and superstructure.

Thank you everyone for your patience  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on November 28, 2014, 05:54:42 pm
Excellent news Bob. I look forward (as I expect you do) of the coming day when we can see 'Polly' on the water, perhaps via Youtube?

Onwards with the plethora of Nordenfelts and struts.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), smoking in the bath
Post by: dreadnought72 on November 28, 2014, 07:56:32 pm
I am excited !  Five hours in the bath and not a hint of water ingress.

I hope that's the boat and not you, Bob?!  %)

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), in cling film
Post by: Bob K on December 05, 2014, 10:14:10 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881)

Experimental hatch seal tried, as an alternative to smearing the neoprene gaskets with silicone grease before fitting the screwed-down clear Lexan hatches.  That had proved rather messy to clean up whenever access was needed.

After tests with household film I bought a roll of industrial triple-thickness cling film, more wrinkle resistant and better application.  It sticks almost by itself to both gasket and hatch, and when “sandwiched” between should provide an additional sealing membrane.  Easily replaceable without mess when required.

A standard watering can test should prove the “pudding”. 
Technically the hatches do not need to be dive proof, but give similar wave protection to the hatch covers on model yachts and tugs.

Control Panel

The rebuilt control panel was carefully seated in place on its mounting flanges using a little silicone sealant and screwed down.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/hatches-on-2_zps4a7d9fdc.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/hatches-on-2_zps4a7d9fdc.jpg.html)

Next stop will be Peterborough for an extended sailing trial at the Deans Marine shallow test pond.



Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on December 05, 2014, 10:28:39 pm
Great news Bob! I wish you god speed on the pond.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Sea Trials
Post by: Bob K on December 13, 2014, 05:26:09 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881) Sea Trials

After almost a year of research testing and restoration HMS Polyphemus took to the water again today, at Deans Marine test pond near Peterborough, amid patches of icebergs.  Not a good omen?
However, unlike the very deep home waters of Black Park Lake this pond pings only around eighteen inches on the echo sounder. 
An important safety factor if you have been following the history.

Five hours of bath testing appeared to auger well so a full sea trial was called for before committing her to scale depth oceans.

A little cycling of the depth controls was needed to balance the ballast tanks, but after that an even keel was achieved.  I might reduce the recently added side ballast a bit.

Three and a half hours on the water, without the Piezo bilges alarm going off, has massively boosted confidence in the integrity of the hull sealing modifications.  She goes up and down by a range of nearly 20 mm.  Even in deep trim she sails nicely, but with a wide turning circle. The inside prop almost stops with almost any rudder movement.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-8_zps2d20459c.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-8_zps2d20459c.jpg.html)

I am still not happy with the 40 Mhz system, not as responsive as 2.4 Ghz, and with intermittent ‘fluttering’ of rudder and motors with controls centred at rest.  I may convert to 2.4. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-3_zps7e70a528.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-3_zps7e70a528.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-2_zps1d431609.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-2_zps1d431609.jpg.html)

All in all a very successful day.  The long overdue recommencement of deck planking and detailing can start.  Now I am into the fun part of the build.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on December 14, 2014, 12:47:27 am
You set about this with the determination of a Yorkshire Terrier and it looks like you have finally cracked it.
I hope you are celebrating your success with a very large glass of something expensive :)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on December 14, 2014, 05:17:10 pm
Amen to that Mr Essex! She looks a sweetie already. I hope the conversion to 2.4 is not onerous.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 14, 2014, 08:53:33 pm
Thank you guys, appreciated. 
The 40 Mhz system was occasionally "fluttering" the rudders and motors with sticks centred, so I am a bit concerned never having had that on 2.4 Ghz. 
Anyone experienced that?  Possible causes?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on December 15, 2014, 12:05:39 am
I've had Servo chatter on cheap servos in the past.
What radio are you using? it might be possible to increase the deadband which should eliminate the twitching on the servos and esc.
Some ESCs have deadband adjustment as well
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), servo 'chatter'
Post by: Bob K on December 15, 2014, 08:47:31 am
The Transmitter is a Robbe/Futaba F14, using the big Rx that came with it.  Bow servo is the Futaba S148 supplied with the Tx,  Rear servo is a chunky ACOMS AS-17.  However, I do have the throttle channel also tied in to a small Action mister fan speed controller, plus a small Action sound unit.  P96 twin ESC / mixer.
The rudder channel operates both bow and stern rudder servos through a 'Y' lead. 

Yonks ago, on her first outing at a Beale Park Show, despite being assigned my frequency by the organisers, she immediately shot off uncontrolled and it took time to get her back. I can only assume that someone within rage was already on my channel number.  Hence my nervousness of 40 meg.

A lot more testing required, but if all else fails I will swap to 2.4
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on December 16, 2014, 09:43:41 am
Check the transmitter antenna connections in the handset. These are notoriously 'Heath Robinson', consisting of a solder tag connection from the electronics, to an M3 NBW through the top of the set. Check all your connections there are good and clean.
Nice to see it on the water :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), servos 'chattering'
Post by: Bob K on December 16, 2014, 10:55:37 am
Thank you for that advice. I have not used that Tx for a long time.
Almost all of the ships wiring has been replaced during the refit.

For a ship of 2,400 tons she only had 500 tons of buoyancy so most of the hull is below the waterline, hence why 40 Mhz chosen.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on December 16, 2014, 01:21:50 pm
Forgive me for asking again if you have already explained the aerial mounting, but is it all within the pressure hull or is the length required for the wave length of the signal exposed as if the latter, the amount of freeboard should not matter unless the reciever benefits from being bathed in signal as well as the aerial. As it is short, the 2.4gig aerial may be more of a problem. Looking at images of the mast I am sure you could hide ther aerial in it.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on December 16, 2014, 04:15:25 pm
The 40 Mhz aerial wire from the receiver runs almost the length of the hull, close under the decks.  Using 40 Mhz the aerial will still receive signal if well under the waterline, which is why submarines use this frequency.

If I were to use 2.4 Ghz the very short aerial (~20 mm) would have to be close under the f'o'c'sle deck, about an inch above the waterline.  Not so good for reception, especially as the ship gets further away as 2.4 cannot go through water.  Even a good bow wave could 'obscure' the signal. 

In both cases aerials are fixed length built in from the Rx. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Ian K on December 16, 2014, 06:41:01 pm
Hi Bob,

Just a thought, regarding the 'jittering' effect you have got, have you fitted suppressors to you motor terminals? There is a lot of cable within your hull, and you may be getting electrical noise from it all.

Try to keep the main power supply and speed controller cables away from all the Rx radio side, this may help.


Regards

Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), servo 'chattering'
Post by: Bob K on December 16, 2014, 09:29:54 pm
Hi Ian.   Interesting.  You may be onto something, in a round-about way.

It all seems to run OK here on the bench, it was just something I noticed occasionally on Saturday in the water.

Yes I do have suppressors on the motors, terminal to terminal, but not terminals to case.
ESC/Mixer is fairly close to motors, about 70 mm, so short ESC to motor cables on ship C/L, DC power cables routed down port side, servo leads etc down the starboard.  So far, so good.

However, due to the need to charge and switch on without stripping out the hatches, there is a lot of DC that runs from the three sets of batteries to the control panel then back to the stuff it powers.  In some case quite a long loop of power-bearing heavy gauge cable. eg: the 6V for the motors doubles to almost 900 mm.  Maybe relays might have been better, but more devices/connections to possibly 'fail'.

PS:  I have since adjusted the pot in the P94 to increase rudder movement before stopping inside prop. With big slower props close together I think this should help her turn better.

Bob K
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Stavros on December 16, 2014, 10:01:55 pm
Bob try changing the Acoms servo for a futaba one.....I have had trouble in the past with Acoms servos
 
 
Dave
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on December 16, 2014, 11:27:36 pm
Bob try changing the Acoms servo for a futaba one.....I have had trouble in the past with Acoms servos
 
 
Dave


What Dave said


Also if you go down the 2.4Ghz route, have you considered an RX with satellite options like this one.
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__1123__1117__Radios_Receivers-OrangeRx_Satellite_Receivers.html


Of course you would need to have a spektrum compatible TX
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Decking
Post by: Bob K on January 31, 2015, 04:59:44 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881) Deck Planking

After the very successful sea trials at Deans just before Christmas, proving the hull waterproof integrity and updated ‘diving’ controls, planning to complete the superstructure and detailing could commence.

First up is the deck planking, which has an inordinate complexity of S curves and intricate twiddly bits to fabricate.  (See decks below).

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-2_zps1d431609.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deans-xmas-2_zps1d431609.jpg.html)   Dec 18 at Deans Marine.

It increasingly became clear that I would need a suitable power tool to do much of it, and am greatly indebted to Tony H for the use of his Vibrosaw.  Much of the fine detail required a spiral blade, although an edged flat blade could be used on the wider curves. Once the edging around the decks and curved superstructure parts could be completed the actual planking would be mainly straight scalpel work.  Major caulking in thread, the rest felt tip on plank edges.

From photos the actual plank widths look highly variable, but the optimum plank width should be 3.6 mm, I went for 3 mm as 4 looked oversized.  Using a plank length of 125 mm with a 1/3 step pattern.  Some chunky lumps of timber on the f’o’c’sle (from the plans) took some doing, but after that the edging and planking was fairly straightforward.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/fore-deck-1_zpskh37dv8j.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/fore-deck-1_zpskh37dv8j.jpg.html)

After the first few hours I could not help thinking how much easier planking a springer tug would have been, but without the challenge involved.  Sanding down then a couple of coats of strong tea to give a realistic even patina.  The solid sections at the bow will be for the anchor chain entries. A couple of coats of matt Polyurathane exterior varnish to finish after detailing added.

The long main deck will be next, with several armoured citadel bases to edge around, then the various flying deck sections are likely to be the most challenging. This is where the Vibrosaw will be invaluable.


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on January 31, 2015, 09:12:00 pm
I am so pleased to hear that your hours of rebuilding and effort in general paid off, as I do not think I could stand a third attempt to get her water tight despite the old adage.

The planking will only reinforce the success of the work so far and I wish you a sharp blade and plenty of strong tea!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Deck Planking 2
Post by: Bob K on February 04, 2015, 04:47:52 pm
Thanks for your kind comment  :}


HMS Polyphemus (1881) Deck Planking 2

I am gradually getting the hang of the Vibrosaw.  The main deck has numerous circular or curved armoured island bases which all require 3 mm wide edging planks. Key tips learned are to start the cut away from the intended cut line start, and If you break a blade (expert!) don’t try to restart the cut where it ended (twang again!).  With all four bases edged I then started the straight planking from the stern, fitting and nibbing into 4 mm margin planks as I went.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/main-deck-1_zps9hzcyjaq.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/main-deck-1_zps9hzcyjaq.jpg.html)

I have scribed guide check lines parallel to the ships centre line to reduce any cumulative drift.  For the plank end joins I am laying long lengths, and when set ‘creased’ at intervals with a blade then lined with a fine black marker.  Keeps the runs looking straight.  I found that 1/48 compared with 1/96 gets tricky as at this scale as errors are more glaring. I could get away with a lot more at 1/96.  It will look better after sanding.
It'll take a few more days to complete this deck, having to come up for air every few planks.

PS:  The 30 mm clear tube for the ‘sectioned’ turrets has arrived, which I will need to make up before planking the flying decks. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 04, 2015, 09:45:39 pm
Very neat work. I remember the clear turrets now!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Deck Planking 2
Post by: Bob K on February 04, 2015, 10:32:14 pm
Having just circumnavigated the first circular citadel base, I was highly relieved that the planking lined up with the start position.  This is only my second planking effort, the first was a much easier narrow 1/96 WWI destroyer.

The turrets will be painted, but some with a 'sectioned' clear area so you can see the Nordenfeldt guns inside.
I will use the turret base flanges as a guide to position the wood deck edging around them.  Not sure whether to ABS heat-mould the semi-domed tops, or shape them out of balsa.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 04, 2015, 10:38:50 pm
I beleive that EMA do a small range of full and semi domed ends for their range of tubes, as again they do cater for model makers who are building miniature oil rigs etc often toting several tanks and pressure vessels. It might be worth looking down this avenue?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Deck Planking 3
Post by: Bob K on February 06, 2015, 05:19:49 pm
If you mean Plastruct (HMA), I use a load of their ABS sections, but the various domes etc although in their catalogue I have never seen stocked in the UK.


HMS Polyphemus (1881) Deck Planking 3

Going round the citadel islands is getting easier, as long as I keep the planks aligned to the parallel centreline guides. I dare not think of how many planks, it seems endless, but I will not rush as the ABS deck base gradually disappears under wood.

Finally completed the main deck. Leaving 24 hours before sanding then staining with tea, as the felt marker caulking needs time to dry properly.  Decks are secured with hidden magnets.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/main-deck-2_zps6ktqdoag.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/main-deck-2_zps6ktqdoag.jpg.html)

The three flying deck sections will be more challenging to plank, but I have the turrets and stanchion holes to do first. 

One area I am greatly looking forward to is the two huge 'float off' lifeboats and their complex girder-work launching frames.  They will be located in the two gaps in the flying decks in photo above.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 06, 2015, 07:27:07 pm
She is coming along strong. I can really see her final shape in those decks and details.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on February 19, 2015, 08:43:12 am
Bob


Just wondered what adhesive you are using to glue down your deck planking? It might be in your text but I can't find it.


Enjoying the build.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 19, 2015, 10:46:56 am
Thank you Picketboat. 

I am using Canopy Glue ("Formula 560' by Pacer) to glue the planks to the ABS / Styrene lift-off decks.  Clear fast drying intended for model aircraft canopies "and plastic parts to almost anything".  Worked well on my HMS Amazon planking too. 

Next update shortly.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Deck Planking Completed
Post by: Bob K on February 19, 2015, 11:22:26 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881) Deck Planking Completed

Almost a couple weeks since my last update, but this stage is quite time consuming.

The flying decks involved by far the most intricate curved and circular planking challenges on this ship.  I am getting good at replacing broken vibrosaw blades.  But, I first needed to make up the basic clear acrylic turret tubes plus various other deck island structures before I could start.  ie anything to be planked around.  I had started shaping the big float-off life rafts in balsa.  However, Marmoi has now created 3D printed life rafts for me on Shapeways.com, now on order

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/flying-decks-edging_zpskpeefxm5.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/flying-decks-edging_zpskpeefxm5.jpg.html)    edging done

Around 24 sections of flying deck edging required vibrosaw fretwork due to curves.
It worked out easier to cut each island edging in one piece to get them consistent, then cut into constituent segments whilst fitting. 
I am learning as I go.

From here I could start the straight planking, nibbing in as I went.  Much quicker progress.   
Sand down, stain with tea.  Satin exterior varnish.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deck-planking-1_zpsl7psebks.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deck-planking-1_zpsl7psebks.jpg.html)    nibbing detail.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/deck-planking-2_zpsimwu5tjm.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/deck-planking-2_zpsimwu5tjm.jpg.html)    planking completed.

All directions of what to do next are inviting.  Upper deck superstructures, life raft handling frameworks, deck furniture . . . Yum yum !    Beginning to look like a lake-going model boat.

( PS:  The blue character is the crew member for my other current build project. )

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 19, 2015, 07:23:42 pm
Excellent news Bob. I am impressed with the nibbling especially the rings. I would start the superstructures to give you that slingsot of enthusiasm to do lifeboat fittings before finishing off.

Are your blue colleagues to con an extraterrestrial flying Novgorod?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 19, 2015, 07:39:46 pm
In fact I have started the figure 8 shaped forward armoured citadel.  As most of the 1/60 fittings will have to be scratch built I am trialling suitable materials. Various types of wood from balsa to oak, lithoplate detail, etc.
I have converted 16 Deans diecast round hatches to coal shute covers.

The blue feller is Iggle Piggle for my CBBC television "In The Night Garden" boat, but I did like your idea  {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 19, 2015, 08:06:31 pm
Re domes, I ordered some Plastruct rod from EMA the other week and while on site, I looked for their selection of plastic domes. They do a hemisphere as well as a flattened dome. The latter might do for your turret roofs? http://www.ema-models.co.uk/ I recall you saying they were ABS and do them in clear, clear coloured and grey.

I had a quick look and assume the boat you are building is the dinghy in the opening credits? Interesting. is this for a child or (excuseing my potential cheek:O) a grandchild??

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 20, 2015, 09:26:25 am
Ideally I'd need dished domes, but sizes only start at 1 3/4" (44.5).  Elliptical domes need a lot of modification.  Tons to do though, skylights, hatches, doors, various ships boats, chart house, anchor cranes etc.

The other boat is for myself, although my 3 year old grandson watches the programme here.  At our lake a steady stream of families with very young children pass by, interested in our model boats.  Amazing the ingenuity of so many parents who have converted model boat transporters into child carriers  %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 20, 2015, 09:47:09 pm
Get the kids to walk and put a decent boat on the carrier!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Skylights
Post by: Bob K on February 21, 2015, 12:04:34 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881) Skylights

Yesterday I made up some deck-ware fittings, built from hardwood, ABS and brass wire for glazing trim.
Four sliding skylight housings.  I also fitted the 16 coal chute hatches, modified hatches.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/skylights_zpsitfeknsx.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/skylights_zpsitfeknsx.jpg.html)

Foredeck furniture next I think, although the four cranes could prove interesting with loads of overhead handling chains.  Domes from EMA arrived. I will have to trim most down by about 3mm as they are elliptical rather than dished in smaller sizes. Chart house will be a nice exercise in thin ply.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 21, 2015, 11:15:45 pm
At least they give you a standard basis to start from. making one dish from scratch would be bad enough, but making all the same would be a challenge. I would have gone down the make one and cast them route if needed:O)

There are lots of models nearing completion what with Joe's Coventry and a couple of MTBs, so we will have a visual harvest very soon.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), More detailing
Post by: Bob K on February 22, 2015, 02:10:16 pm
I had considered resin casting, but with most parts in quantities of 1 to 4 by the time I had set up to fabricate one it was almost as quick to build 2 or 4.  There are 5 sizes of domes, most are one offs.

HMS Polyphemus (1881) More detailing

I am gradually getting into a methodology with this detailing, as otherwise scratch building so many likkle bits would take forever if each were done one at a time.  Make up a list, as if you had a nice ‘kit tray’ full of all the resin and die cast parts laid out and numbered.  Work down the sequence in batches, planning ahead.   
1st Stage:  ‘How on earth do I make that?’.  Think, research, design, source suitable materials. 
2nd Stage:  When you have the materials & method construct several different parts at the same time.
3rd Stage: Paint in batches, and when dry fit to ship.  Leave railings and rigging to last to minimise handling damage.

So, I am researching batches of parts, and where necessary ordering materials. Whilst they are on order I have another batch of things I can get on with on the go.  When that batch is completed I mount them onto boards for painting, finally fitting several sub-assemblies at a time.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/fore-deck-detail-1_zpsllnpaavu.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/fore-deck-detail-1_zpsllnpaavu.jpg.html)   Foredeck, so far

Anchors are from Deans HMS Inflexible. 
The four cranes next, tricky shapes, then loads of tackle and chains.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 22, 2015, 02:52:11 pm
Did you order the anchors separatly or have you HMS Invincible in progress, using the anchors with the intention to replace them in due course?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 22, 2015, 04:12:54 pm
When I was up at Deans Marine just before Christmas doing a three and a half hour test session in their shallow pond I took a set of fittings tracings from the plans and asked Ron if they could source some of them for me.  The anchors were part of what he found for me.  'Every Little Helps' as they say !
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), More detailing
Post by: Bob K on February 23, 2015, 09:23:32 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881) More detailing

Some days you can steam ahead, others feel like barely making headway. After making up and fitting the aft deck details yesterday it took much of today just to do four hand winches.  I only had to make longer drum core tubes, and create some winch handles.  The latter was easier said than done.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/winches_zps82na6iy8.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/winches_zps82na6iy8.jpg.html)   Lifeboat winches.

What really slowed things down was in trying to reshape the EMA domes. That ABS is almost as tough to work as aluminium.  I will press on for a couple of days, but may end up heat-forming the turret and superstructure roofs instead.  The domes are key to building these nine features.

I have found a solution to the big cranes, which need to be circular section, curved, and tapered.  Knitting needles. The smaller cranes will be fabricated from sheet plastic.  As usual, when temporarily stuck on one bit, get on with something else. 

The float-off life rafts are due to arrive from Shapeways on Wednesday, then I can start fabricating the boat handling structures.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 23, 2015, 09:29:59 pm
I am sorry to hear the material is being so unforgiving Bob. What a damned nuisance.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 23, 2015, 10:10:39 pm
Maybe if I had a linisher, or a grinding wheel, and space to mount one.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 24, 2015, 08:28:38 am
Even if you were to develop a fold away machine tool system, it would still take a few weeks to build, so taking away time to buils ships, and also you need space in the first place to put the contrivance in.

Short of knowing someone local who has the equipment you may be able to borrow, I suppose elbow grease or trying another material are the only options.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on February 24, 2015, 12:04:00 pm
Try making one of these, it might help. I can't make models without one.


Find a piece of thick ply, MDF or other such board approx 9 inches by 6 inches and at least 1/2 inch thick but nearer to 3/4 is better, Use a square and ruler to make sure it's square with crisp edges. Making it bigger is not an advantage if fact it makes it more difficult to use. Man made board is usually dead flat and heavier so this is best.


Buy or borrow a full sheet of 60 grade abrasive sheet (not sandpaper as it's rubbish and only lasts about a minute). Try Halfords or your local car re finishing/repair shop.


Use contact adhesive to stick this securely to one side of the piece of board, so it over hangs the edge slightly. When it's dry trim it off. It will blunt your scissors!


Find a piece of old rubber (an old hot water bottle would do) and punch out four discs about 1 inch diameter. Glue these to the other side of the board, one in each corner and drive a small tack through the centre to secure them really well. This will stop the thing wandering about when you use it. 


You can now level the bases of small fittings and remove material (quickly) from things like your ABS domes by rubbing them in circles on the sanding board, remembering to rotate them after a couple of rubs or you will very quickly remove more material from one side than another no matter how hard you try.


Make several boards the same with different grades of abrasive. The fine abrasive tends to clog a bit as it is intended for wet and dry use. I find the 60 grade excellent for all round use and usually the surface you are sanding on this thing is the base of the fitting and will be the bit you glue down.


Having the edges of the board dead square and with the abrasive right up to the edge is essential as you can sand small components using the board edge as a guide.


Sometimes the simplest tools are the most effective.     
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on February 24, 2015, 02:21:26 pm



Note.

Sorry a miss type. It should have read 80 grade abrasive paper not 60 which is a bit to course.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on February 24, 2015, 03:47:59 pm
Excellent idea Picketboat.  I have made up a small block with coarse grit paper.  Still a lot of hard thick material to remove in shaving elliptical domes down to dished domes.  Slow going, around 4mm material thickness top & around flange.

However, then  . . .

I could kick myself.  After hours trying to file down these ABS domes this week, and wishing I had a bench grinder, I was putting away some tools to make room for building more fittings.  I had forgotten about the little Rotacraft drill that I had only recently used to grind out hollows for the deck hawse pipe entries.  My little grey cells failed to deduce I do have a Grinder. 
First turret top reshaped in a matter of minutes.  Finished with files then the grit paper block.
Doh !

The grit paper block was also ideal for finishing the ends of the clear acrylic turret tubes.

Photos soon.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Turrets
Post by: Bob K on February 24, 2015, 09:57:06 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881) Turrets

Thanks to Picketboat’s suggestion, plus my ‘discovering’ my Rotacraft has grinding bits, the turrets and superstructure features are now going well.  The six clear Nordenfelt turrets were first, temporarily protected with printer label paper to avoid scratches. 
Slots cut for the barrels. The domes will be raised slightly as all round view for the gunners.  Doors plus other detail to be added.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/rear-turrets_zps1nqnhusn.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/rear-turrets_zps1nqnhusn.jpg.html)   Rear turrets.

I will complete the turrets but put them aside as I need to make up the many flying deck support pillars and drill holes for stanchions whilst I have access.

The circular superstructure features also have domed roofs, although more elliptical which meant grinding the top flat.  I may have to cut the centres out and re-model as they are still too rounded.  The forward conning position is figure eight shaped with an oval domed top.  Cut, stretch, fill and re-model. At least the dome will provide the lower curve under the bridge platform.  There are a lot of platforms and gear to go on top of the superstructures.  .


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on February 24, 2015, 10:09:08 pm
I am so pleased that you found a way to do the job through help from the forum and your tool collection! They look the business.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on February 25, 2015, 08:16:33 am
Bob


I'm glad my suggestion  was of some help.


I'm enjoying the build of this very interesting and much overlooked vessel. I look forward to seeing the finished "Thunder Child" on the water.


Good modelling
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Pillars & Frames
Post by: Bob K on March 02, 2015, 02:48:46 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Pillars & Frames

To me detailing is the most enjoyable, although sometimes frustrating, part of any build.  I am in awe of some of the scale ships I see, but happy if I can do my best whilst hopefully improving.

Pillars
28 flying deck support pillars made up with boss and plate each end.  I had intended to make the flying decks removable, but there is too much detail between upper and lower decks, and even across decks, which meant this was not practical.  So, the external Piezo bilge alarm had to be relocated from under the flying deck to inside, under the funnel.

With all flying decks glued in place the pillars could now be fitted.  This would also allow the float off raft structures and inter deck walkways to be fitted more solidly.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/pillars_zpsmxb3r5ut.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/pillars_zpsmxb3r5ut.jpg.html)    Support pillars

Life Raft handling frames
With the arrival of the two Shapeways life rafts I could start on the launching frameworks. 
These each have a boat supporting frame operated by helm-type wheels via gears to tilt the frame down towards either beam.  Alternatively the boats could be released in situ to float off if required.
The amount of Plastruct extrusions consumed has been considerable.
No, I am not going to make working versions !

First I made up the four vertical framework assemblies, slotting the main tubes for the horizontal jacking bars.  Next I constructed the two boat support frames, which slot into the bars.
Currently making up the hand-windlass assemblies between the deck sections, gear & shaft drives, not quite finished yet.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/boat-frame_zpszyt06k7z.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/boat-frame_zpszyt06k7z.jpg.html)    Life raft frames

As I would be using tarpaulins I did not require interior detail on the boats.  Cheaper to 3D model.
The other 4 boats are from Quaycraft.  More on the boats next time.

Planning well ahead, the potential vulnerabilities of much hull-overhanging detail will make lake side handling extremely delicate.  It may need a special launching frame / straps to protect detail, life boats, prop shafts and bow rudders.  All part of the challenge.  O0

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on March 02, 2015, 04:36:15 pm

Bob

May I suggest a light weight but strong well designed transportation box for the finished model as any damage will occur when you are getting it in or out of the house or car.
After all the build effort you may as well protect the finished model,
Looking good by the way. :-)) 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), transport case
Post by: Bob K on March 02, 2015, 07:54:34 pm
That's an idea. I normally use the stand with a bit of Velcro on the back seat.  Interesting. Would have to be a secure tray up to waterline level, shaped for keel to 'slot in and secure', with neoprene bumpers below that level. I would have to be able to get the lifting straps under.
Maybe then a lightweight box cover with strong latches.

PS:  shaft & gear driven life raft winch completed.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/wheel-winch_zpsc7lfxtz6.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/wheel-winch_zpsc7lfxtz6.jpg.html)

Chart House next I think.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on March 02, 2015, 08:11:27 pm
Hi Bob


I'm building a box to carry my Majestic class into for the same reason- too much to break off in transit- and the other beneficial feature is that you can use it as a stand on a table to raise up, my dad did this with his HMS X1 at Warwick.
I've just got to make sure its strong enough to support the weight of the empty hull but still has approx 11lbs of lead weight built in! :D
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on March 02, 2015, 08:51:52 pm
Bob


You might be able to have the model lift in and out of the box from the side (see picture). The side of my boxes locks back in place and foam blocks on both sides gently clamp the hull.
 Shaped blocks of foam locate bow and stern. If the box is well designed and glued and screwed it can be made of really quite lightweight materials. You don't want a box that needs three people to lift without the model in it!
Keep those pictures coming
  K. :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 02, 2015, 09:18:57 pm
Excellent work Bob and Picket boat! Is that a German destroyer? Lovely work indeed. The boat lisfting mechanism looks to have influenced the designers of car hoists! They are superb models in their own right.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 02, 2015, 09:56:08 pm
Lovely model of the V105 'Picketboat' !  Nice case too.  I was leaning towards a version of the case for the original Singer Sewing Machines, with lift off top, but looking online for ideas too. The Life Raft mechanism is as strange as the ship, unique I believe, so having been sent detail plans for it I could not resist building it complete.  Sometimes one gets carried away on stuff like this.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 02, 2015, 10:58:51 pm
It's your hobby Bob so you can do as much or as little as you like. But it is a vessel that needs some extra attention to detail.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Chart house
Post by: Bob K on March 05, 2015, 11:20:17 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Chart House

Fun exercise in 1 mm ply and 0.5 mm walnut.  The wooden Chart House is just over an inch high, but with twelve windows made life interesting, especially having to make the desks and plan chest as they would be visible through the glazed windows. 
A couple of period admiralty charts reduced using Publisher were printed 13 x 9.  Dividers and a coffee mug.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/chart-house_zpsuauytn5x.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/chart-house_zpsuauytn5x.jpg.html)  Roof platform omitted

No putting it off, a large number of stanchion holes to be drilled.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 05, 2015, 07:46:49 pm
You are doing fab Bob. I like the details in the deck house. Good luck with the stanchions and their holes.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on March 05, 2015, 08:59:56 pm
Excellent work Bob, looks fantastic- can't wait to see her again in the future when she's complete. :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Licence decisions
Post by: Bob K on March 13, 2015, 07:35:28 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Licence decisions

  Licence decisions
I had to renew my Modeller Licence as there are some minor practicalities I may have to cheat a little on, as unlike the original ship on my version the decks need to lift off.  Keeping ‘cheats’ to a minimum is the goal of this stage.

The centre third of the main deck stanchions were fitted to the hull sides.  I had already fitted half-round tubes to hull and deck edges to make it look right, but the actual stanchions will be fitted slightly inboard on the main deck edge.  (see photos Reply #482).

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly5a.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly5a.jpg.html)

The aftermost davit pairs were also fitted to the hull sides. In this case I am biting the bullet to make up soldered brass support tubes with brackets, fitted with #0 s/tap screws and epoxy. 
The propeller protection fender booms luckily can be mounted on the deck edges, with wire and epoxy reinforcement. 
To separate the main deck from the f’o’c’s’le deck I have to mount the interconnecting companionways with clear acrylic supports behind as they could not be glued at the top.

The only other split-line snags are the disposal shutes from the flying decks to hull sides, which will have to terminate at the split line.

Hopefully all this will not be too noticeable in the end result.

Superstructures and turrets progressing well.
I now have all the ships boats, and a supply of 0.5mm drills.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Stanchions
Post by: Bob K on March 25, 2015, 09:33:09 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Stanchions

Rear davit supports and prop protection fenders in.  Can’t put it off any longer, stanchions next.

  Stanchions
I had forgotten how much I ‘enjoy’ making over 200 tiny holes with drills I can hardly see.  So far I have only broken three. That’s a step forwards, but at least they are 0,5 dia - bigger than last time. 
Lots of curved edges and domed surfaces to contend with. 
Used John R Haynes JRH 566 16mm, plus 0.5 soft brass wire.

Hole size was determined by diagonal of etched brass spigot, allowing for a light push fit with micro pliers. A drop of superglue on spigots to secure. 

My preferred modus operandi is to slide the stanchions onto the wires, fit and glue four, then the next four, finally solder the whole section.  Better accuracy and control, even if I will have to paint them in situ like before. Jigs not practical due to curves and slightly irregular spacing due to bollards and other deck fittings.

Kudos for Carrs 188 Solder Paint, just a touch with a tinned iron.  No plastic melting, and solder limits itself to the ‘painted’ joint.  Makes rail soldering a doddle.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-1_zpsekhwp1ls.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-1_zpsekhwp1ls.jpg.html)

With most of the stanchions and rails in place I can now top off the superstructures.  The three main islands, chart house platform, all needing single hole stanchions (which I just noticed).  Ordered, and arrived promptly.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-2_zpsjlvwc0mm.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-2_zpsjlvwc0mm.jpg.html)


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-3_zps7xor55wf.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/stanchions-3_zps7xor55wf.jpg.html)


Lots still to do.  Pant the railings, complete the superstructures, davits, ships boats, cranes and chains, companionways, turrets, mast and rigging etc.

I am aiming to complete in time for the Victorian Fleet Review at Mayhem.  It has been a long project, so nearly abandoned after the inadvertent submergence more than a year ago.


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: raflaunches on March 25, 2015, 11:49:01 am
Looks gorgeous Bob! :-))
Can't wait until Mayhem weekend to see her, and you of course! :D
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on March 25, 2015, 11:50:41 am
She's really beginning to come alive now. Pity I won't be at Mayhem to see her (I'll be in the Loire valley with the family). No doubt I'll catch up with her eventually.
ij
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on March 25, 2015, 12:04:27 pm
Hullo Bob.......not sure if I am loosing it  %)..... but........

Reply #19 on 29th May 2012...we see the STDB prop of the actual vessel in dock as right handed
Reply #494 on 25th March 2015 ....we see the STDB prop on the model as left handed

I realise there are 475 posting in between that I have not re-read.........but was there a change? :o.........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 25, 2015, 01:13:54 pm
Wow !  You are observant Derek !!!   I compared the photo in Chatham Dockyard with my latest photo.  I guess after the rebuild I went into autopilot and fitted the props 'top edges turn inwards, as seen from the rear' as usual.
Bagpuss Hat needed. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 25, 2015, 02:55:29 pm
It's all coming back to me now as I try to remove the props.  After the sinking, by the time I was able flush out and start removing the waterlogged innards, the prop nuts were immovable even after WD40, as were the steel grub screws on the inboard collets.  The shafts are cleaned and lubed, so will have to stay as is unless I can figure a way to hold the installed shaft in a vice.

As it runs OK I may have to leave alone at this time.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 25, 2015, 09:41:39 pm
Leave it as is Bob. I have awful images of something slipping and your detailing work being wrecked by the 'Molegrips of doom'.

Better to work and be slightly wrong than be accurate but dented.

Poly is coming along a treat. I nearly bought a pot of solder poaste when I was last in Squires but was unsure of what it was for exactly. I didn't ask Mr Squire, and so thought it might be for soldering copper tape as used in Dolls house electrics. That ad solder paste sound like materials made in heaven.

Keep up the god work.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on March 25, 2015, 09:58:51 pm
There is the alternate scenario Bob  .......I am sure I remember reading such a story in the dim dark past  O0.....

'After extensive sea trials, and due to the unique hull design, the Lords of the Admilitary gave the order to reverse the handing of the ships propeller's'

So that image from Chatham Dockyard just about the turn of the Century must have been the docking where the props were reversed for their final life stage......

Lots of such major modification work occurred during Naval refits in those days........just ask any dockyard worker who was there  %)

Yes.......fully agree :-))....leave those two 50 mm special Victorian ‘crocus’ propellers them as they are......Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 25, 2015, 10:13:34 pm
Thanks guys.  I was getting worried there.   :D

Just finished painting the stanchions today.  I will paint the rails tomorrow, then I can start fitting the superstructure parts.  ie:  Some of the rails almost touch the turrets etc, so essential to paint them whilst I can access all sides. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on March 26, 2015, 07:46:03 am
This model is looking very good and I watch with interest.
Be careful with the solder paint. Some has quite corrosive flux in it which remains active after the job is done and the temperature drops. I usually try and clean the surface before painting. In this case cotton buds and meths? I have had paint flake off as the acid continues to react under the paint.
Keep the posts coming.   
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 26, 2015, 08:06:57 am
Thank you Picketboat.  Your warning came a bit late as the stanchions were painted yesterday. However, I have not had problems with the Carrs product before.  Good point though.  I will bear that in mind next time.

PS:  I had tried to take the first picture in reply #494 at a similar angle to the actual ship shown in #493, by way of a direct comparison. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 26, 2015, 10:45:58 pm
Thanks for the information Picketboat. I read in an old model warship building book about acid fluxes and their nasty after effects. This chap, a retired Colonel used to make tinplate ships and used Fluxite all over it even on his plate shaping tools as this did not corrode. I think it caused lesser effects similar to that of grease if not cleaned off porperly, but still, I will keep an eye out for acid based fluxes in any solder paste I buy.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on March 27, 2015, 04:23:22 am
Colonel Bachelor. I was (still am!) impressed with his results (http://www.modelboats.co.uk/news/article/model-shipbuilding-in-steel/480) the first time I saw them.

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 27, 2015, 09:38:41 am
Yes, his work is pretty much like the real thing. I would like to have a go at a tin plate hull one day. I expect they will have discontinued production of Fluxite by then!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 27, 2015, 09:56:14 am
Just a word on Carrs 188 solder paint, before people are put off by other soldering techniques.
It consists of solder in powder form, plus an active flux not too dissimilar to that in multicore solder.
Applied just to the joint to be soldered with a very small brush, it keeps solder just to that area and allows a rapid joint without heating up the whole area. The flux effectively boils off, and as long as you keep the soldering iron bit clean you should get minimal residue, no more than a regular soldered joint using multicore solder.
Personally I lightly 'tin' the bit with multicore then very briefly 'touch' to make the joint.
I have never had any issues, or problems with paint afterwards.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), more detail
Post by: Bob K on March 27, 2015, 02:13:58 pm
More detail assemblies being constructed.  eg:  Sets of steps between main deck and f'o'c's'le.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/focsle-steps_zpsrmhwzkxj.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/focsle-steps_zpsrmhwzkxj.jpg.html)

Also shows how deck rails, originally fitted on side of hull, were 'nobbled' into main deck as decks are detachable.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on March 27, 2015, 08:36:19 pm
Neat idea. Rails and stanchions seem to be the bane of the model ship maker.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on March 29, 2015, 05:41:54 pm
Spent a couple of days getting carried away, making ready racks with three Nordenfeldt magazines each for the inside walls of the turrets.  A bit like the coffee cup and maps in the Chart Room, 99% will never peer in that close.  %%

Superstructures now have their ventilators and searchlights etc. Holes drilled for the single hole railings.
Could not get quite the right size of companionways so having the reduce the widths by about 3mm.  The stair tread joins will not show when I add the planks on the steps.  All takes time.

After that it will be making tarpaulins for the ships boats, then the davits.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Topping Out
Post by: Bob K on April 01, 2015, 01:56:25 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Topping Out

  Topping Out
This week I have been completing the islands and other superstructure tops.  Fitting 7 more ventilators, searchlights, and single rail railings.  Six companionways, each with rails and wood stair treads added.  The foremost pair required clear acrylic supports as both the f’o’c’s’le and main deck come off separately.  ie: steps cannot be attached at the top.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-1_zpszw1yqmuq.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-1_zpszw1yqmuq.jpg.html)         superstructure

Ammunition racks added inside turrets, each of which has a clear ‘section’ so inside workings are visible.  Maybe a tad OTT, but such a waste to have such detailed 3D printed Nordenfeldts’ and not be able to see them. Turrets and turret domes painted and now fitted. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-2_zpsrvvcsdh8.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-2_zpsrvvcsdh8.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-4_zpssmxird0a.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-4_zpssmxird0a.jpg.html)              Turrets

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-3_zpslfcejbgq.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/turrets-3_zpslfcejbgq.jpg.html)
(PS:  Gauze in centre superstructure is for sound system outlet.)

Funnel will be challenging as this is fixed to the watertight hatch for the mister unit.  The main deck assembly withdraws over the funnel.  I need to add various tubes and funnel top detail, so am figuring out how I can do this. 

Lots more still to do, but it seems to be going together well.  I need to start planning a carry case as there is / will be too much fragile stuff in overhanging or vulnerable locations. 


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: tonyH on April 01, 2015, 04:44:46 pm
Hells Teeth Bob, it's a stunner!

I should think that you're worried about what you're going to do next %)

Tony
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 01, 2015, 06:17:40 pm
Bob


You are doing an excellent job. I like the idea of the clear supports for the companion ways, where the supporting deck lifts off. I sometimes resort to having larger removable items (lifeboats, storage lockers etc) which locate on pins, where such items bridge the gap between fixed and lift off sections of deck. These have the added advantage of obscuring the "break line". Removing them individually before lifting off the deck section is not however something I would consider doing at the pond side.
Regarding your next build, I assume you are already aware of this site which will almost certainly make your mouth water. So many models to build, so little time.


http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Category:Ship_Plans
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 01, 2015, 08:35:37 pm
Thanks Tony.  Getting to this stage owes much to a certain Vibrosaw, and a long climb up Alley Pally hill.  :-))

Picketboat:  Cheers!  Being a semi submersible the complete hull length requires access, having six full watertight compartments.  Thus the complete Main Deck, plus the F'o'c's'le Deck, need to come off.  All the controls and charging sockets are under the smaller foredeck which makes life easier for operational usage. 
I agree not a good idea to have mini assemblies to remove lake-side.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/flying-deck-walkways_zpslsrho6sl.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/flying-deck-walkways_zpslsrho6sl.jpg.html)
Flying Deck walkways

Next project already begun.  Iggle Piggle boat from CBBC TV 'In The Night Garden'.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 01, 2015, 10:35:02 pm
I really love all the curved plate work on the superstructure and the deatail like the chart table. This is redolent of later destroyers which also had waterproof pram hoods and a little window to keep the worst of the spray/waves off of the maps. Gorgeous work Bob.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 02, 2015, 08:35:48 am
I too like those old bridge 'pram hoods' and other such early contraptions.  Plate work turned out one of my favourite jobs after a local printer kindly donated a pack of used Litho plates. They cut and shape nicely, fitting with contact adhesive, using templates retained from superstructure building.  With a fine tip Biro joins are scored on the outside and rivets pressed from the inside.  Another skill learned from reading Mayhem.
Thank you for your kind words.  Detailing is my favourite part of building.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 02, 2015, 08:52:39 am
Bob


Have you discovered the self adhesive aluminium foil tape? It's a little thinner than litho plate and easier to work over double curvatures, can be embossed the same way to form rivets etc and is not expensive. This self adhesive tape sticks well to smooth non absorbent surfaces.
Readily available from the builders merchant. I use it all the time. No good below the water line on working models as it's too fragile. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 02, 2015, 11:25:46 pm
A friend in the embossing and stamping indsutry gave me a roll of matt and polished tape with adhesive backing some time back. I did not consider it for model ship building. Your Blog along with those of the other members like Joe are inspiring and most enjoyable. I find the days without any activity a bit dull as regards internet activity. I must set to and update my destroyer thread.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 03, 2015, 09:05:54 am
No, I have not seen such foil tape, or used it.  Might be worth a trial to see how it goes.  It does sound fragile in terms of any raised detail though.  Litho is workable but reasonably ‘hard’.  Where detail spans facetted areas I normally use separate pieces as per the original.  There were practical limits as to double curvatures back in 1881.

Even working a good building session every day it can often be a week until progress is illustratable as parts are mostly scratch built.  Sorry.  No Live Shipyard Cam here (tee hee).  Too many expletives for OFCOM license.   :D

Lots of foredeck detail to do, ships boats, davits, mast and rigging, carry case.  It could be at least another month, but still aiming for Mayhem weekend.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: dreadnought72 on April 03, 2015, 06:51:27 pm
Congratulations on >30k build views, Bob.

(Commiserations that a couple of hundred are probably mine!)

Andy
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Davits
Post by: Bob K on April 03, 2015, 09:34:47 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Davits

Sorry Andy, this project has indeed been a long one.  Thanks for your perseverance.

  Davits

I already have the aftermost pairs of davit mountings secured to the sides of the hull.  The foremost pairs mount from the main deck and flying deck edge, and although well inboard of the hull a crane-boom on the mast plus a couple of large hand winches allowed them to be swung outboard for launching when required.  Not so clear is how the boom can swing either side of the standing rigging. 

The real anomaly is the single boat alongside the chart house, above the turrets.  According to the plans and at least one photo the davits for these were mounted from the hull side, unsupported, and really high.  Other photos, and pictures of a superb model of her, show the davits mounted from the flying deck edge as above, but with very long horizontal arms so could be launched without a crane boom.   There are also photos with this boat and davits omitted.  Conundrum. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/HMSPOLYPHEMUS-TORPEDORAM-2.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/HMSPOLYPHEMUS-TORPEDORAM-2.jpg.html)   See also photo #493

I decided on the inboard option with long overhanging arms as this gave the best field of fire for the guns.  Still, 100mm tall and a 40mm reach looks strange, but this boat has to be above the turrets.

3mm brass tube for the supports with 2mm solid brass arms.  Supports drilled into deck and with soldered flanges epoxied to underside of flying decks.
Plasticard top flanges can thus be more ‘scale’ than structural.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/davits-1_zpszxxizza1.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/davits-1_zpszxxizza1.jpg.html)   Davit mountings

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/davits-2_zpsnszr5duy.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/davits-2_zpsnszr5duy.jpg.html)

At least this 'supported' option should be less vulnerable to damage.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 03, 2015, 10:28:30 pm
For sanity at the pond side, I would have ommitted them, or made them removable and just fit them when on display at shows or when on the mantle piece:O)

They look pretty good though, and I hope they do not stress the superstructure.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 04, 2015, 01:07:46 am
There are 7 boats in all.  The flying decks are pretty solid, and the upper parts of the davits can be replaced for repair.  As with most ships of this era the rearmost boats and stern detail tend to be the most vulnerable in transport and usage.
Had I opted for the side mounted centre boat the likelihood of ripping that out would have been higher.
On all warships flag staffs and upper masts tend to be easiest to snag and break. On this one my intention is to build a protective transport case.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 04, 2015, 04:49:13 pm
Hi Bob, just realised that this is your build, you certainly know what your talking about when it comes to detail you don't shy away from anything, :-))  a very interesting ship, I'll keep watching.   ;) 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 04, 2015, 05:11:44 pm
Thank you Joe.  I really admire your solder work on HMS Coventry, a superbly detailed model.  I am sure you will be the first to appreciate my concerns as to the potential vulnerability of such fine detail.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 04, 2015, 05:36:50 pm
Yes I certainly do Bob, I exhibit mine with the Surface Warships Association so the inevitable broken jack staff or railing is usually easily repaired, but I do love a detailed model and I like them to work so I try and balance the two.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Rigging Blocks
Post by: Bob K on April 08, 2015, 03:34:38 pm
  Rigging Blocks

Inflation has badly hit both hot cross buns and very small quantities of tar, (ha’penny worth), but I am determined to try to get the detail right.  Rigging blocks, especially for the lifeboats, took some researching.  At 1/60 I was not going to get away with what I could ‘fiddle’ at 1/96.  I found some detailed period photos, got some walnut blocks and tan tread, and set about making a jig so I could make ten sets fairly consistent looking.  Rope fixed at the lower block, round all the pulleys, then tied off on the davit.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/blocks-1_zpsx5hc4usc.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/blocks-1_zpsx5hc4usc.jpg.html)

All the boats were to have tarpaulins so a frame was fitted inside each, partly to get the cover to lay correctly, and also to attach the rigging inside.  Not being on chocks (epoxy-able) the rigging and restraining straps had to be fully supporting.

  Davit uppers

Some more solderwork required.  Top ring, rope guide and tying off tee.  For mechanical security the fixed ends of the rigging tackle would be in painted brass wire.

In between the above I am painting the crew members.  Victorian 1/60 RN found on a Canadian war gaming site.  Only fitting six as being die-cast are quite heavy. 

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 08, 2015, 07:15:23 pm
Ol jolly jack there seems to be inspecting your blocks, I'm sure they will pass muster, very nice Bob.  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 08, 2015, 08:22:35 pm
Much appreciated Joe. 

BTW:  A worrying thought just crossed my mind.  If the mechanical advantage of the blocks is, say 3 to 1, for every foot the boat is lowered you have to pay out 3 feet of line.  It seems to me that you'd need at least 40 ft of line around the davit cleats, which is far more than I can see on photos. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 08, 2015, 09:26:39 pm
Don't forget Bob there would only be a couple of bends on the cleats, on a well run boat the rest would be in a neat coil on the deck.  :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 08, 2015, 09:54:21 pm
He looks like an old salt Bob! I think that too many crew figures can swamp a model, and will also add a large amount to the cost of the model.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 08, 2015, 10:17:31 pm
Uniforms of that period were not as tailored and well fitting as later styles.  I have 12 figures but at 30mm in cast metal their combined weight topside would be significant.  I only need a few as a visual scale comparison against the more usual 1/96 warships.  ie: without some crewmen this small ship might appear as large as a cruiser.

Q:  Before someone asks - 'How do you get onto the flying deck wings as the railings almost touch the turret sides?' 
A:  Open the turret door, go inside, push the turret round, then step out onto the wing.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 09, 2015, 07:38:40 am
Bob


Still following avidly.

I looked all over the place for 1/48th late Victorian RN figures to crew my picket boat model and eventually gave up and made my own resin figures. That kept the weight down. What I found was that although uniform was standardised at this time, contemporary photos show crews in a mix of clothing and hats, some in blue, some in white duck uniform. I think that this might have has something to do with duties. Remember too that sailors were expected to make their own uniform. Have you got and officer or two?
 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 09, 2015, 08:33:33 am
They are good! I especially like the officer standing by the rails, very Edwardian! I did not realise that sailors had to make their uniforms that late in history!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 09, 2015, 09:12:28 am
Yes I was surprised to discover this too.


Peter Padfields excellent little book "Rule Britannia" states...


" men still made their own uniforms from material (from the slops account), blue serge or white duck for working gear, and the cost was deducted from their wages. It was not until 1907 that ready made uniforms were issued."


The Navy did issue set guide lines, measurements and one assumes patterns to be followed when making uniforms up.


The design of uniforms and hats changed a lot around 1920 and I like Bob wanted figures in the old style uniforms.


Bare feet on deck were very common and straw (sennet) hats were still around till about 1910 although by then probably only for fancy parades or hot weather. 


I found the research for this subject fascinating, don't ask me why. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 09, 2015, 09:30:36 am
Very nice Picketboat  :-))  I'd be interested in how you modelled and cast them in resin.

Uniforms of this era were very mixed, generally quite baggy, except for the officers of course.  Straw hats were often for Sunday Best.  I am setting the ship as for the Berehaven Raid in Ireland so have avoided the white ducks and white top caps in many of the Malta pictures.  Even those showed quite a mixture of clothing.  When I have finished painting them they will be epoxied in place.

Two binnacles and ships bell fitted.  Nice sailing day so shall take a break with HMS Skirmisher before soldering davit fittings.  By then the Nordefelt's had been replaced with QF guns.

Do I fit all the awning support poles and cables?   Not shown on the original plans.  May have been added later for Mediterranean duty.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 09, 2015, 01:58:01 pm
Bob


Here are the trials and tribulations of moulding and casting the figures if you are interested.


http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=155299&start=120


The light weight of the resin was a must for populating such a small working model. I hope to use the same process to produce Edwardian RN Submariners for use on my next build. The other plus with resin figures is that they can be easily chopped up and re positioned  in a macabre sort of "cut and shut", thus giving me an whole host of different figures from the basic selection.


Sorry cant help much with the awning question other than saying many RN vessels were issued with awnings, even if they were only operating inside British home waters. I have pictures of Late Victorian destroyers with awnings set for a review. These. along with supporting frames seem to have been stored on deck under tarpaulin covered frames when not in use. I shall be interested to see how you tackle this.
Keep the pictures coming.   
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 09, 2015, 11:35:08 pm
An interesting read Mr P. I know that Tamiya are regularly adding 1:48th scale figures to their range to complement the vehicles. Re the model railway company that sold figures, was this Falcon figures by chance? He has got a good range indeed and might be persuaded (if he knows you will buy some) to sculpt more sailors. I appreciate that this still leaves the weight issue of pewter figures!

I would like to see a range of 1:96th and 76nd scale resin crew figures available. I know you are a quarter scale fan Mr P, so this may be one for another manufacturer.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on April 14, 2015, 03:01:57 pm
These just reported as coming out soon. From North Star Military Figures. Slightly larger than standard wargame figures at about 30mm height.
(http://)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 14, 2015, 04:42:31 pm
coo they look an angry bunch, looks like they didn't get shore leave.  %% {-) {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 14, 2015, 08:11:36 pm
These just reported as coming out soon. From North Star Military Figures. Slightly larger than standard wargame figures at about 30mm height.

That's them. I bought two sets from Canada a while back.  Arrived quite promptly.  They do look better in Navy though.

Interesting article Picketboat - Thanks.  I am working on seven ships boats and the davits.  Hopefully some piccy's to show soon.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Davits and Boats
Post by: Bob K on April 18, 2015, 02:58:34 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Davits and Boats

  Davits and Boats

Lots done over the week, but up to now not much to take a photograph of.  Seven ships boats completed with rigging attachments and eyebolts, two coats of matt white then picking out some detail in black.  I had considered whether to add rudders, of if they were normally stowed inside the boats. They looked odd without so I made them.

Crew finished and expoxied in place on deck. Officer on the Bridge and five ratings at various locations.

Davit uppers built from 2mm solid brass, with soldered detail which required a jig.  Rigging eye plate, rope guide and tie-off cleat part brass part plastic.  The eye plate mounting takes the rigging, inter-davit chains, plus securing straps.  Deck eyebolts for chains in brass wire.  Chain attachments for rearmost pair of boats had to be built into hull edge instead of deck edge due to deck / hull split line.  Never done detailed davits before, previous builds had die cast ones and boats fixed on chocs so this was all new ground for me.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/davit-tops_zpspxuioqtr.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/davit-tops_zpspxuioqtr.jpg.html)


Time to start making the tarpaulins.  Lightweight calico in the right colour, slits for the rigging, and cut oversize to fold over the boat sides.  Tricky to get looking ‘natural’, folds etc.  After some trials it seemed to go best with one piece over the top and edges, a narrow strip around to get the bottom edge straight, sealing the join, then a line of tan rigging thread along the edge.  Thinned satin varnish. 

Added the davit retaining chains next, making eyebolt attachments to the deck.  Fiddly !
Next was rigging the blocks and tackle between the boats and davits, then threading the hoist lines back through the davit eyebolts and down to the cleats. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/first-boats_zpsnhfw2ztk.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/first-boats_zpsnhfw2ztk.jpg.html)

Seven boats in all, three installed, four to go.  Phew.  Access getting tighter and tighter.


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 18, 2015, 03:35:06 pm
Nice job on the boat covers Bob, they look natural enough to me and seven of them  %%  go and have a lay down Bob  :o
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 18, 2015, 04:08:21 pm
Much appreciated Joe, especially from you.  Relaxing watching F1 Bahrain qualifying.  Sailing at the lake tomorrow, then back to the life boats  O0
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 18, 2015, 05:47:04 pm
Cor Bob, you are really packing some detail into that beauty! The boats are a masterpiece in their own right, and the davits are inspiring.

Are you sailing Polyphemus tomorrow, or waiting until she is complete before launching her proper upon the world? (pre-launch testing of stability and controls accepted)

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), More Boats
Post by: Bob K on April 21, 2015, 12:27:43 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), More Boats

Thank you.  No, the trusty Springer got her hull wet Sunday.  Now that the boats and cranes are going in Poly’ can’t move far off the workbench without a protective transport case and launching frame being constructed. 
She had a full three and a half hour test sail at Dean’s just before Christmas.

  More Boats

After completing and mounting the first life boat, (and the float-off life rafts), the other four boats were almost a repeat of the first but in varied sizes.  Now I have the method for them it gets easier.  Two boats mounted inboard abaft the bridge and two hung over the stern.  Hoisting lines rigged. Rigging the davit chains and life raft securing chains is a long job as the deck eyebolts are a pain.  I reckon this ship will take over 2 m of fine chain.  Rigging blocks look a mite large, however the next size down would have been far too small. 

Waiting for some 3mm wide double sided ribbon for the crossed-over restraining straps, to limit the lifeboats swing in a seaway.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/forward-boats_zpsvcxhf04r.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/forward-boats_zpsvcxhf04r.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/aft-boats_zps1shfnlbp.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/aft-boats_zps1shfnlbp.jpg.html)


Next stage will be fitting out the f’o’c’s’le deck detail, 4 cranes plus loads more chains etc. 
Lastly will be 4 big disposal chutes, funnel top, mast with boat lifting boom, and rigging. 

For those who have had the patience to follow this long build, hang in there, we’re not far off now.



Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 21, 2015, 01:43:33 pm
You take your time Bob, it's a pleasure to follow your build, I hear there's a shortage of 2mm chain, I know where it's all gone now.  %% {-) {-)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 21, 2015, 07:12:57 pm
Bob


Waiting for some 3mm wide double sided ribbon for the crossed-over restraining straps, to limit the lifeboats swing in a seaway.

I can let you have some (off white coloured) flat woven cotton thread 3mm by 0.75mm which looks just like the stuff on the real vessels. Like all model rigging thread, drawing it over a bees wax block before use removes any fuzzyness, keeps it in place and makes it a bit waterproof.
If you want a couple of metres send me a PM with your postal address.   

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on April 21, 2015, 07:20:57 pm
Bob


Having problems with trying to post a message here?


"Waiting for some 3mm wide double sided ribbon for the crossed-over restraining straps, to limit the lifeboats swing in a seaway."





If you want I can let you have a couple of meters of flat section off white woven thread 3mm by 0.75mm, which looks just like the woven manilla bands they used for this job.


Send a PM if you want some, FOC.   


If you notice the different effects in your printing, you can always click on MODIFY button and remove the errors manually.  You have 30 minutes before this choice to modify is removed

I have done the first one for you.

ken



Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: pugwash on April 21, 2015, 07:34:22 pm
Bob


Having problems with trying to post a message here?


"Waiting for some 3mm wide double sided ribbon for the crossed-over restraining straps, to limit the lifeboats swing in a seaway."





If you want I can let you have a couple of meters of flat section off white woven thread 3mm by 0.75mm, which looks just like the woven manilla bands they used for this job.


Send a PM if you want some, FOC.

Just for your info these bands are called gripes

Geoff
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Netleyned on April 21, 2015, 07:51:18 pm
There's always someone with a gripe  {-) {-)

Ned
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 21, 2015, 08:55:41 pm
Many thanks Picketboat.  PM sent.

Not knowing the correct nautical term for something does make it harder to research. Thank you Pugwash.
I did find some nice photos of a NMM warship lifeboat model of the era showing the rigging details
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 21, 2015, 09:21:50 pm
When a model this good has it's construction and design demonstrated, there is no limit to time other than the builders desire to complete it and either mount it on the mantlepice, or get on the pond! If it takes another month I will still be dipping in to see how things are going.

I have loved the Poly since I first read of her in the Bizarre ships book twenty or so years ago, so it is excellent to see a decent model being made.

I would love to build a Novgorod again (My first one was just a display model and got dumped for several reasons).
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 21, 2015, 10:16:27 pm
Kind thoughts.  Ta.    Personally, I love detailing, plus researching and planning the various stages of a build.  No time limits, except at present a desire to take her to Mayhem.  She had spent a long time in ‘reserve’ after the sinking, whilst I gradually worked up the pluck to open her up and start the huge rebuild.  Maybe that’s why I’m now going OTT on the likkle bits.  Ships for me are for sailing.

Poly’ is a working semi-submersible, with Mister unit, working bow rudders, and a sound system.  Again unreasonably OTT, but that all works now.

I have always had a passion for weird warships.  They didn’t come much weirder than Novgorod.  I have often wondered if I could get one to actually steer.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 21, 2015, 10:52:02 pm
As the real one was a liability for the helmsman, I doubt the model would be any better. The rudder was like a lock gate and she had six bilge keels IIRC, and she still steered 'like a car on ice'!

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: essex2visuvesi on April 22, 2015, 12:48:24 am
Kind thoughts.  Ta.    Personally, I love detailing, plus researching and planning the various stages of a build.  No time limits, except at present a desire to take her to Mayhem.  She had spent a long time in ‘reserve’ after the sinking, whilst I gradually worked up the pluck to open her up and start the huge rebuild.  Maybe that’s why I’m now going OTT on the likkle bits.  Ships for me are for sailing.

Poly’ is a working semi-submersible, with Mister unit, working bow rudders, and a sound system.  Again unreasonably OTT, but that all works now.

I have always had a passion for weird warships.  They didn’t come much weirder than Novgorod.  I have often wondered if I could get one to actually steer.


The heading hold Gyro from an RC helicopter would probably be useful in a build like that.
I've a couple in the bits box if you do decide to give it a go
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: steve pickstock on April 22, 2015, 08:01:58 am
I did ask Russian kit manufacturer Zvezda if they would make a Novgorod, they expressed an interest. I don't know how far that has gone, or even if they progressed with it but I agree a fascinating vessel and there is always that challenge "could I make it work"?
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 22, 2015, 08:26:45 am
Thanks for the offer Mr Essex! I am tempted, but I have to complete my destroyer and Warriour first.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 22, 2015, 11:20:19 am
Finally found a photograph showing where the long length of excess hoist lines for lifeboats were stowed.
The period picture was of a boat without tarpaulin covers.
The excess lines were coiled up inside the lifeboat.  Simples, when I think about it.
Too late to change it now on the model, the covers are glued down, but now I know.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Fore Deck
Post by: Bob K on April 26, 2015, 01:37:04 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Fore Deck


  Fore Deck

Did I say 2 metres of fine chain?  More like three and a half now, at over seven quid a meter.
Anchor chains installed, including lead out nozzles adapted from funnel ventilators.  Anchor lashings in fine chain. 

Two pairs of cranes. I was scratching my head on how to make the large gooseneck ones with tapered ends.  Found just the job, 4 mm aluminium knitting needles.  Ideal shape, just required forming to shape and adding some detail.

The other pair of cranes were more tricky, and had to be laminated construction. Some detail adapted from diecast bits.  Studded with bolt heads, so got some 14 BA full nuts.  Always fancied these after seeing how good the bolt heads look on model lifeboats.  Diecast tackle blocks and more fine chain for the hoists.  By no means all on this build has come out as I’d hoped, I am still learning, but I’m definitely pleased with the cranes.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/cranes_zpszwd83sc5.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/cranes_zpszwd83sc5.jpg.html)

Ships bell fitted, with more thin chain. I am still undecided whether to fit awning frames, not shown on original plans, but were in later photo’s in the Med. 
Does little to add to the model but substantially vulnerable to damage in transit and use. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/foredeck_zpsgwrt2v4r.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/foredeck_zpsgwrt2v4r.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly%204_zpsrwwjpppv.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Poly%204_zpsrwwjpppv.jpg.html)

Mast and funnel next.



Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 26, 2015, 04:04:23 pm
Hi Bob, have to admit I was thinking your blocks looked a little over scale but looking at the photo I'd say you were spot on mate, O0 superb detail.  :-)) :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 26, 2015, 05:05:52 pm
The problem with blocks is there's 5 mm, and next size down is 3mm - almost half the size. 
I reckon I should have used 3 mm for the dinghy.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on April 26, 2015, 05:34:25 pm
No I think your ok Bob, in the photo they are larger than later ones, they did tend to over engineer stuff in those days.  :o
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on April 29, 2015, 04:43:11 pm
I know it's a day early, but I won't be around to post then, so - happy third birthday to this thread. Way back in 2012 did you envisage it would still be ongoing? Mind you, she's looking good.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 29, 2015, 06:29:08 pm
Oh dear !  Is it really that long since I started thinking about this project, researching and doing tests with 2 litre soda bottles ?    :embarrassed:
After the mortal setback she did languish on the stocks for the longest time, but at last is fully working and nearing completion.  I have enjoyed (most) of the journey, especially the final few months of detailing.  I have also learned a lot, thanks to fellow Mayhemers.

I am currently working on the mast, funnel, and rigging. Except for the transport case and launching frame this thread draws closer to the time for the immortal farewell of Bugs Bunny. 

Then I will build something else, equally odd.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on April 29, 2015, 11:45:30 pm
It is sad to see a good thread end and dissapear down the list as Joe's is slowly. But be heartened, there will be new build logs and more interesting projects to follow.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on April 30, 2015, 12:55:23 am
Goodness Bob.....    "she did languish on the stocks for the longest time" ...... <*<...stocks?........sound's like a whipping post  {-).....

Mind you..........I did see her sitting on the blocks for a few months...a few years back  %)

I too have followed this build from DAY 1  O0 .......and I suspect this thread will never finish or die out <:(...

Just like repeats of the Bill  :police: on the television....you know with Officer Reg watering the flowers on the Sun Hill station roof........that must have been at least 20 years ago...

Looking forward to your next series of instalments ........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on April 30, 2015, 08:14:18 am
Thank you Gentleman.  Unfortunately all shaggy dogs stories reach the punch line eventually.   %%
There may be a sequel, but not "Polyphemus Rides Again", or "Raise The Polyphemus", or "What Polyphemus Did Next", or even "Hornblower and the Polyphemus"?
We are anticipating live road shows though, starting with Mayhem.

PS:  On The Stocks is an Oxford Dictionary term, "In Preparation or Construction".


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Finished at last !
Post by: Bob K on May 06, 2015, 11:47:00 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Finished at last  !

Completed the last of the fine chain work, securing the ends of the two float-off life rafts and the handling chains for the two big gooseneck cranes. 

  Funnel

Only the base of the mast and funnel are shown on the original plans so I am relying on scaling photographs.  I am having to break a golden construction rule in not to have removable sub-assemblies other than access hatches etc, but the funnel ‘core’ is epoxied into the Mister compartment watertight cover.  So a slide-off ‘outer’ became necessary to include the funnel top detail and vertical pipes.  It does however make it easier for refilling the Mister water tank now that the funnel cap is fitted.

Surprisingly, having grown used to the ‘stub’ funnel for so long, now that she has the full length one the ship more looks its proper 1/60 scale size.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%202_zpsnhyw1kc7.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%202_zpsnhyw1kc7.jpg.html)

  Mast & Rigging

Mast sections in hardwood. The boom fitting was constructed in ABS and brass with thread ‘lashings’.  I had to take an educated stab at the topmast stepping arrangement as photo definition is poor.  This time I am even having a go at ratlines. Made a jig.  Over a hundred tiny knots.

Much of the rigging is familiar and conventional, but due to fore deck removal some of the longer standing rigging is in black elastic thread so it can be unhooked for access.
Where rigging detail was hard to make out from photos I have had to reconstruct to period logic.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%203_zpsyyny1qbs.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%203_zpsyyny1qbs.jpg.html)

  Gripes

No not that kind.  Fitting the lifeboat restraining straps was fiddly, but thanks to ‘Picketboat’ the flat section thread looks good for this.  The beeswax helped.

  Chutes

Four disposal chutes from the flying decks were formed from 6 mm brass tube.  Exactly what they were for is a mystery, neither coal ash nor empty ammunition casings where they were fitted.  The hatch covers for them are wrong for outside Heads.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%204_zpsdulhq3k6.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/complete%204_zpsdulhq3k6.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/completed-rear_zpslcdcpd0w.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/completed-rear_zpslcdcpd0w.jpg.html)    (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/from-front_zpsmkgw6fr1.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/from-front_zpsmkgw6fr1.jpg.html)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I have now run out of bits to build. 
O M G , is the ship actually finished at long last? 
Not quite.  I still have the protective carry case and launching device to make.
Then to conclude ( at last ) will be final sea trials pictures.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 06, 2015, 05:44:53 pm
Good luck and God Speed then :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on May 06, 2015, 06:44:37 pm
Heck of a job Bob,  :-)) :-)) I look forward to seeing her on the water, I wouldn't want to get in the way of that ram,  %%
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on May 06, 2015, 06:51:48 pm
Bob


This model looks fantastic.
 I had kind of got used to seeing close ups of small sections of the vessel, but now seeing her "in the full" see looks excellent. Glad the gripes were OK in the end and happy to help with this fascinating build.
I shall keep watching.

 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 06, 2015, 07:30:34 pm
Cheers Gents.  Even though the gripes only restrain swing in one direction they are remarkably effective.
An "in the full" view, I will admit to being too zoomed in to the bit I'm doing for too long.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/full-view_zps1hmmyzga.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/full-view_zps1hmmyzga.jpg.html)

Joe:  If I break down it would be nice if your excellent springer 'Gopha Girl' were on station.

Photo's on the water will have to wait for the transport case being made.  Two weeks till Mayhem Saturday.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: derekwarner on May 06, 2015, 11:04:26 pm
Yes  Bob...best of weather for her sea trials  :-)) ........luck is not a part of the event...just perseverance & you have displayed bucket loads with this build.....

BTW.......a bucket is simply a term......not necessarily meant as a water holding thingie..... {-)......keep us posted.........Derek
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on May 07, 2015, 08:49:34 am
She looks gorgeous Bob. She is worthy of the efforts you have poured into her over the last year or two. Thanks for sharing your efforts, frustrations and ressurection fro disaster. Many people would have binned it and done something else!

I really look forward to seeing Poly on the water. A video would be great!
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), Transport Case
Post by: Bob K on May 15, 2015, 12:39:02 pm
  Transport Case

Having built a Victorian ship with overhanging vulnerable detail the problem is how to avoid significant damage every time I move it off the workbench. 
There is / (was) an old thread on Mayhem for transport cases but sadly almost all the photos (hosted elsewhere I guess) seem to have been deleted or lost. 
So I am almost designing from scratch.

The subject is 1.3 m long (51”), 0.5 m high (18”), and weighs over 11 kg (24 lb).
The case has to easily handleable, strong but not too heavy, protect the vulnerable bits, and on arrival double as a display stand that you can easily slip the handling straps under bow and stern.  Due to ballast tanks taking time to fully empty it also needs to be waterproof with good drainage.

Photo below shows the ‘base’ in 18mm pine with profiled supports, and also shows areas of vulnerability.  The hull profile was too large for a profile tool so I used layers of 10mm square balsa strips to get the shape, allowing for the 8mm thick neoprene protection strips.  The supports are dowelled and glued to the base plank.
An additional keel support (see 3rd photo) bears most of the weight so the hull is only snuggly resting into the profiled supports.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-1_zpswmfopsmy.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-1_zpswmfopsmy.jpg.html)

Another picture showing the amount of detail to protect. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-2_zpsq9ubqyg7.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-2_zpsq9ubqyg7.jpg.html)

The base ‘box’ has to be wide enough to guard the overhanging bits, be able to take a lighter weight cover-box, and have handles to man-handle from the car to the trolley.  I used 3.6mm ply with wood mouldings as reinforcements.  Screwed pinned and glued.  Removable supports carry the engraved brass plates with ship name and details.  These just slide out when using the lifting straps. Cover box will be retained by 4 HD toggle latches.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-3_zps6lnsct2q.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/carry-case-3_zps6lnsct2q.jpg.html)

I may not have time to make the cover box before next weekend, but at least in case of an ‘accident’ there is a Black Box fitted.


Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 15, 2015, 01:02:18 pm
May I suggest a handle at one end also, to initially start dragging it out of the car. One at each end may encourage you to carry it between two people and I think that runs the risk of being unstable. You don't want everything tipping over.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 15, 2015, 01:08:48 pm
May I suggest a handle at one end also, to initially start dragging it out of the car. One at each end may encourage you to carry it between two people and I think that runs the risk of being unstable. You don't want everything tipping over.

That sounds a good idea -  Thank you  :-))  I've never built a boat box before  %%
A handle at one end to help slide it off the car seat sounds very practical. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: TugCowboy on May 15, 2015, 01:19:50 pm
Bob,

Did I misread above or will this masterpiece be at Mayhem? Would absolutely love the chance to see it in the flesh.

Alex
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 15, 2015, 01:58:54 pm
Hello Alex,  Yes, that was the intention. Hopefully it will not merely just display a stream of bubbles from below the surface  :embarrassed:
I am aiming for the Saturday, not having a tent or caravan.
Looking forward to meeting old friends, and making new friends.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: PICKETBOAT on May 15, 2015, 02:01:24 pm
Bob


An excellent built transport/storage box designed on good principals. Just be a bit careful with the neoprene if the model is sitting in its cradle for any great length of time as is might stick to the hull. I usually use a layer of felt for the cradle linings but this would not work for a model like yours which has to drain a load of water out. Ensure there is space for a foam buffer on the inside of the box lid to protect both bow and stern. If you hit the car brakes hard the model might shoot forward and damage that lovely ram.
Sorry I will not be at Wickstead to sail a Victorian era vessel along side your model.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: Bob K on May 15, 2015, 02:51:18 pm
Thanks Picketboat.  That is MIL Grade Expanded Neoprene sheet, the same as I used to use for lining out shaped MOD packing boxes, not like regular foam strip.  Not cheap, but well worth it for smaller quantities.
The bulbous plan profile of the hull precludes any fore / aft movement so no need for end buffers in this case.  It goes across the back seats.  When I can get the cover box done I am hoping the seat belts can secure it from tipping or rolling.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: joppyuk1 on May 15, 2015, 03:13:35 pm
If only my wife and sister-in-law weren't dragging me off to France for the two weeks either side of the Mayhem weekend I would have been there, if only to see Polyphemus in the flesh. I've followed the build from the beginning and enjoyed every bit.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: radiojoe on May 15, 2015, 07:00:57 pm
Bob that's a beautifully crafted brass name plate, which is befitting for such a model.  :-)) :-))
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus (1881), not quite a submarine
Post by: ballastanksian on May 15, 2015, 10:08:35 pm
I hope everything goes well at Mayhem!

I suppose that if the impact is that great, no amount of padding and strappage will prevent damage. I expect that stowing it tranversley will remove moast damage forces and hopefully, she will not swivel in her cradles and impact the masts on the side of the box.

Sensible driving and moderate speed will negate all but the worst that driving and other drivers can throw at you:O)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 24, 2015, 08:30:49 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881), like a submarine

Despite many hours of every kind of test I could throw at it, including three and a half hours sailing in the Test Pond at Deans Marine, Polyphemus decided to embarrass me at the Mayhem event in Wicksteed. 

  The Mishap


To start with all went well.  Photo below showing her at normal seaway running trim.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/poly-2_zpsckrxexco.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/poly-2_zpsckrxexco.jpg.html)

Next picture is of her trimmed down to attack mode, a waterline height difference of just under 20 mm.  Obviously at this trim there is only a small positive buoyancy, the real ship had only 500 tons of buoyancy at this point, so it is critical that everything operates as designed.  Last six months all has behaved to optimum.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/trimmed-down_zpsazd2l8nf.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/trimmed-down_zpsazd2l8nf.jpg.html)

After a successful first run, whilst assembling for the Victorian Fleet Review, she started going low at the bow, eventually flooding two compartments and going down.

I am sure many of you have seen the video posted elsewhere on Mayhem by now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6I1nBgKkSk&feature=youtu.be

Luckily the lake is shallow.  Below is ‘Klunk’ to the rescue.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Klunk-to-rescue_zpsncnbj2ov.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Klunk-to-rescue_zpsncnbj2ov.jpg.html)

  Cause

After drying out and investigation it appears that the pressure from the air pump used to blow ballast had ‘popped’ a flexible pipe off its copper tube bulkhead fitting, allowing water from the top of the trimmed-down tanks to vent into compartments 2 and 3. 

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/Pump-comp_zps2b432bfa.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/Pump-comp_zps2b432bfa.jpg.html)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-pipes_zps5ce64592.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/air-pipes_zps5ce64592.jpg.html)

So, it was not a bulkhead failing, but a flexible pipe that had come detached under air pressure.
Embarrassing, but not irredeemable. 
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: derekwarner on May 24, 2015, 09:54:37 am
Bob.......further to the PM today....Derek

11 out of 10 for Klunk :-)).....................

from the 26th of November 2014 .........I see.......

1. the water pump has nylon type suction & discharge male stud tubes.....these also have a cast in barb on the OD
2. it would be advantageous to install miniature cable ties or DUBRO fuel line wire clamps for added security
3. you can also soft solder a ring of copper wire around your copper tubing to act as a barb for the same attachment with clips or cable ties etc
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on May 24, 2015, 10:05:26 am
I trust you got the  "Best sinking medal"  and have now taken the title from me.    %)

Glad no damage has been done.

cheers

ken
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: PICKETBOAT on May 24, 2015, 08:10:15 pm
Bob


What rotten luck. I do hope everything dried out OK.
Stick the model in a broom cupboard along with a de humidifier. Don't leave it for too long or damage to any wooden components might occur.


The only quote that comes to mind is.....


"Apart from that Mrs Lincoln what did you think of the play?"


Keep smiling.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on May 26, 2015, 11:40:19 am
Thank god it was only a pipe Bob. Definitly have a look at something to hold those pipes in place, or maybe go for brass pipes with olives and screw down journals? Sorry, I have just suggested more hours of rework, shut up Ian <*<
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: raflaunches on May 26, 2015, 04:36:40 pm
Hi Bob


Hope you managed to dry Poly out enough in time, I must admit I thought that you were going to be lucky and only have the forward section flood but I couldn't believe it by the time Klunk had jumped in she had gone down completely. Hope you manage to get her to work again and she looked beautiful on the water before the incident.

Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: radiojoe on May 26, 2015, 05:46:40 pm
Hope she's all dried out now Bob, she dose look grand on the water,  I've no doubt you will sort it, she's very complex so I guess teething troubles are to be expected.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 26, 2015, 07:19:17 pm
Well, most of the electrics are non-functional, like last time. That was expensive.  Once a compartment is fully flooded internally it can seep through to the next via cable holes at the top. Seal those and you can't even remove the wiring.  The 'popped' airline allowed water to enter compartments 2 & 3  from the top of the ballast tanks.  Two is too many to retain buoyancy when trimmed down.
Once it goes under, water can get in through the sound system outlet and mister intake, both a good three inches above waterline, then it just fills totally. 

Do I epoxy the wiring in ?  Do I just seal the tank vents and fill the tanks with waterproof foam?

A little sad. I had it all cracked at last, three and a half hours sailing in Peterborough with not a drop taken in.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Shipmate60 on May 26, 2015, 07:34:27 pm
Bob,
You have it cracked, expensive, possibly.
What is the damage and can the expensive electronics be protected as in a baloon etc.
Or seal the cables in with silicone as it should only ever need to be used once.


Bob
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Ian K on May 26, 2015, 08:13:21 pm
Hi Bob,

Polyphemus looked great on the water :-))

Try finding some slack cable length in your bulkhead tubes, then pack the tubes with Vaseline, forcing it in and around the wires. This will give some degree of water tightness, and still allow the cables to be removed if needed later.

We know you won't be beaten with this little set back. keep your chin up!

Regards

Ian
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on May 26, 2015, 09:00:27 pm
She is worth the effort to repair as Poly looked the business on the water. I wish you a speedy and trouble free repair job.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Subculture on May 26, 2015, 09:12:19 pm
Perhaps just put the pump in it's own little separate compartment, so if a breach does occur, it won't flood the whole boat.
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on May 27, 2015, 06:57:27 pm
 
What about that non corrosive silicon for sealing the cable ducts!

How fried are the electrics?
I've sometimes resurrected some electronics by striping them down and scrubbing with isopropyl alcohol.

Topic temporarily renamed!   :kiss:

(http://u.cubeupload.com/Mayhem1/WAgjIh.jpg)
Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 27, 2015, 07:32:45 pm
Thanks for the constructive comments, and for not laughing too hard.
It will take time to individually test and resurrect electrical components, soaking connectors and contacts in contact cleaner to resist corrosion.  I am trying to have positive and constructive thoughts here. 

I need to get a little more positive buoyancy here, to make things less critical.  Putting all the ballast control pneumatics into one compartment is a good idea, and sealing that ultra-tight. Maybe using steam type brass screw fittings.

Do I really need a smoke-steaming funnel and sound system in a 'submarine'?
If I removed the Mister and its 20 AA batteries, saving over 1Kg, I could dedicate compartment 3 (of 6) to pump and plumbing. Seal off the mister air inlet 1/3 way up funnel.  Run air valve inlet to top of funnel with maybe a non return valve at the top.  Take out the sound system and seal off the superstructure sound outlet tube.

Another rewire is virtually inevitable.  However, if I seal up the inter-compartment wiring bulkhead passages there will be zero adjustment or accessibility.  Maybe Hobson's Choice though.

A major concern is that our ‘home waters’ lake is up to forty feet deep.





Title: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Guy Bagley on May 27, 2015, 09:49:37 pm
Bob, we do have good contacts at the local sub Aqua club
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 27, 2015, 10:06:31 pm
I know Guy, if they can find it.  A wonderful clear water lake, but very big and deep.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on May 27, 2015, 11:07:55 pm
Strip out the sound system and generator, This will save you space, money, time and battery types. It will also simplify the waterproofing of your remaining components.

I can see the point in having sound in a chuggy old diesel tug or a throaty MTB, but cannot in a steam powered ship. In my humble op' , a well managed boiler room should generate little smoke (perhaps more pertinent to oil fired boilers?) so a generator is not really needed*.

This gives you RX, steering, propulsion and pumping control.

It (Sh) happens to everyone in all hobbies. I have recently seen a sea plane hit the only tree around our pond and two inverted airboats recovered by powering them upside down to shore. They were naturally no where near as sophistacated as Poly, but everything has a value in time and material expenditure.

Recover what you can and keep us informed of how you get on. It will be a interesting tutorial on recovery and redesign. I am sure you would have wanted your pioneering exploits to be less damp though.

Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: PICKETBOAT on May 27, 2015, 11:51:52 pm
Bob


So sad, but don't get disheartened. I am sure you are thinking on the right lines with your intended internal re vamp. Maybe you have to treat the model as a submarine (from an internal technical view point) and design backwards towards a floating vessel, rather than the other way around. I hope that makes sense.
You could install an oil filled smoke generator in the funnel. I have used these on all my models. Small, reliable, inexpensive, excellent smoke output (rather than water vapour) and you would still make a big weight/space saving over a water filled mist type unit.
 
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on May 28, 2015, 07:28:49 am
Bob, as promised at Mayhem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4z8QMgTEA4

Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on May 28, 2015, 08:46:22 am
Bob, as promised at Mayhem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4z8QMgTEA4


 :o That's AWESOME!
  :o

Can't find a UK supplier of CorrtionX but a link in the comment recommends, 3M Scotchkote™ Electrical Coating.
http://www.3mdirect.co.uk/products-for/electrical-supplies/sprays-coatings/electrical-coating-spray.html?gclid=CMbc9tX648UCFSXlwgods3MAWQ
Conformal Coating - waterproofing

Another comment:
"Plasti-dip works fine for ESCs too, but not Liquid Tape because it dries and cracks when it gets hot."


Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 28, 2015, 10:47:59 am
As those of you who were close enough to see when she went down the motors and sound system were still working on the bottom.  It's not the immersion that kills things it's the slower corrosion of drying out, especially brushed motors.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: rsm on May 28, 2015, 12:34:44 pm
Here is a link to the UK supplier of Corrosion-X:


https://www.corrosion-x.co.uk
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 28, 2015, 04:41:15 pm
Component Shop sell a Voltage Booster which will do away with your many AA batteries used to power the 24v smoke system, £9.95. He had some on display at Beale Park last weekend.. you can keep the smoke unit now!
If you can sort out the coaming heights around your hull openings, isolate the pump in its own compartment, as previously suggested, and maybe seal some of your cable runs ( epoxy is a good answer, albeit pretty permanent!), I don't see why Polyphemus cannot rise again, sound and smoke included :-))
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 28, 2015, 04:42:10 pm
and Corrosion X or Graupners Wet Protect over your electronics for the next sinking :}
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 28, 2015, 07:14:24 pm
That Component Shop voltage booster is very compact.  I did try a different one before but that was huge and emitted a lot of RF.  Worth trying at under a Tenner.
http://www.componentshop.co.uk/voltage-booster-with-green-led-display.html (http://www.componentshop.co.uk/voltage-booster-with-green-led-display.html)

No coamings on this ship.  Watertight compartment lids a la early Engle Submarines.

It is the drying out that causes the damage via corrosion, not immersion.  Spraying goo over a motor brushes and commutator will stop it working without water.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: steve pickstock on May 28, 2015, 07:21:33 pm
What we advise in the case of mobile phones that get immersed, is to pack the mobile in dry rice. And then place it in the airing cupboard. Not sure how you would do that to Poly, perhaps place loose weave bags of rice inside?  The point being to absorb as much damp as possible before it can do the damage.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 28, 2015, 07:55:36 pm
With the appreciated help of 'Klunk' at the lake we got all the lids off, emptied it, and dried it out as much as possible at the scene.  By the time I got it home in the warm corrosion was already starting to set in.  Contact cleaner helps, if used early. 
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Arrow5 on May 28, 2015, 07:57:19 pm
Is rice better than silica gel crystals ?   CorrosionX doesn't work on brushed motors of course.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: GAZOU on May 28, 2015, 08:13:08 pm
In case of dumping the first action: disconnect batteries
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: steve pickstock on May 28, 2015, 08:21:34 pm
Probably not more effective than Silica but much more accessible to the sort of person who would drop their mobile in the loo and such. But the advantage of rice is that you cn pack it in quantity. But as Bob says they've already taken steps to get rid of as much moisture as they can, so no need for the rice.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on May 28, 2015, 08:34:24 pm
So....to reiterate. .....drop phone down loo.....pour rice on top......take whole lot out of loo......place in airing cupboard and blame the wife!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: steve pickstock on May 28, 2015, 08:51:43 pm
Pretty much what usually happens - yes.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on May 28, 2015, 08:52:53 pm
 
        {-)   {-)   {-)

So....to reiterate. .....drop phone down loo.....pour rice on top......take whole lot out of loo......place in airing cupboard and blame the wife!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 28, 2015, 10:23:40 pm
Just bear in mind that this thread was almost completed.  If you really want it to reach Reply #700 and over 50,000 Reads I can always start off with a detailed Autopsy Report, in forensic format, examining the sequence of each organ component failure in detail. 

Then when it's rebuilt we can start all over again.  Happy 2016 ?    tee hee !
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: derekwarner on May 29, 2015, 12:06:03 am
Its all OK Bob........we will be waiting patiently  O0 O0 for the late 2015 to early 2016 for Polys next sailing :-))........

Just reading back a bit, the suggestion of increasing the smoking output at the expense of eliminating the complexity of the sound system is worthy of consideration

Derek
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on May 29, 2015, 01:54:39 am
Thank you Derek, it shouldn't be that long.

I have ordered the voltage booster.  The sound system is a very compact Action P64, the largest part is the speaker and sound box.  Smoke and sound from a 'submarine' is appealing, but both require openings around three inches above waterline.  If anything goes wrong . . .
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: dodes on June 01, 2015, 07:41:20 pm
Hi Ken, I think the advice on dumping the noise maker makes sense, unless you are really keen on a fog horn. I sailed for two years on a twin engine recip engine boat and I used to regularly go into the engine room and have a chat with the engineer between the engines and we spoke normally without raising our voices, also when on watch on a open bridge, I only head a low soft roaring from the funnel gases. Though the foghorn could splutter and berp at times.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: dodes on June 01, 2015, 07:52:10 pm
Sorry I forgot say , it was a shame your Poly dived below the waves, one strives so hard to build a nice detailed model only for it to sink because of a minor failure somewhere. But I am sure like the proverbial bird she will sail again.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 01, 2015, 09:25:44 pm
Her massive compound steam engines were quite different to modern ships, remembering she was built only twenty years after HMS Warrior which relied more on square rig sails than propeller drive.  The sound unit is very small, except for the 3" speaker and sound box.

Still drying out and airing the internal bits indoors.

In the mean time I am building a set of radio controlled lights for pond use.  Eight 4W LED outdoor spots, modified to take coloured studio lighting filters inside. The RX is a Blagdon 3 channel remote control unit.  I can switch banks of lights around the Koi pond from indoors to create different effects after dusk, shining through the vegetation.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/rc-pond-lights_zpsecflpta7.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/rc-pond-lights_zpsecflpta7.jpg.html)

I used even more wire than inside Polyphemus  %%
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on June 01, 2015, 10:00:51 pm
I never thought of using remote control in anything other than a model.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on June 05, 2015, 01:50:43 pm
 
How's the drying out going Bob?!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 07, 2015, 04:44:41 pm

How's the drying out going Bob?!

Initially, not too good, but after much rinsing drying contact cleaner etc I have gradually been salvaging a bit at a time.  Finally today I even got the brushed motors resurrected.  The air pump motor runs, but not sure yet if its pneumatic side will generate pressure.  I have to rework the copper piping with better clamps and ferrules to prevent a flexible blowing out again.  Mister and sound system still to get the defibrillator on so cant say yet if the mister disk has been affected by water impurities.  Hats off to survivability of Action electronics, when you hear the relays clicking on start up it's a good sign

Progress, but still early days.  Not as much internal damage as last time. 

Still undecided whether I really need smoke and sound, although I now have the new Component Shop voltage booster to try out.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on June 07, 2015, 05:43:54 pm
Keep us informed Bob. I am pleased to hear that there is less damage than expected. I am sure Klunk's rapid rescue saved you lots of trouble.

TTFN Ian:O)
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 07, 2015, 06:07:08 pm
Not just prompt rescue, but Klunk's Rapid Response Team working three M3 Allan keys simultaneously to get the 6 gasketed hatches off quickly to empty it out. 
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on June 07, 2015, 06:17:21 pm
At your service young man. Now and forever. The fee is a cuppa tea
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on June 07, 2015, 06:19:03 pm
P's Danny from lowestoft is blackmailing me. It appeared he took pics of me building a bbq that weekend and had the audacity to post them. Some people don't believe I build anything or even sail boats!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on June 07, 2015, 06:21:25 pm
P's bob. Any chance of you coming to black park in September with poly?
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 07, 2015, 07:37:25 pm
That's my home port Klunk, so provided I've not had a terminal collision with the sea bed I will be sure to be at our Black Park MBC Regatta on 13th September.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Stoneflash on June 08, 2015, 09:36:15 am
With all the technology that now  goes into model boats it is surprising that nobody has come up with some kind of airbag system to prevent, or at least reduce the damage caused by sinking.

Another Mike
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: david48 on June 08, 2015, 10:40:26 am
That's a bit of coincidence ,I was thinking that . If I remember there is or was something that fits to the key ring for boat/yachts ,if thy are dropped over board the water activates a device and a float comes up ,this must be fastened to the keys.
David
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: TugCowboy on June 08, 2015, 12:55:58 pm
I've thought about this before using exactly one of those devices as mentioned by David.

On any model big enough to warrant having one fitted my trials showed that it had to be mounted sufficiently high up enough to have a stability impact, or if the vessel was heavy enough for it not to be a problem then there was no way the device could help keep it afloat ( although it did make a nice marker buoy)

Mounting it low enough on a small enough vessel that it COULD keep afloat I found it got triggered by the amount of wash over the decks of my smaller tugs anyway so once again it was no good.

I gave up efforts to make something work and just resigned myself to getting "feet wet" occasionally to retrieve models from the water (although I haven't had one sunk since Wicksteed 2010 I am pleased to say! ;) )
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 09, 2015, 11:53:17 am
Back to the restoration:  To date I have managed to get everything resurrected except the variable fan on the Mister unit.  No fan.  The Mister is good, but takes up a lot of room and tends to bubble water out through the fan opening.  I can use it on another ship instead.

So, I am taking the Mister and sound system out, and relocating all the ballasting controls in one sealed compartment.  Two air tubes up the funnel, inlet and outlet, with non return valves.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: PICKETBOAT on June 09, 2015, 02:04:54 pm
Well done Bob.


I built a working scale topsail schooner years ago and was unsure about my ability to keep water out when she healed heavily. I did not want to lose her beneath the waves so installed a powerful  bilge pump with an electronic sensor (Action). These  had their own emergency power supply. I have never yet triggered it (I am pleased to say) but it certainly adds confidence. It would not stop a massive water ingress but would give more time to make for shore. Just a thought.


Please keep us posted on the repairs and re launch.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: joppyuk1 on June 11, 2015, 08:30:48 pm
How about this for the next one? A submarine battleship. Unfortunately I can't remember where it came from.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on June 11, 2015, 09:15:06 pm
At the same scale, it could seriously endanger Klunk's back if he tried to lift if from the bottom.
If I am reading that right it is a proposed semisubmersible Monitor rather than a Submarine.

Picketboat:  I have a bilge control system in each of the six compartments.  Sets off a 100dB alarm if water gets in anywhere.  It was loud, even underwater. A single pump could not have coped with the 'popped' pressure airline as water then came in through four 5 mm bilge top vents.

The Mk II system will have very secure pneumatic joints.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on August 25, 2015, 10:51:44 am
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Refit

A slight break whilst I concentrated on my newly acquired 1894 French cruiser and refurbishing HMS Skirmisher. I did not want to rush back into this, but give it loads of constructive thought.

Back to the Poly.  Getting serious now.  It only took one pneumatic joint failure to cause disaster.

Having come to a total impasse on my Engel 212A (aligning hull sections & sealing) I have been avidly following the 212 build log on Mayhem.  He too has continuing O ring sealing problems, and had also suffered a pneumatic pressure pipe failure, so even quality kit subs can bite back.  Poly at least is 90% scratch built.

So, progress to date. Removed Mister with 24V batteries, and closed off funnel lower air intake.  Too many holes.  Air pump moved back one compartment.  Less joints, less compartments at risk of compromise.

Epoxied longer brass stubs into tops of ballast tanks.  Heavy duty brass tees with barbed connections to allow wire-securing of flexible pipes.  Air valve (ballast tanks vent) no longer vents into Mister compartment, now vents via tube to top of funnel.  Air pump inlet also tees into this so sole air inlet is now way above waterline. If any ballast water gets past the air valve or pump its only route is up the funnel.

I spent ages trying to source suitable clamps for 5mm O/D flexible pipe, even bought some.  All useless.  So, I used plastic coated garden wire, twisted with pliers.  The tubing has a high rating, and I reckon my revised connection scheme should withstand practical pressures.

With all the electrics fully functioning again I sealed the inter-compartment cable ducts (just under deck level) with silicone sealant.  Even if one compartment fully floods it will limit overflow into the next.  (Ref: 1912 'iceberg' bulkheads.)

Whilst refitting I replaced almost all of the M3 s/s blind nutserts, this time using 2 ton epoxy.
The MIL grade neoprene hatch gaskets were inspected, and are still in good condition. Just to be on the safe side I will be taping over the flush joints and fixings.

The bilge level warning system is to be upgraded to 10mm flashing LED’s.  The ultrasonic alarm proved not loud enough inside the hull at even a moderate distance. 

A full ‘watering can’ test in the bath will be necessary, aiming for full IP65 rating.

--------------------------------

Montgomery’s First Rule of War was “Do not march on Moscow”, based on the high historical failure rate.  The First Rule of model Warship design should be “Avoid Semi Submersibles”.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: PICKETBOAT on August 25, 2015, 12:12:04 pm
Bob


Gosh what a lot of work you have done while she was in for a refit. It's interesting to read your comments re submarine seals. I'm mid way through my 1906 C class sub build, and have not tested the "O" ring seals on the home designed WTC yet. I do hope I don't have problems.


 For future reference have you ever tried cutting a small slice off a little spring (maybe 2 or 3 turns) and pushing it over the outside of the end of the silicon pipe. This expands a little when the tube is pushed over the the barbed pipe, but digs in when the tube tries to come off. I hope to use this method on the sub but none of the tubes will be under massive pressure.


Good luck with the re launch in the "Domestic Marine Testing Facility" (bath).   
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on August 25, 2015, 12:29:53 pm
Bob what tools do I need to bring??? And is she going to be at black park. I aim to bring my atlantis and you are going to sail her for a bit!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on August 25, 2015, 12:33:37 pm
HMS Polyphemus (1881), Refit
I spent ages trying to source suitable clamps for 5mm O/D flexible pipe, even bought some.  All useless.  So, I used plastic coated garden wire, twisted with pliers.  The tubing has a high rating, and I reckon my revised connection scheme should withstand practical pressures.

Is there a chance that they may cut into the Silcon tubing?
I used to use a larger diameter tube to double up the joint.
Don't forget to pressure test this time!

... Klunk on salvage standby...

Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Stavros on August 25, 2015, 12:38:40 pm
By the sounds of it Klunk you will NEED to get that underwater camera of mine with you

Dave
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on August 25, 2015, 12:50:51 pm
Get behind thee satin. How's the mini womble then??
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on August 25, 2015, 01:20:07 pm
Whilst appreciating that this design project is being treated as a joke by many I am determined to resolve the remaining technical issues.  yes, I am aiming to get her to the Black Park Regatta on 13th September.  I am well aware the water is 6ft deep at the edge and up to 40ft at the centre.  Tons of testing done (including pressure tests) over the build. The wire clamps are tightened enough for security, but not so as to bite into the silicone.  Incidentely, we had two subs requiring rescue there this week, a prop shaft joint failure and fouled props.  Any sub or submersible, even the best, carry higher operational risk than a simple broad beam tug.

With water sensors in all compartments and large bright flashing LED's if anything does get in it should have maximum integrity.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Martin [Admin] on August 25, 2015, 01:26:16 pm
 
No one is treating it as a joke Bob, we all felt your pain when you had problems at Wicksteed.
We're fascinated by the project and the solutions you are creating.

“THE only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything.”—President Roosevelt.16 Dec 2014
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on August 25, 2015, 01:28:45 pm
This is one project I have followed from the beginning and want to see resolved.  Much good advice has been given with alternatives where needed. I'm enthralled after seeing it in the flesh even more so after her spectacular sinking at Mayhem.  That was an unforseen sinking but at least you have remained positive and carried on. Looking forward to black park. I will be there about 8 bob. Join me for breakfast!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Klunk on August 25, 2015, 01:30:17 pm
Oi Martin
....you joining us?
I know your normally a steak pie and chips man but....
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: steve pickstock on August 25, 2015, 01:51:17 pm
As only a part-timer please may I add my comments?

As a long time model maker I have followed this thread with fascination and admiration - not only at your dogged determination, but at the quality of the finished work. Polyphemus is a fantastic model and a credit to your tenacity and perseverance.

You, sir are an inspiration!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: derekwarner on August 25, 2015, 01:52:38 pm
 ;)..... Bob K...whilst I have not necessarily agreed with all of the water proofing build scenarios you have offered, I have read and offered constructive comment since day 1

So I hope to be in this same position over the next months of your build..... :-))... Derek
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Stavros on August 25, 2015, 02:19:53 pm
Bob I might have a darned good IDEA to stop the pipes blowing off the copper pipes...Is there any way you could solder an olive to the end of the pipe to act as a swage on it to physically stop the pipe being blown off...aslo you could superglue the pipe onto the copper pipe so it has somewhere to grip....had this problem many years ago on a hilman imp with a front mounted radiator ...it kept throwing off the rubber pipes from the copper ones .....soon sorted with some olives silver soldered to the copper to act as stops so the juibilee clip couldn't slide off

Dave
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on August 25, 2015, 03:34:30 pm
Dave.  The air pump has cast-in barbs on the ports, but previously I had relied on the tight fit of the silicone tube over plain brass pipes elsewhere, the same as on my Engel sub.
Darned powerful little air pump this, although not had a problem before.

This time I have multi-barbed brass tee joints with wire clamps over the barb grooves which should take a lot more air pressure.  On a stand-alone sample I could not pull it off, and even took an electric car type pump to it.  I was almost to the point of considering steam engine plumbing.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on August 25, 2015, 08:53:21 pm
I was wondering where you had got to Bob. I was worried that you might have consigned Poly to the mantelpiece, but thankfuly you are still soldiering on and trying out new techniques to make her work.

Fingers crossed everything will work out as intended at Black Park and that you and Klunk can enjoy a hasslefree breakfast.

Have a bacon sandwich for me!
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: PICKETBOAT on August 26, 2015, 09:45:29 am
Bob


I'm sure no one here has been laughing at the (HMS Polyphemus) terrible accident. We are all amazed at your ability to keep going and make it work. I would have given up and pushed the thing in the loft and hoped it would go away!
Hope the post re fit sea trials go according to plan. Looking forward to seeing the pictures. Sorry I cant be there. 
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on August 26, 2015, 10:46:34 am
Thank you for the encouragements.  I have invested too much time and effort to consign her to the loft or mantelpiece, or the lake bottom either - hence current extreme care and diligence. 

Currently mounting two high powered flashing LED's to hatch covers, fore and aft.  I hope they will not be too noticeable - unless any of the bilge sensors get activated. Small sealed hole in hatch with LED base affixed to top surface with just wiring going through. Deck assembly clearance holes to suit.
Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: Bob K on August 31, 2015, 02:03:27 pm
Pneumatic plumbing installed and pressure tested.  Note barbed brass joints with securing wire over grooves.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/tee-joints_zpsa3o3iwrp.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/tee-joints_zpsa3o3iwrp.jpg.html)

A pair of 10 mm ultra bright flashing LED's epoxied into clear compartment hatches, one fore and one aft, each protruding through removable deck sections.  Hunter Systems bilge pump controller with sensors at the lowest part of each compartment.  Sensors wired in parallel so if any one detects water the warning lights flash.  Picture below taken with one sensor dipped in a glass of water.  Each sensor tested individually.

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/flashing-light_zpsgpngnwxo.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/flashing-light_zpsgpngnwxo.jpg.html)

With one at each end of the ship this should give a clearer indication of trouble starting than the internal pitzo alarm.  After testing inter-compartment through-bulkhead wiring sealed with silicone sealant.  It then remains to give a full days bath test before re-sealing hatch covers and testing again with a watering can.


Title: Re: Re: H.M.S. Polyphemus .... slight set back!
Post by: ballastanksian on August 31, 2015, 07:44:32 pm
Well let's hope the bath test is a success and that you will be back on the water soon.

Then on with your rowing boat a'la 'In the night garden' and other exciting projects.
Title: H.M.S. Polyphemus.... It was completed
Post by: Bob K on May 08, 2016, 01:30:10 pm
Just For The Record


I had no intention of continuing with this thread due to the high volume of inappropriate jokes at my expense.  However,  despite the still continuing ‘humorous’ digs, I should state that Polyphemus remains fully complete and operational.


As reported before, the failure of a water pressure joint to a ballast tank resulted in water being pumped into the hull.  All pressure joints were remade with barbed joints and security wire locking.  Inter-compartment wiring at top of bulkheads sealed with silicone sealant.  Bilge warning sensors in every compartment with bright flashing warning lights fore and aft.


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark003_zpscdrjcyxt.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark003_zpscdrjcyxt.jpg.html)


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark007_zpsgjydduwb.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark007_zpsgjydduwb.jpg.html)


A slight problem with stability at Black Park was due to my going a bit O.T.T. on the detailing, adding 400 gm topside more than allowed for. 
After running extensive tests on expansion ratios of two-part buoyancy foam, the hull was placed on each end and carefully measured quantities injected via the vent holes using a syringe.  This is to reduce ballast capacity by 40% and provide additional reserve buoyancy. 


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark005_zpsn2ksntek.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark005_zpsn2ksntek.jpg.html)


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark006_zpsggmaxab1.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/BlackPark006_zpsggmaxab1.jpg.html)


OK, it doesn’t trim right down to ‘almost awash’, but is stable and with a little more minimum freeboard.  This has been a massive long project, but I have been determined that the numerous technical challenges should not beat me.  Bear in mind the original only had 200 tons of buoyancy when trimmed down in attack mode, so with an 11kg model design limits were close.


Anyone with a sense of humour would do well to first try designing a working semi-submersible themselves.


END OF BUILD THREAD


(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/thats-all-folks_zpsikedgl6n.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/thats-all-folks_zpsikedgl6n.jpg.html)
Title: H.M.S. Polyphemus.... It was completed
Post by: Martin [Admin] on May 08, 2016, 02:11:28 pm
 
Great job Bob!   :-))

 He who laughs last ....!



( Coming to Wicksteed? )
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: Kayechuk on May 08, 2016, 05:52:44 pm
 :-)) Great build,now if I can get my poly half as good I will be happy.Mine is static.But driving me  {:-{ >>:-( <*< <*< <*< <*< >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: ballastanksian on May 08, 2016, 05:53:28 pm
Gosh, what an adventure Bob. Thanks for sharing your final jobs on the Poly.
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 10, 2016, 09:53:08 am
I think ( and know! ) a sense of humour is needed with this type of project :-))

This thread proves that you shouldn't give up with a project, despite setbacks. What you have learned through this build will benefit others going forward..well done, congratulations and on to the next project.
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: spooksgone on May 14, 2016, 11:37:14 am
An incredible amount of work, and patience. A complete inspiration to others. It just go's to show that if you want something bad enough, you can get it. Fantastic build log. Thanks Bob. I look forward to seeing her in the flesh one day. :-)) :-)) :-))
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: radiojoe on May 14, 2016, 02:19:02 pm
Definitely no jokes from me Bob, I applaud your perseverance on a very difficult project, a big well done from me.
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: Bob K on May 14, 2016, 02:32:17 pm
I wasn't going to comment any further after completing the project (finally) at the end of last year, but I must thank those who have taken the time to write such positive words.  There have been a lot of ups and downs (other than re waterline) not least of which were the early failures of Perspex type materials to bond in a completely watertight manner.  The mistake in adding too much detail top-weight was a dumb error on my part after everything had been so carefully calculated and measured.  But . . . I just love detailing models !

Nothing so ambitious to follow - sorry.  My Iggle Piggle boat from the children's BBC series was relatively straightforward, and seems to draw crowds of young kids which is nice.  I have finally cut out and replaced the seized prop shafts from my HMS Amazon and look forward to sailing her tomorrow.  My new Dean's HMS Royal Marine kit I am very much looking forward to building, and then an 'almost' scratch build of HMS Abercrombie monitor with her giant twin 15 " turret.

I guess the moral is -  push your limits in what you build, always learning, but keep your goals realistic.

Cheers    Bob K

Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: Kayechuk on May 14, 2016, 03:48:46 pm
 :-)) Bob modelling is always about learning new skills,and pushing your limits.Every build you do, increases your skills, and hopefully motivates more people, not to be afraid to push their limits, by posting  your builds on MBM.
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: steve pickstock on May 14, 2016, 08:40:35 pm
I have learned so much from following your progress, and my admiration for your skills and perseverance is huge.

Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: derekwarner on May 15, 2016, 12:02:39 am
Morning Bob ...carry on :-)) ....you know you have always had [moral] support from OZ .........

You must also remember from our place on earth, we have the advantage of seeing Polyphemus's bottom ;D........Derek
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: Bob K on June 03, 2016, 11:18:01 am
Quick update:  After very successful sailings at Black Park, Beale Park, and Wicksteed Park, I decided to do some modifications to get her sailing better.  I had originally set the F14 channels to 'submarine style' controls as seemed fitting for a semi-submersible, but having the stick positions totally different to all my other boats was driving me nuts with confusion.  So, I changed the Rx channels around to match what I had become instinctively used to.  I had thought that with slightly more freeboard I might be able to convert to 2.4Mhz, but the Rx even at the top of the compartment is far too close to the waterline.

It steered like a pig.  Huge turning circle, plus ages to stop.  I had built the rudder 'scale' so now increased it by 30% at rear and bottom to hopefully improve the handling.  Just to return it fully to spec I replaced the P94 and Kondor motors, even though both had survived last years immersion.  The P94 'R1" pot was getting a bit iffy to set the mixing ratio.

The bow rudders were not very effective on the real ship, and proved the same on my model.  Instead of using a reversing Y lead to operate both from the same channel I now have the bow rudders on a separate reversed channel so I can use them either together or independently. 

Next show appearance will be this weekend at the Alfold Charity Show.  Hopefully It will steer and perform much better. 

Martin's photo from Wicksteed    (c) Model Boat Mayhem
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/HMS%20Polyphemus/polyphemus%20at%20wicksteed%201_zpsmlod0d7k.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/HMS%20Polyphemus/polyphemus%20at%20wicksteed%201_zpsmlod0d7k.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Bob's H.M.S. Polyphemus
Post by: ballastanksian on June 03, 2016, 11:26:12 am
Lovely :-))