Model Boat Mayhem

The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: MartinH-K on October 19, 2007, 07:33:04 pm

Title: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 19, 2007, 07:33:04 pm
Hi
My name is Martin and I'm a noob on the forum. Ive been a member of the Scale Model Forum for a while and a friend over there suggested I come over here as well. I've just started a new scratch build of HMS Hood in 1/35 scale. Yes, that is not mis-typed. It will result (all things being equal) in a manned model of some 25 feet. Based on the 1931 incarnation, she will have a scaled Fairey Firefly F111f launching from a (springloaded) catapult, smoke pouring from her stacks and all 15" guns will fire (compressed air fired spuds!). She will have a r/c escort Battle class destroyer (eventually and when I can find some plans...) and be operated by two, sitting fully enclosed beneath the deck housings. This is a three year build plan but I anticipate sea trials by July next year. I would be grateful and will ask for help and hints even if the comments are... "you are nuts!" I'm based in Bristol and would love to link up with any like minded folk in this area. My wife is looking at me sideways... but I have sort of turned the back garden (and our ding room) into a boat yard!
Thanks for letting me 'rabbit' on and, from the tone of the posts I've read, this is another great place to chat and share.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Martin [Admin] on October 19, 2007, 08:02:08 pm
Now THAT is going to be an instesting build!  :o

Any pictures yet?

Oh, and welcome to the forum!   :)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: gribeauval on October 19, 2007, 08:39:37 pm
Hi Martin, welcome to the madhouse!! ::)

It's nice to know that I'm not the only loony on the forum who likes to build BIG!!

http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6085.0 (http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6085.0)

By by the way, my wife has already measured me up for one of those nice jackets that button up the back!! 8)

Mike
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Shipmate60 on October 19, 2007, 09:15:36 pm
MartinH-K,
If you check the Mayhem Home Page under Beal Park Model Boat Show you will see 1 of the manned models made by he Portsmouth Display team.
It might give you some ideas how others do it.

Bob
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 20, 2007, 12:19:09 am
Couldn't find the model but I'm in much touch wuth Duncan who is a serious source of really good ideas. I will post up some piccies if someone can explain 'how'.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Shipmate60 on October 20, 2007, 10:26:49 am
Martin,
Try this link, it shows them being built.

http://www.pmbdt.co.uk/   &   http://www.pmbdt.co.uk/Gallery2.htm


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 20, 2007, 10:54:41 am
Those are quite awesome aren't they...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: J.beazley on October 20, 2007, 01:25:29 pm
I know a guy who sails at basingstoke on a regular basis and he is in the middle of building a Fleet scale Hood over 6 feet long its a nice size on the lake.

If i get to sail up there 2moro i shall takes some pics if he is there, if he isnt i shall take some when i next see him. O0

Jay
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 20, 2007, 01:58:20 pm
That would be excellent! Any details, plans, pictures ANYTHING he's willing to share would be great. At 25 ish feet long, this model is going to need a lot of detail. It is a three year project to complete build so I've got some time. I also need any leads you folk might have to figures (that might even be adaptable) between 1/32 and 1/40 ish scale.
Thanks
Martin
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tigertiger on October 20, 2007, 03:56:46 pm
HI There.

At 25ft she will be impressive.

I have a few questions on trasportation. At 25ft will you build her in sections that bolt together. For example the bow and stern could be removable.

If not are there any road transport regulations on the length of trailer you can you can pull with a car. Or length of load you can have overhanging on the roof of your car/van.
Also if you will be traveling to events, the cover given by RAC and AA has limits on trailer length. 22ft seems to ring a bell. Over that you need commercial recovery.

As a manned 'vessel' are there any regulations that would apply at 25 feet. For example nav lights, fire extinguisher, horn.

In Bristol I assume you will be on the river which is quite wide neat Southville, so will you have auxillary power in case of battery/engine failure. Paddle etc.

And if you have not done so yet, contact the guys at the pmbt. I am sure they can give a lot of hints and tips.

Good luck and I will enjoy following the build.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 20, 2007, 04:10:36 pm
Hi matey
Lots of useful points there...
The decision is now to make a solid boat with no breaks. The issue re trailors is one that has vexed me but seems to be resolving itself into a choice between a glider trailer, an advertising trailer and a scratch built, twin axle trailer (made for the job). I've decided to put this on the back burner for the time being. Regarding vessel regulations, she will be equipped with fire suppresion,bouyancy aids, horns, lights, ship to shore and guns! (Lots of pirates in Bristol don'tch' know?). I will be registering her as a 'proper' boat in Bristol with full, inland waterway licence and number. Auxillary engines may be a moot point as, at this moment, the design calls for ALL four props to be independantly powered.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 20, 2007, 04:49:19 pm
Tiger: yep regulations re trailers and manned vessels, simple you just obey them all. If a car isn't suitable just  use a van or 4x4 that suits. The only time I`ve been stopped by the police when towing Invincible was by an ex RN copper who just wanted a look at his old ship (in miniature). My only thought about Martins build is the complexity and major engineering of the 4 shafts. I`d have dummies for static show, removed for the water and a simpler drive system such as an outboard in a well aft. It works for me allthough I haven't got round to the dummy shafts. I fear the spud-guns might have to be reduced to powder & flash as pyrotechnics are banned in most if not all harbours and marinas. Oh yes Martin glad you came over to the best model boat forum on the web. Go to additonal options then browse and you can select pics for us from your picture library. There instructions on the main page I think , Martin/ Bradders ???? Build pics are a favourite on this forum. You have a PM MartinK.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: John C on October 20, 2007, 05:08:09 pm
Just a thought............but why shouldn't all 4 props be powered. surely with the sort of motors that the likes of mobile marine models are now selling for large tugs, A model of the size I think you are suggesting has the space for a small petrol generator which I think Have an 12 volt output for charging batteries etc?..............just a thought or there's always the solar panel option but the weigt of all those batteries..............nah.

John C
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Shipmate60 on October 20, 2007, 05:15:24 pm
John, At 25 feet long and able to carry a crew of 2 she might come under full size boat regulations, as she wont be classed as a model.


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 20, 2007, 05:23:37 pm
Correct Bob , not "might" but WILL.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tigertiger on October 21, 2007, 02:02:37 am
Regards trailers again.

I think ALL recovery services (AA RAC Etc.) will only cover a proprietry tralier. They don't cover 'home' built. But a proprietry manufacturer could provide a custom job.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: John C on October 21, 2007, 02:39:35 pm
Bob
I have seen the Portsmouth display team and wondered why the emphasis on the underwater shape, the dreadnoughts displayed by them look pretty impressive on the water, althouigh I have seen one on E.bay that didn't make that much money?
Is this a one off that is going to be used just the once, and has to roll over, showing her bum. As I thought the Hood blew up due to cordite being stored where it shouldn't have. I confess , I'm not a warship man although my father in law served and at 82 still provides me with a mountain of information.
Just interested in the thread, although not likely to go down the road of building some thing like this!!

John C
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 21, 2007, 06:50:14 pm
Hi John
She better NOT roll over and show her bum!!!
I am going for an approximation (fairly accurate) of the below waterline hull shape but still an approximation for two reasons. One, I'd like her to be as true to the original as I can be and secondly, the original was that shape for a reason- speed and stability. When she dug in and motored, she went so fast, her quarter deck was pretty much awash with water which was the main reason they removed the Fairey Firefly (her seaplane) from the stern.
I want this 'model' to recreate the scale speed and reproduce that look. The main theory is that the Hood blew apart when the fifth salvo from the Bismark punctured the thin deck armour and found the 9inch magazine causing a catastrophic chain reaction. It is doubly sad as this was the first 'proper' action (ship to ship) that Hood took part in. She was due a refit in 1939 when her deck armour would have been substantially thickened but, due to the circumstances at the time, this was cancelled.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 21, 2007, 06:52:44 pm
I HAVE PICTURES! How do I post them up comrades?
Martin
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 21, 2007, 08:48:46 pm
MartinH-K, go to the main page of Mayhem (Not the Forum) and "Boss Martin" has a "how to" there , easy to find. Keep file sizes down, you can get re-sizer program on the web, or re-take them with smaller pixel count setting on camera . Any computer buffs help here ????  Also I see John Roberts` "HMS HOOD anatomy of the ship" available from Amazon at 13 , bargain, used to be 25 or 30 quid.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Shipmate60 on October 21, 2007, 08:54:50 pm
The image resizer is an add on for windows.
Just download and when you right click on photo the resize option is in the drop down menu, just select medium.
Go to additional options bottom right of post. Left click.
Highlight modified pic and click Attach or more attachments to attach more than one pic per post.

Bob
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: DickyD on October 21, 2007, 08:57:31 pm
The image resizer is an add on for windows.
Just download and when you right click on photo the resize option is in the drop down menu, just select medium.
Go to additional options bottom right of post. Left click.
Highlight modified pic and click Attach or more attachments to attach more than one pic per post.

Bob
Additional options is port not starboard Bob. O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 22, 2007, 10:41:05 am
Just ordered HMS Hood... Anatomy of a ship! Will upload piccies tonight after days work!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 22, 2007, 06:47:50 pm
Well... I'd upload them if the sodding Adobe Photoshop program would release them! Grrrrrr and gnashing of teeth generally!
It is beginning to look like a wreck now rather than simply, planks washed up on the sea shore. Anyone else noticed that builds look like wrecks in reverse?
Four days solid and I'm wrecked! Back to proper job tomorrow. I'm getting a special VERY bendy wood in a couple of days to make the hull curves. Having said that, there is something decidely wrong (or not right) with bulkhead number 4.....
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 22, 2007, 08:45:56 pm
Martin try downloading your pics onto Picasa , free from Google, very easy, good filing and editing, not photoshop but handy for this kind of thing. Did you get last PM re Somerset ? 
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 23, 2007, 12:16:29 am
Got the message, thanks. Is that a GRP pre-fab hull or did he make that himself?
I'll have a go with downloading tomorrow night andd, who knopws....? Maybe I can get soemthing working...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 23, 2007, 08:41:45 am
It is a commercial f/glass hull from www.fleetscale.co.uk.  Good source of ideas perhaps. No luck with pics yet?  We are waiting with baited breath ::)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 25, 2007, 04:20:49 pm
Here are some piccies... hopefully in order.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 25, 2007, 04:24:05 pm
Part 2!

At 51, I'm a new generation of hoodie!!! :D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: DickyD on October 25, 2007, 04:32:38 pm
Martin, do you think you might need a bigger patio.
That is going to be some sort of monster.  O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 25, 2007, 05:40:26 pm
Good , a start.... it gets easier now really  O0   Why the black ones ? I wouldn`t advise painting the formers, except maybe with resin (in a light colour). Is the actual assembly going to be indoors? Winter coming on and all that.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: RickF on October 25, 2007, 07:17:11 pm
Hi Martin,

Interested to know, with the very flimsy looking keel, how you intend to get some torsional stiffness into the hull. Are you going to add lots of "stringers" or use some sort of stressed skin?

Rick
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 26, 2007, 02:09:05 pm
Point taken Dunc but I'm thinking the 'skin' will be attached to an outer shell around the formers. I will think on that though... Its an outdoor hull build... all the fun stuff goes on indoors and just assempled outside. Yes Rick, there will be a lot of stringers as well as a much reinforced keel -  6" x 2" . Whats there is just for placement at the moment and I'm DEFINATELY thinking stressed skin. I don't want to say anything about that at the moment... not till I know if it will work! If it does then I'll let everyone in on what I did.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 29, 2007, 03:44:42 pm
Hi Martin, have you considered using the "stich and glue" method used by builders of small full-size boats such as the Mirror Dinghy. Very light and strong, add a few stringers plus some cosmetic bulges with blue-foam , skin the whole with resin and glass. A full length deck will make your model a strong box-like structure.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 29, 2007, 04:54:54 pm
Two minds with but a single thought....!!!! I used a stitch and glue approach on the 4ft 6inch patrol boat I did 20 years ago. I was just looking at that as an option here. It may be the best way to go with a couple of slight wrinkles... I would keep the bulkheads as solid, keel to deck pieces, stressed and supported across the top, meaning I could have a sectioned deck inboard of a (sort of) splash deck. I am going to go with the idea of a box with cosmetic 'bolt ons'. Let's see what the weekend brings to the party...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 31, 2007, 07:16:20 pm
The developing Firefly...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tonyH on October 31, 2007, 08:53:15 pm
Evenin' Martin,

I've started on the early bits (the Walrus) for a 1:36 HMS Penelope (only 14ft) so I've a couple of questions on the flying bit please.

I'm aiming for 8oz for the plane and with the right gear I could get to about 6.5oz but I've not flown electric before so I'd appreciate advice. Fuselage is vac formed and wings are blue foam with carbon tube spar. Since you probably have about the same wing area etc. what motor/cell arrangement are you thinking of?
Catapult boost will be using a cam arrangement (like a compound archery bow) so the acceleration will be linear rather than having all the push at the start. This makes it a bit more complicated so is it actually needed?

I've decided to make the flying bit first to prove (or disprove) that the system works and since the wet bit is 'relatively' straight forward.

By the way, I've found that the best 1:36 figures are Tamiya Wermacht. A bit of judicious filler to make the bell bottoms and then paper collars and caps (thin band for the rim and oval shape for the crown.

Best of luck

Tony
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on October 31, 2007, 08:57:19 pm
How about Depron instead of balsa .  Was it a floatplane on the Hood? Would love to see the Walrus and the mother ship, any pics Tony? Ideal would be a super-scale for static and a practical scale-ish one for flying....and a couple of spare fliers ! 
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 01, 2007, 12:03:57 am
Hi Tony... Go with Arrow's advice... he's giving me absolutely heaps!!! The Fairey Firefly 111F was the float plane used on the HMS Hood 1931-2 when it was taken off due to the aft quarter deck being so wet, it was almost impossible to launch. I am looking at a different system for the catapult. If Ive got this right (and I will be experimenting before I put the Firefly ANYWHERE near it), a compressed spring releases 90% of its energy in the first 50% of its length (on the basis that after this point, friction and metal memory begin to pull it back).
Conversely, a stretched spring releases most of its energy in the latter 50% of its length. I will be experimenting with a wheeled undercarriage (over dry land) to guesstimate the amount of force over distance travelled it takes to launch into controlled flight. Once I've got some idea, I should be able to do some sums to work out how much of a stretched spring I will need to get it into the air (and not in the water. Of course, learning to land on the water is a whole different can of tuna! I was thinking more of a controlled stall or even landing 'dead-stick'. Over to you Dunc... PS, I like the idea of a static flier as well... The real one will be quite delicate... I won't even be able to fly in anything but the lightest of winds.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on November 01, 2007, 10:27:16 am
To clarify, the depron was for you Martin !  I was looking at your very thick balsa crutch airframe. A formed monocoque shell in depron will be worth considering, Tony has the right idea with vac-form. Blue foam can be carved and sanded to the streamlined shaped of any aircraft and the inside hollowed to lighten and accommodate the r/c gear.  A simple variation on the well proven bungie launch technique will suffice to get the `plane to flying speed in a short distance. The slipstream from the large prop used in electric flight is one of the main factors in foamie aircraft success plus very good power to weight ratio. The "flying" version could be slightly overscale in size and some additional wing and tail area too, just enough to be unnoticeable. However the aircraft is awayy down the line yet and so is the next bit of (maybe)useful information...I spotted some woven wood blinds in both "Homebase" and "Focus DIY" furniture stores yesterday that might be a good source of deck planking. They come in mahogany, chestnut,oak and tan colours, have a look. There is also bamboo round rod version that could be useful for pipework etc. Not cheap but strip from a wood supplier wont be either, might pick up some  second hand, keep watching the skips when a house is being renovated ! Don't know what size you require but might be near enough scale width.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tonyH on November 01, 2007, 11:05:01 am
Sorry, no photos yet since I'm still at the easly stages. The Walrus is technically not the correct aircraft (it was a Hawker Osprey but I thought that the b****y great float underneath would really upset the flying!).
My other idea for the launch was to have a simple falling weight, since this would give a linear thrust pattern. This would also be easily adjustable.
I discounted springs since I understand that the power is torsional, i.e it relates to the twist in the wire whether it is compressed or stretched.

Whatever the outcome It'll be fun trying!

Any thoughts on the wattage needed? I reckoned on about 40 but since it's a pusher there may be other implications?

Tony
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on November 01, 2007, 11:45:02 am
Tony , sorry I cant help with electric thingies, I just buy ready-to-adapt over the counter stuff. Best source of info on the type of plane you both need is on www.aeronutz.flyer.co.uk based in South Leiscester. These guys are the dogsboz when it comes to miniature scale flying models, good list of suppliers of the ultra-light r/c gear you need. They think in grammes not ounces. Re pushers, remember the thrust-line is the same as a tractor ie upwards when behind the wing. Probs with limited size of prop clearance I`d think on Walrus, electric power usually use oversize dia props.  Original Osprey would be easier, pendulum effect of single float beneficial not a handicap . Walrus more problems to overcome IMO
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 05, 2007, 11:01:11 pm
Hull skeleton and base two thirds done now. Starting to look like IT might one day be a SHE! Did a full size cardboard turret mock-up and worked out the mechanics of rotation and elevation. Still working to a tolerance of 2mm... or trying to! That would be just 80cms in the full size ship and only 2.28cms in the model. More piccies as soon as I can take some in daylight (when I'm not working at my proper job!). Think I may have found someone to 'glass' the hull as well! More later...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on November 05, 2007, 11:36:38 pm
Good, progress O0  Awaiting pics .    2mil  ???,  nearest 1/2" is my tolerances :embarrassed:   Re glass; try for epoxy if you can, stronger, less odour, better resale value. If you are getting it for nowt....beggars cant be choosers, just take it !
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 06, 2007, 04:51:44 pm
The 'glass' guy is coming over in the next couple of weeks... gives me a major deadline for hull completion doesn't it! :o Think I'm gonna go electric for the gun mechanisms... construction templates for 15" gun turrets drawn out, will transfer them to the ply in... oh... about ten minutes time! ;)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on November 07, 2007, 10:19:01 am
Yer 10minutes are up....pics if you please >>:-(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on November 11, 2007, 01:59:41 pm
Hello Martin and all,

Finally stumbled in to where the action is.  Quite a project, looks like you're moving along nicely.  I'm about to start cutting bulkheads for my project, a 1:35 scale Fletcher class destroyer.  I'm planning to power it with a steam turbine.  I thought it was ambitious at 10'-7" and 100 lbs (130), holy cow, your boat will be "huge".  Am I correct in assuming she will displace around 2000 lbs?

I'd look forward to being the escort, but unfortunately I'm across the big pond, and inland about as far as one can get, no lack of water here though.  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 12, 2007, 05:41:04 pm
Hi 'Cap',
Yep, she's going to be big! If things go well once she's afloat, I might even get her over the pond as I come over every year or so. It would be an honour to have your destryer as an escort. I also going to be building a 'Battle' class destroyer (1/35) to go with her. Just finished the basic 15" turrets- that is, the shell of them! Now comes the hard part. DETAIL! O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 14, 2007, 11:35:08 pm
I need to 'power' the turrets with servo's. They'll be direct line- NOT r/c. I need them to turn the turret and stop turning it when I release the switch but NOT return to the neutral position. I need to do a similar thing with the guns inside the turrets but in elevation rather than rotation. In other words, I want to be able to 'point and shoot' where I want to. My question? What servo's do I need? I'm thinking 6v and powered from one battery.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on November 15, 2007, 02:42:06 am
Martin,  I imagine you've got surplus electronics places around there or on the internet, I'd probably use 12v (or 6v) geared motors.  Are you running all the turrets and elevations separately? 

A fellow in Belgium is building a 1:48 scale Fletcher and has designed electronics to run all five turrets from the gun director, when the target is out of the line of fire of a turret it returns to the home position until the target is in it's line of fire again, then it rotates and aligns with the other turrets.  I think he's posted the design, circuit board etc, as well as a movie of it working.  http://users.skynet.be/nico.ottevaere/

I had planned to use mechanical switchs to basically do what Nico's electronics does but it gets pretty complicated, the circuit board would probably be easier.  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on November 15, 2007, 04:13:14 pm
Cap! That looks ideal! ;D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on November 16, 2007, 11:28:01 pm
Good to hear, if you figure out how it works let me know...  So exactly what stage are you at, above you say you've got someone lined up to glass the hull, that's probably soon.  Are you going to be ready?  Any photo's?  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 13, 2008, 12:05:16 am
Thanks matey! Got (and using) the book. Absolutely excellent value. Piccies up as soon as I have a mo though I sent anout ten to Duncan yesterday! :)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: herrmill on June 13, 2008, 08:46:07 am
Martin,

Looks like I'm a late comer to the party, but will be watching your build with interest.  Care to sail it over to China?  It would like on Hangzhou's West Lake!  O0

Chuck
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 11:59:00 am
Cap , I should point out that Martin`s Hood is a flat bottomed non scale version below the waterline, similar to the www.pmbdt.co.uk ones. It`ll draw a couple of inches only but still be realistic on the water. Not be a very good sea-going vessel but that was never the intention. A naval architect did some rough calculations on my 31ft Invincible and came with about 4 tons displacement. I have to load her down with 20 odd 5 gallon water drums to be stable(ish) and this was with reduced depth but scale displacement hull. She draws about 18". There is also about 300lbs of inbuilt concrete in the bilges. The other thing to point out that I`m not the very fine Hood builder called Duncan on RCGroups forum. I`m Arrow5 (from the Invincible`s pennant number RO5) and I only build Springers as I`m really an aeromodeller. Duncan IS my first name.  Time to get some pics on here Martin.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 13, 2008, 07:48:41 pm
I CANNOT get on with loading the piccies! It won't let me! "xxxxx". Any chance you could load the ones I sent you Dunc?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 07:57:53 pm
I`ll try Martin but I`m no computer guy. Wait.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 08:25:29 pm
Here goes, resized them but I`ll do them in batches. 1st three....
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 08:38:15 pm
...next (one or two probs)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 08:42:20 pm
probs solved......thats them all.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 13, 2008, 08:51:51 pm
Howzat Martin ! The pink fabric , is that fibreglass ?  Whatever it is  a light spray of photo-mount will save a lot of grief and keep the fabric in place while you ease out the wrinkles. Scrape the resin on with an old credit card. Do the inside joints with woven f/glass strips 2" or 3". Remove paint where glassing.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 14, 2008, 12:06:25 pm
Thanks Dunc.  :) The pink fabric is actually... bed sheet, varnished in place. It only extends up the sides about three inches and is mostly as a 'belt and braces' joint and bottom seal. It will pretty much disappear when the final seal and paint job is on but will actually lend some texture to an otherwise plain colour. I checked with the official Hood Association and, unfortunately, the ship never had battle camouflage so I'm going to go (eventually) with the Mediteranean Fleet colour which was a slightly lighter grey. At least, that's the plane at the moment.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Edward Pinniger on June 14, 2008, 06:14:22 pm
Good to see this build is still progressing - I'll be very interested to see more in future! It will certainly be impressive and inspiring to see the finished model sailing.

This is the sort of project I'd love to do if only I had the space + money required (I'd probably build a predreadnought battleship, or possibly a WW1 battlecruiser).
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on June 14, 2008, 07:54:35 pm
Not too expensive Edward, have you looked at the build and plans for the Edwardian ships on www.pmbdt.co.uk ?  Space no real problem if you do them in sections to be bolted together at the waterside. Small trailer for small car should do it. Go on ...join the fleet !
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 14, 2008, 09:26:06 pm
Go on... be a devil! 1/35 scale... 'cos size DOES matter! ;)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: farrow on June 18, 2008, 09:30:38 pm
My father watched the Hood go up from the Norfolk, he counted 11 possibly12 major fires out of control , he said she was on fire from stem to stern. Also my great uncle was a captain overseer of armanent, he said from her disaster three directives came out, one was banning oil based paints below as she was .25" thick in white paint in placers from when she showed the flag before the war. Two all magazines had to have steel tops her secondary ready use had wood tops and three I forget.
I was reading an authoritative book on Battle cruisers and it mentions Hood was different to all other capitol ships in her torpedo fit, hers was fitted at the same deck as her secondary guns with a large 21" torpedo store behind the fore funnel which was not armoured, all other ships were fitted fixed tubes below the waterline with the torpedo store behind the armoured belt. In short she was one of Fishers planning disasters, for which he was eventually removed for and she had no business taking on a modern battleship it was you could say murder for want of another word(1500 men)!!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 20, 2008, 12:15:06 am
Trouble was, she was seen as 'unsinkable' and the 'pride of the British fleet'. She was allready 25 years old (since her keel was laid) when she went up against the Bismark. It was her sinking that prompted Churchill to issue the 'get the Bismark at all costs' order. It is uncertain whether or not she would have survived if her deck armour had been up to the mark. The Bismark was 'lobbing' shells in a high trajectory with very great accuracy that the British simply couldn't match at that time. Certainly, Hoods 15in guns were arguably as good as the Bismarks but the maybe the accuracy just wasn't there. :(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on June 21, 2008, 03:25:34 am
Looking good Martin, glad to see you back at it.  Thanks for the info Arrow5/Dunc, I think your Hood is great, and it sure make sense to cut back on the displacement at that size.  I'll have a look at the pmb, looks like a lot of fine models there.  Rmasmaster intersting stuff, I didn't know the Hood was on fire, this was prior to Bismark encounter obviously, what caused all the fires?  Looking forward to seeing more there Martin and hope all goes well at the Bristol Harbour Festival.  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 21, 2008, 11:44:09 am
Quote
Hoods 15in guns were arguably as good as the Bismarks but the maybe the accuracy just wasn't there.

I think it's a lot to do with rangefinder technology - certainly it was at Jutland. The German optics were better and were able to get on target more quickly but accuracy tended to drop off with all the bangs, crashes and vibration associated with a battle situation. The British rangefinders took longer to get on target but were able to keep the range better. Thus German opening salvoes were renowned for their accuracy.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Shipmate60 on June 21, 2008, 01:43:09 pm
Colin,
After Jutland the RN carried out test firings of a range of RN guns.
The charges were found to be completely different which affected the range and therefore accuracy of the whole platform.
This led to the introduction of the ISO system of Quality Control which is still used today, but in a far more refined form.

Bob
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: farrow on June 24, 2008, 09:59:07 pm
The British Navy was not interested in accuracy in WW1, but rapid rate of fire. The theory was you put the other side off it's aim and you might get lucky. To do this the capital ships carried 50% more ammo than designed for, this was fine for the shells but not the bags of Cordite which were stacked every where but not in the magazines, also the Battle Cruisers it has since been found out removed the anti flash doors to thier magazines so as to speed up the movement of cordite and shells. With all the cordite stacked inside the Barbites etc, this is now put forward as the reason for the massive loss of ships at Jutland. But the RN has had a bad reputation for accuracy since the Bombardment of Alexandra (800 odd shells fired and about 6 came close to the mark), Dogger Bank and even the Bismark , poor shooting was recorded, Tovey said to the gunner on KG5 " i can do more damage with throwing my mug than you can". The German accuracy was always good, an had it not been for the intervention of the Navigator on the Norfolk, she would have been hit by a full salvo from the Bismark instead of a close straddle.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 24, 2008, 10:53:47 pm
Quote
After Jutland the RN carried out test firings of a range of RN guns.
The charges were found to be completely different which affected the range and therefore accuracy of the whole platform.

And the quality of the shells wasn't up to much either. Many of them broke up on impact when hitting the German ships instead of penetrating.

The Grand Fleet, based at Scapa Flow regularly practised gunnery and its ships were more efficient than those of the Battlecruiser Fleet based at Rosyth. In fact, at the time of Jutland, three of the battlecruisers were with the Grand Fleet to improve their gunnery. In their place the 5th Battle Squadron, consisting of ships of the Queen Elizabeth class was sent South. The rest, as they say, is history!

Most of the British ships at Jutland which were fitted with fire control used the  Dreyer system. A notable exception was the battlecruiser Queen Mary which had the Pollen system and was more accurate than the initial Dreyer system (which was subsequently improved). Queen Mary was reported to be firing very accurately just before her loss.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on August 07, 2008, 12:20:04 pm
Ok.... Not a complete disaster but things have certainly not been wonderful! If you go to YouTube/MartinHK1, there is a video up... The guy who built the aeroplane (Fairey 111F) has made a complete pooh of it. Firstly, if I catapult it from the back of the ship, the advice I've had is that it will fly about a yard before it breaks up! There is little if any dihedral on the wings so they won't produce enough lift to keep it in the air anyway. It was supposed to be able to land on the water... float test that I did put the top of the floats, two inches below the water with the plane floating on its belly! If you want something doing... do it yourself. Don't ask anyone who lives in Westminster Road, Swindon to do it and pay them Rain has, once again interupted my build though it's still going ok. I wasn't able to make the Bristol Harbour Festival for obvious reasons but... what the hell. It will be that much better for next year. It actually looks like a boat now which is reasuring. :)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on October 18, 2008, 02:05:30 pm
Just getting on with glassing the external seams... what a messy job! Three coats of paint in and it looks like a Cunard hull... all white but then until I do the finish paint job, I am using whatever gloss paint I have to hand. I at least know its waterproof- The tarpauline blew off and the rain filled it with water! Its upside down now.  ok2
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 21, 2009, 06:47:51 pm
The thing that's been giving me a case of jip for months- turret mounts! New turrets built and mounted onto... 15ltr plastic paint containers! :o
After measuring them, they came out to within a 2mm tolerance! Decided (at least for this year) to go with copper pipe cored barrels for the 15in guns and use small fireworks for effect. Can't be reloaded but will sort that for next year.; Should be ready for Weymouth... all things being equal though it will be quite basic. :D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on February 23, 2009, 01:03:29 am
The British Navy was not interested in accuracy in WW1, but rapid rate of fire. The theory was you put the other side off it's aim and you might get lucky. To do this the capital ships carried 50% more ammo than designed for, this was fine for the shells but not the bags of Cordite which were stacked every where but not in the magazines, also the Battle Cruisers it has since been found out removed the anti flash doors to thier magazines so as to speed up the movement of cordite and shells. With all the cordite stacked inside the Barbites etc, this is now put forward as the reason for the massive loss of ships at Jutland. But the RN has had a bad reputation for accuracy since the Bombardment of Alexandra (800 odd shells fired and about 6 came close to the mark), Dogger Bank and even the Bismark , poor shooting was recorded, Tovey said to the gunner on KG5 " i can do more damage with throwing my mug than you can". The German accuracy was always good, an had it not been for the intervention of the Navigator on the Norfolk, she would have been hit by a full salvo from the Bismark instead of a close straddle.

It's good to read this as it's confirmed a growing suspicion of mine.

This is why the Germans fired first at Dogger Bank and Jutland and thus Beatty being criticised for 'throwing away' the advantage of his longer guns. He didn't throw it away, he was just following SOP.

It's the same with the magazine lads handling the cordite bags on the INVINCIBLE, QUEEN MARY and INDOMITABLE. They had charges all the way from the turret, the hoists, to the handling spaces and walkways. They weren't being cavilier in their siting of the bags, but knew it to be a requiremnt of feeding the guns ASAP.

The sad part is LION also used to follow this procedure until she had a new gunner who instituted new cordite handling policy just prior to Jutland. His new guideleines laid down that there should NOT be more than 1 reload in the supply chain outside the magazine and the doors should always be shut unless they were in the physical act of passing charges through.

As history bears out, LION was saved even though she had the same calamitous damage as the other ships, but her different handling rules ruled out massive secondary cordite fires.

read up on it here:

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm (http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Eric65 on March 03, 2009, 11:20:15 am
Strictly speaking, it is completely wrong to accuse the RN of not being interested in gunnery accuracy during WW1

It was the RN that revolutionised gunnery in the lead up to the war, poineered by Percy Scott who was single handedly responsable for the RN becoming fanatic about gunnery.(and the USN, thanks to Sims in the USN who copied Scotts teachings for their navy, the two men were great friends)  The invention of the Pollen clock and Dreyer system put the RN far ahead of all its rivals, even the Grermans.

Jellicoe trained the Grand Fleet constantly in live fire gunnery up at Scapa Flow, but Beattie was down further south and either unable or unwilling to train so hard. This is why Admiral Hood and this three Battlecruisers were at Scapa Flow and the Queen Elizabeths were with Beattie, Hood was there for intensive gunnery training as Jellicoe was accutly aware of the Battlecruisers deficiancies. (the training Invincble recieved paid off, as she hit Luzow repeatedly and may have been responsable for the damage that sank her)

The loss of the Battlecrisers can be put down to several causes, not one of the due to lack of armour.
1; Old, unstable cordite.
2; Poorly designed cordite, inferior to german type
3; dangerous magazine handeling. (Magazine doors left open, or even removed) and cordite piled up outside the magazines in the rush to suppy the guns.

You are correct about Lion TCC, but it was not SOP to be so careless with the cordite, it was enthusiasm on the part of the crew to feed the guns.

Grant was horriified at this when he joined Lion and took urgent steps to rectify it, even going to the extrem of landing ALL cordite stored in Lion and replacing it with new. (Old cordite as I said becomes unstable, and as the old cordite had at times been put into bags for new cordite he was unable to tell what was old and what was new)

Had the other Battlecruisers been given the same treatment it is quite likely they would not have exploded as they did.

The main reason Beattie did not open fire earlier that the Germans at Dogger bank and Jutland was due to the rangefinders. They were the 9ft barr and Stroud type, excellent upto 10,000 yards (the accepted max range prior to the war) but no good beyond that range, greman equipment was superior. later 15ft rangefiders went a long way to rectiying this.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 04, 2009, 03:22:15 pm
Strictly speaking, it is completely wrong to accuse the RN of not being interested in gunnery accuracy during WW1
Hi Eric
well I wouldn't put my words in such black and white like that. Of course they aimed the things and took pains to do so.

I read old Naval Review articles http://www.naval-review.org/ (http://www.naval-review.org/) and you often come across this hint in them. They wanted max rate of fire, as evidenced by the crew making a trail of cordite from turret to magazine so the captain should not be left waiting for a reload.

I've never read it [that they wet for ROF over accuracy] in black and white with someone saying 'we shotgun the target' but I wonder, even with all the equipment and theories and technology aboard her... if hitting the target 20,000yds away from a rolling platform wasn't just down to pure luck helped along with a good dose of range-taking and direction aiming devices? Especially if wind, temperature and other atmosperic characteristics affect the shells so much... or battle damge throw the fine instruments 'out of whack'? Y'know... they site a couple of 100,000 worth of gear up aloft and then a swell 'throws' the lot!

It was the RN that revolutionised gunnery in the lead up to the war, poineered by Percy Scott who was single handedly responsable for the RN becoming fanatic about gunnery.(and the USN, thanks to Sims in the USN who copied Scotts teachings for their navy, the two men were great friends)  The invention of the Pollen clock and Dreyer system put the RN far ahead of all its rivals, even the Grermans.


Jellicoe trained the Grand Fleet constantly in live fire gunnery up at Scapa Flow, but Beattie was down further south and either unable or unwilling to train so hard. This is why Admiral Hood and this three Battlecruisers were at Scapa Flow and the Queen Elizabeths were with Beattie, Hood was there for intensive gunnery training as Jellicoe was accutly aware of the Battlecruisers deficiancies. (the training Invincble recieved paid off, as she hit Luzow repeatedly and may have been responsable for the damage that sank her)

I think it was the submarine threat that kept the b/cs bottled up in Rosyth or Invergordon.

Why does Baetty get such a bad rap? Cos he was like Mountbattern (Kelly) and in the habit of making 'bad decisions' or being 'unlucky'

The loss of the Battlecrisers can be put down to several causes, not one of the due to lack of armour.
1; Old, unstable cordite.
2; Poorly designed cordite, inferior to german type
3; dangerous magazine handeling. (Magazine doors left open, or even removed) and cordite piled up outside the magazines in the rush to suppy the guns.

We agree.

You are correct about Lion TCC, but it was not SOP to be so careless with the cordite, it was enthusiasm on the part of the crew to feed the guns.
Eric, if we are to believe Grant, befefore he joined LION, it was SOP to site cordite outside the mag in all the handling spaces. You agree with me... is it the term SOP you disagree with?

Well I don't know if they'd be doing that without the Cpt. or Admirals ignorance. Surely one of those MUST have walked by ONCE during their turret drills and training? Surely the Cpt. would have looked over his gunnery officers training regme when either first came abord to see 'what he was made of'?

Grant was horriified at this when he joined Lion and took urgent steps to rectify it, even going to the extrem of landing ALL cordite stored in Lion and replacing it with new. (Old cordite as I said becomes unstable, and as the old cordite had at times been put into bags for new cordite he was unable to tell what was old and what was new)

Had the other Battlecruisers been given the same treatment it is quite likely they would not have exploded as they did.

I agree.

The main reason Beattie did not open fire earlier that the Germans at Dogger bank and Jutland was due to the rangefinders. They were the 9ft barr and Stroud type, excellent upto 10,000 yards (the accepted max range prior to the war) but no good beyond that range, greman equipment was superior. later 15ft rangefiders went a long way to rectiying this.
Have you got a written source for that? I've heard that Chatfield and Beatty didn't agree at what range to take battle on, as Beatty won, I surmise C'field wanted to stay out of german range and Beatty get in 'close' (relatively). I was wondering if lack off deck armour affected Beatty decision? (To avoid plunging fire and to put the broad face of the sides armour to face the germans shells?*) or if it was for gunnery reasons (such as your 'the RF were poor past 10,000yds'

* this is what the Admiral did with HOOD.. or tried to do.. race in close to Bismark and get thru the plunging fire area to the range where the shells had a flatter tradjectory and would hit the side (armour).

I simply haven't read enough on the subject yet to form definite views but I think we could agre on the statment ''they aimed the things with the best technology of the day and then hammered away with the highest ROF they could'' Agree. :-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: DavieTait on March 04, 2009, 03:29:23 pm
There was a TV program on a couple of years ago with an RN dive team that went to survey the Battlecruisers lost at Jutland. They found hundreds of bags of cordite just lying in every alleyway and stored in unarmoured sections of the ship. They had plenty of space for all of the shells but not enough space for the cordite. Another reason was the very poor anti-flash protection our ships had compared to the system in use by the German Navy ( after WW1 we examined the German fleet in Scapa and modified all of our capital ships ammo handling to copy the German one , look for photos of the SMS Seydlitz which would have had a magazine explosion if she had been one of ours : http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h02000/h02407.jpg )
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Eric65 on March 06, 2009, 03:23:11 pm
Hi TCC, I've got some excellent sources of info, I can recommend Peter Padfeild's book 'BATTLESHIP' and 'The Grand Fleet' by D.K. Brown.

Jellicoe was unaware of the practice of cordite handeling in the fleet, after Jutland a damming report detailing the magazine errors was written, but Jellice had it quashed and wrote his own version blaming lack of armour protection around the magazines instead!
It is probable that the ships captains knew of the practices but as to whether they instigated them or not, I do not know.

Both books go into great detail regarding development of British gunnery upto WW1, the amazing inovations and astonishing errors of judgment made. (example; Jellicoe was in charge of choosing which director system to fit to the fleet, one by a civillian Arthur Pollen, or his personal freind Fredrick Dreyer and chose the one made by Dreyer. Dreyers system was a poor copy of Pollens, it was unable to work under helm so the ship had to be steered in a straight line to be able to calculate the firing! But Drayer was a pal and his was cheaper, so...)

I am sure about the rangefinders, it was only just before the war started the the fleet extended the fighting range upto 10,000 yards, pror to that it was at about 4,000 yards!
The other factor involved would have been visability, in the north sea low vis is common and at Jutland the british rangefinders were at a disadvantage. British ships were clearly visable to the Germans but were obscured themselves. Mind you, the Germans over estimated the range too and fired well over Beattie initially but corrected much more quickly.
I am afraid that lack of armour protetion or cordite scattered aroud his mags would have been the last thing on Beatties mind, he just wanted to get stuck in!

All Battleships and battlecruisers have what is called a 'Zone Of Immunity' inside of which the trajectory of shells is too flat to stike the armoured deck and at too steep an angle to penetrate the side armour, Hood had just entered her 'Zone' at 20,000 yards when Holland made his turn to bring all guns to bear, Bismarck's shell(s) struck Hood near her mast (no-where near her main mags) and egnited the 4 inch mags or possably the above water torpedoes, a chain reaction almost instantly broke her back and blew the 15inch mags.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 11, 2009, 05:36:30 pm
Thank you all!!! %% Just to drag you kicking and screaming back to the build. All sections test bolted together last weekend with only ONE sprung seam that's easily fixable. Otherwise holding her water- I know 'cos I left the tarp off when it rained and... it filled with water! :embarrassed: Completed the cockpit splash screen and the forward breakwater. Both forward 15in turrrets in place awaiting guns. :-)) In house builds of 12 x 5.5in guns progressing nicely. Anyone with ANY 1/32 - 1/40 scale figures they don't want, PLEASE let me know. ok2
PS The picture is a couple of weeks old, shows the bow section sitting on the midships section and without the additions quoted above.
PPS All section seams 'glassed'. Will wait until ready to 'scale shape' the hull to Hoods below water dimensions before I glass the whole thing.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 14, 2009, 03:17:16 pm
I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd come across a table (teak) that was being thrown out... I've now found the piece with the plaque on it. It reads...
"Made by The Hughes Bolckow Shipbreaking Company Ltd, Blyth, Northumberland from TEAK TAKEN FROM HMS Powerful"
Would anyone like to tell us about her? I plan to use it for... the planking. Seems appropriate somehow... :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Colin Bishop on March 14, 2009, 04:23:56 pm
Quite possibly the old Protected Cruiser: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/powerful_class.htm
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 14, 2009, 05:02:49 pm
I think the man has just won a cigar! O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: RickF on March 14, 2009, 11:10:10 pm
The Powerful and Terrible. Despite the later being commanded by my personal hero, Percy Scott, they were probably the two worst cruisers ever constructed for the RN - oversized, underpowered and poorly armed.

Rick
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 14, 2009, 11:24:17 pm
and I will plank my HMS Hood in teak from HMS Poweful... once I can find someone with a fine cut band saw. Whats good for bleaching the wood back to its original colour? I was thing about lemon juice... BTW... it'll be AT LEAST a year before I start that part of the project... O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 15, 2009, 01:29:25 pm
I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd come across a table (teak) that was being thrown out... I've now found the piece with the plaque on it. It reads...
"Made by The Hughes Bolckow Shipbreaking Company Ltd, Blyth, Northumberland from TEAK TAKEN FROM HMS Powerful"
Would anyone like to tell us about her? I plan to use it for... the planking. Seems appropriate somehow... :-))
They used the decking from LION to make 'garden furniture' (no doubt, amoung other things)

She was crapped at Blyth as well.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: dreadnought72 on March 15, 2009, 04:11:14 pm
She was crapped at Blyth as well.
{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition?  %%

Andy
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 16, 2009, 11:29:12 am
She was crapped at Blyth as well.
{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition?  %%

Andy


... only as long as there's a prize and I can choose it myself.  {-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 19, 2009, 08:21:00 pm
Ok... here's as I was by nightfall, last night. Since then, the stern super-structure (the funny shaped triangular bit/section) is in place and I've expended a lot of primer, undercoat and gray gloss. She won't stay like that though... once the basic ship is complete, she will then get a coat (or five!) of nitro-celulous varnish and then be delivered tp Auto Bodycraft to receive yet more undercoat and a HARD top coat that is (more or less) matt gray. Then it's in the oven at gas mark 5 for 2 to 3 hours!  %)
That's when the REAL fun begins- the detail! ok2
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 19, 2009, 09:35:12 pm
.... if you look closely at the bridge section, you may notice a fairly significant error!!! Fixable but irritating! I keep saying to myself... "measure twice, cut once!"
My problem is that I'm working from Anatomy of a Warship plans (in a variety of scales) and largely based on Hood when she sank, and a 1/400 scale airfix model that is also circa 1941. Trouble is, I'm building her as she looked ten years earlier in 1931 so I'm having to rely on photo's and 'best guesses'! I may have to put up with some 'comments' when she sails from those who get 'pissy' about detail. Guys, I'm doin' the best I can with little or no money.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 20, 2009, 01:46:07 am
Martin
try to slow down and think... I draw things out now to get the shapes in my mind.. it' still not perfect yet as I'm still modifying built fittings but I'm getting there. I'd advise you not to 'cut wood' until you are certain that you know how it goes.

But as to others nit picking on detail: just buld for yourself. I'm the worst to give that advice as I'm rooting out details, or trying to, but that's just for me... I want to know how all the areas of her decks looked.

Anyway, on to why I'm writing: are you really, really certain you'll be able to escape from that in the event of difficulty? Is it easy to draw your knees up and stand up and jump out/away? If not...  <:( I wouldn't want to be sitting in that, and you'll be low down in the water don't forget and camouflaged to some extent, and you could be run down by a larger craft. I'd want to be able to stand up and dive away from it.

Failing that, can I be your beneficiary in your will?  :-) First dibs on any powwer tools!  :D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on March 20, 2009, 10:01:10 am
Martin , nitro-cellulose are you sure ? Not used much these days and it will blister your base coats if they are oil based. Better check or you will have a surface that will look like a rice pudding, if it stays on, it might do a Nitromors job on undercoats. :((
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 20, 2009, 11:11:23 am
Sorry... what I meant was polyurethene clear varnish... I was looking at a tin of nitro when I wrote the thread... {:-{ the surface will then be 'keyed' to accept the VERY hard automotive paint layers that Dorian (my friend with the car spraying business) is going to put on her. :P
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on March 20, 2009, 01:53:16 pm
Whew {-).I think you should have gone with fibreglass and resin from the start. Your "hard paint" might be a bit brittle for wood and thermal changes on a boat. Got a nice spell of weather right now for building......and snow forecast for the weekend up here. >:-o     
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 20, 2009, 05:28:53 pm
To answer...
All the seams are fibre glassed... couldn't afford more than that though. Maybe in a couple of years when she has a 'refit'. O0
Most of the time... the measurements come out ok... most of the time... {:-{
The whole of the top is a 'push off' on hinge deal. The section where I sit (the deck above me) is actually just hardboard though it is treated. I timed myself getting out a few days ago and was out in under 3 seconds! Throughout this biuild, the primary issue has been oine of "am I safe in this?" What can I do to increase my chances? One of the advantages of the design is that each section is a self-contained boat. If one section should get holed, the other two 'should' keep me afloat long enough to get to safety. I will also be wearing a self inflating life vest even though I swim like a fish. Not that I want to be swimming like a fish...
I do want to say a big thank you for the support I'm getting. I might have given up months ago without it.  :-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 20, 2009, 06:12:28 pm
I thought some piccies from the end of today's work might be in order... ;)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Walter Cooper on March 21, 2009, 06:53:22 pm
WOW,shes comming along really well Martin :-))I may have missed it in the build thread but,what are you going to use for motors?Would you need a certain size speed control if the motors are large?Please bear with my silly questions as I am trying to learn {:-{I do have a couple of RC kits that im going to get to right shortly....of coarse no where as big as this girl lol.Cheers Walter
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 21, 2009, 07:52:21 pm
Hi Walter
I'm vacilating between twin 80lb thrust electric engines or possibly similar (physical) size petrol.

The advantages with electric are;

1) little vibration
2) light weight
3) easily removable
4) little/no risk of fire

Disadvantages are;

1) they cost lots,
2) you need at least two batteries per engine to get any kind of serious ride
3) some risk of electrocution!
4) Little in the way of 'get out of trouble' power.

The advantages of petrol engines are;

1) Plenty of power for your money
2) Easily available second hand and not too expensive

Disadvantages include;

1) some risk of fire/explosions
2) smelly, loud and they vibrate (quite a lot).
    quite heavy to transport.

So... you can see I'm struggling at the moment. I plan to try one outboard petrol when I launch to see how it goes. I'll let you know.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 21, 2009, 07:54:25 pm
Without further ado... now the sun has gone down... today's pictures! :}
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 21, 2009, 08:57:58 pm
Please forgive me if I keep 'banging on' about this but what I'm building is a boat (actually three boats that connect together) that happens to look like HMS Hood. At this size, I have to be able to manouver as well as a near 30ft boat does. Once I have the engines in, I will calculate true scale speed and mark the throttle accordingly- be a bit silly moving this thing at a speed where water skiing becomes possible! At scale, that would be about 100kts+!!! :o Beyond the 'scale mark' is my insurance margin. My 'get out of trouble' speed. I plan to ballast her so that, at scale speed her quarterdeck digs in (though NOT as much) as the real Hood's did. At full speed (not scale) and in emergency only, I still want the quarterdeck to stay relatively dry.  :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 22, 2009, 03:18:27 pm
Jeez Martin, you'e crazy!  %%

What do the neighbours think?  :-)

If I was making that, I'd have done like you've done so far but given it a coat or two or glass resin and got some sheets of cloth and laid that on... and in. Someone much earlier mentioned a credit card.. yes, that's the technique. Then you're outer skin of fibre-cloth would help support the weight. And while I was at the resin stage, I'd mix the resin with a powder, (Talc for instance) and I'd use that as 'filler' and flair in any curves and striaghten any wrongs. The good point to resin/talc filler is it's cheap and the more ratio of talc, the easier to sand.

But in saying I'd use 'cloth' above, I'm saying that in case you're skint. I'd go with chopped strand mat for this as it'd be a bad show to 'loose the battle for want of a nail'. I don't think you can make this hull strong enough!! Those joins will also have to be belt & braces... have you supported bow and stern and sat in it yet? Am I wrong in thinking that would be 'The Way' to test her?

Engines? Deffo electric... any leaks and you'll gas yourself. Have you put me down as a beneficary yet?  {-)

The motive power will choose itself as money will be the chooser.. it's all well & good wanting 4 lift motors with the neccessary 'thisses' and a 'thats' and 4 of 'the others' but if all you have in the budget is for one lawn mower engine... well you'll be seeing mower parts in your future. What are you going to do Re: a propellor shaft(s)?

I'd love to be there on launching day! Where do you live?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 22, 2009, 05:09:59 pm
I never said ANYTHING about being sane. My wife thinks I'm nuts but then... she also admits it looks like a boat now.
Some of the early pictures will show the cloth and resin method that I've used on the base. I have sat in her just supported at bow and stern- popped a seam but that was all and easily fixed- that's why the sides of the center section are as yet unpainted. I'm leaning more and more toward electric engines- vibration issues as the main motive though I will probably use a single petrol outboard (inside) for her first wet test in May. No... I have NOT put you down as a beneficiary but, nice try.
I live in Bristol. %)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 23, 2009, 04:34:53 pm
Hi martin
glad there's a bit of resin impregnated cloth along her bottom. I'd have built her different than you... I'd have just used a rough play/hardboard skin as a base for several layers of fibre-glass and treat it like a big canoe wiith frames and a structure atop. Matter of fact, our kids canoe is a dead ringer for a bismarck/tirpitz hull!

When considering motive power, I hadn't given any thought to the fuel and saftey of the fuel, I think you'll HAVE to go with electrics. [petrol? enclosed space? other electrics inside her?]

When you install the outboard, is that going in the rear section? Would you make that 3rd 'aft' section sealed off completely from the 'crew space'? I would...

... and if I had to use petrol as a motiv power, I'd fix a CO2 fire extinguisher next to the aft bulkhead of the crew section with the nozzle pointing into the engine/fuel tank bay and seal it off completely. Then if there's a fire back there, I'd simply set it off and allow it to fill back there with CO2. But, as goes without saying, you'd have t be careful with these things.. or I could get my power tool. :-)

Won't you have to balnce the propellor on the outboard? Won't a uneven propellor shake the boat apart? It'll definitely be too noisy in there for a human to sail comfortably. You'd have to have rubber-dampened fittings and sound-proofing stapled to the insides

I think eventually, you'll have to get hold of one of those granny schooters that wizz round shopping ceentres, voila, a mated battery->speed control->'on/off' switch->motor all in the one. Just get a used one.

Will you turn the turrets by hand?  I would, I'd split them into 2 natural groups of A & B and X & Y. I'd then link them so as you turned b, it moved a. I'd then make a lever to move them from the 'crew space'. [AKA 'the seat' :-)] That way, you control both fore and aft groups independantly as this is hard to do for anything other than 90 abeam.

Have you a crew of helpers? How do you man-handle her when you aim to go sailing? I'd have thought operating her would need at least 2... and sailing her will be a quite an intensive affair.

Have you got someone to film that initial launch? Priceless... you HAVE to show that on here.

I think your certifyable myself. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 23, 2009, 07:19:36 pm
You are REALLY after those power tools, aren't you!!! ok2
As I said I'm leaning more and more toward electric as time rolls on but to take the other points... the granny wagon idea is mega!!! :o I'll look into that.
Indeed, the engine compartment IS in the stern with strengthened bulkheads that are three times the thickness of those I've used in any other section.
I AM going for the mechanical hand turning method of turret control though I hadn't thought about slaving one to another...
As she comes in three parts, loading is easier than it might be. When I designed her, I thought a lot about eventual 'all up' weight which is why I uesed braced plywood. I didn't go for fibreglass for two reasons... expensive and I knew "xxxxx" all about applying it. <:( What it comes down to is that it only takes two people to lift each section on and off a racked trailer. The same two people who will crew her. %% Another issue that I considered quite early in the build concerned the Hood's super-structure layout. Looking at it and the cockpit position, seeing out (especially forward!) might be a bit of a problem. Eventually, I will have up to six camera's for cctv but until I can get that sorted (some time next year), I will have a periscope that looks out through the bridge windows. Port and starboard views including P and S quarters is not a problem as I can see through the 5.5in gun positions. If I'd built her for her 1941 configuration, this wouldn't have been possible. The 'rear gunner' face astern and will have similar views and similar solution. You won't be able to see the periscopes as they will rise through the bridges but no further. :}
Currently, I have no one to film the launch. :((
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Hagar on March 24, 2009, 06:55:35 pm
If you need some one to film the maiden voyage, why not try the local TV, whats that BBC Bristol? Also I'm sure there will be quite a crowd of guy from the forum.
How far off is the launch date?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 24, 2009, 09:20:43 pm
Strange you should say that... I'm in touch with Points West abou it as we speak... launch is schedules for 16 May. %%
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Walter Cooper on March 26, 2009, 04:21:31 am
Hello Martin,your moving right along,looking great.Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the motors. :-) Not trying to hijack your thread, <*<  but did you guys ever see this 30 footer? After all,you may meet him on the high seas LOL  %%  Cheers Walter http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1902169/posts
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 30, 2009, 08:20:31 pm
From this weekend's work...
'Railings 3' was NOT an outstanding success but... it's fixable.
They are made with soft iron nails. I have tapped the shaft and made three groves. I then used craft wire... I cut myself! <:(
As they are nails, they have no groove so... I inserted the head end into my drill and slowly screwed them in that way. %%
I put the wire on afterwards! The effect is quite pleasing I think...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on March 31, 2009, 03:11:34 pm
Hiya martin
You should spend 50 at Tiranti on some RV 101 rubber, white metal and resin and learn how to cast. Do it now at the start as the earlier you learn, the sooner you'll be able to knock out these repetetive parts and do it quickly and easily... plus if you're a good modellor, they'll be true replicas of the original bits.

FYI, the ships rails went through each stanction, not wrapped around.

Marty, it's not the end of the world and the size of the thing will still impress people but I think you could have made it so much better. And if you get into the white metal casting, you can substitute lead and resin for WM for costs basis.

Don't forget, you've all the secondary armaments to make, the bollards, fairleads, deck hatches, davits, anchors, vents, searchlight, armament, etc, etc. If you learn to make moulds, you can easily cast these repetetive fittings.

WM and resin casting is not that difficult. Let us know if I can help with advice.

cheers

p.s your volunteers is getting along with your big ensign as we speak. ;-) I did see the hand-painted versions and they were like my little versions, you can see the places where she'd used a freshly charged brush ad the lines weren't stright. I've told her, use a big roller over the paper and cut the paper up lke a stencil.

p.p.s. I've got the clips out and will take a pic later and send it on.

Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on March 31, 2009, 07:03:06 pm
Thanks for that... If money hadn't become an issue, I would do exactly what you suggest but... I'm running out of both funds and time and I still have to buy the engines! Really looking forward to seeing the ensigns. It's entirely possible that the secondary armarment will be mocked up for the time being and be made properly next winter. %)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Edward Pinniger on April 01, 2009, 10:18:41 am
This is just my personal opinion, based on my own experience with (much smaller and non-crewed!) R/C models.  But If I were you I'd concentrate on getting the working and technical side of the build sorted out - including the engines/motors, ballast, crew space, etc. - before starting work on fine details like handrails. I've found this is a good idea with any size of powered model, but with a crewed model designed to dismantle into 3 sections it's particularly important. Smaller parts are very easily damaged when doing work like this and in particular you might well end up needing to remove or cut through previously built details and superstructure in order to install components or get at the interior of the hull.

I have to say I agree with TCC about the railings - a working model of HMS Hood in this scale has the potential to be awe-inspiring and it's a shame to compromise on a highly visible area like this. Buying ready-made brass stanchions would be prohibitively expensive (there are literally hundreds needed), what I'd probably try is casting copies of turned brass stanchions in white metal. White metal stanchions in smaller scales can be easily damaged, but in 1/35 scale they're probably OK. The metal for casting isn't too expensive, the mould rubber is fairly pricey (about 25 for a largeish tin) but the moulds can be reused indefinitely (unlike resin casting moulds). Like TCC I'd recommend the same method for making the fittings (cast copies of a master scratchbuilt in styrene, wood etc.)

It looks like you're making very good progress with the superstructure and turrets, though! (What materials have you used - in particular, how did you form the turrets and 4" gun shields?). But again, unless everything's designed to be easily removable, I'd wait until the hull and working parts have been sorted out before doing much more!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 01, 2009, 10:35:21 am
All VERY good points and most of which I have (or will) be able to run with. My plan is to have her in the water in about 6-7 weeks time to test handling with the engines etc. I anticipate about another TWO years before I get the fine detail on so this is not a rush job from that perspective and I will use the mould idea as I need it. For the moment only, I'm sticking with the railing method I have simply because I can do it quickly and its VERY cheap. Making stanchions and other fittings is a job for next winter in front of the telly! :D The comments and suggestions are really useful so keep them coming.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on April 01, 2009, 04:00:38 pm
Hiya Martin
I agree with Edward about the timing on the railings, these have always been the last thing I've put on a ship as they're ther most prominent and easily bent. Maybe it's different in your big scale?

I see what you're going after now, it's what they call in the competitions 'semi-scale'. i.e it's not an exact replice rivet for rivet. [I'll stop there before I give you a back-handed compliment. :-) ]

Edward, FYI, I've just ordered from Tiranti.

1kg of 101 rubber is 17-odd
WM was from 9 to 12 a KG,
and the 'multi-purpose' resin was under 7 a KG.
The catalyst for the resin was 1.60
.. but you have to pay courrier delivery as the latter chemical can't be sent through post and add VAT to that.

But for martins scale, 1KG orders will go nowhere. So I'd use resin for moulds where I could, I'd also use inch of rubber around each master and use resin as a base for that. I'd use resin castings a lot in lieu of white metal and I'd alsoc ast lead... I'd even think about casting lead rich WM as a way to make it go further. [is there any benefit to that?] Lastly, I'd bulk the resin up with a non-dangerous filler such as talc when casting solid 'blockish' obects.

... and I'd also try to use clay to cast in, just ordinary potters clay. I'd just press the master into the clay, extract carefully, and pour in WM or resin. Thinking about it, you could also use plaster to make moulds. I'd try to be as inventive as I could.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Edward Pinniger on April 01, 2009, 04:34:31 pm
2-3 kilos of RTV rubber should be enough for most of the basic deck fittings etc., most aren't individually very big even in 1/35.
Again just my personal opinion, but I would avoid using lead for the castings, lead parts on models are notorious for corroding and deteriorating over time, eventually ending up as piles of grey powder (not always; some lead parts can last for decades, others develop "lead disease" in a matter of years). The general consensus among ship modellers is that lead parts (not including white metal, pewter, Britannia metal etc.) should be avoided at all costs.
An alternative cheap source of casting metal is old pewter tankards/pots which can easily be found in charity shops, at car boot sales etc. for a pound or two. This is very high quality metal but isn't as good for modelling purposes as Tiranti's white metal (it doesn't flow as readily into fine detail). But for simple parts like bollards/fairleads and mushroom vents (not sure about railing stanchions; thin parts may be difficult to cast reliably in pewter) in 1/35 scale it should be fine!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 01, 2009, 05:47:28 pm
The other issue is that it will be regularly exposed to probably large amounts of salt water! You're right with the semi-scale. Below waterline she will be a 'boat', above accuracy will increase as the years roll forward.  :D I have even included a hidden 'splash' board like the old double kayaks used to have before commercial splash sheets were readily available to minimise the amount of water coming in when at full 'welly'.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 02, 2009, 03:30:33 pm
Martin,
In case you haven't heard I am working on a 1/35th scale ship also.  The U.S.S. Idaho (BB-42 of the New Mexico class).  I very rarely get on this board (as you can see I am a yank) but I am glad to see you making some progress.  My own personal build will be a one piece hull (planked and fiber glassed) for both strength and ease of storage (Idaho winters can get pretty bad, it is the 2nd of April and snowing here high temps. today are supposed to be in the low 30's f.).
Reading through your thread I have a couple of comments;
The German's had an entirely different design for the flash-proof doors going to their magazine and powder hoists in WWI (they had had a catastrophic fire(s) before the war.).
If I recall correctly the German battlecruisers had their main gun director mounted one deck higher than the equivalent British ships (the big cats, and Queens), thus giving them the ability to range further (distance to the horizon).
There has been more than a little conjecture (especially in the United States) that it was in fact Prinz Eugen that hit Hood and not Bismark (for even more of a plunging shot).  During the night before the battle Admiral Lutjens rearranged his task group and placed Eugen in the front.  When Hood opened fire she mistook the cruiser for Bismark (not hard to do the German heavy cruiser bore more than a passing resemblance the battleships).  It was only after two salvos and a fevered light message from Prince of Wales (the second one partial due to a turret breakdown) that Hood found the proper target.  I have read that at least one 8 inch hit Prince of Wales, so apparently Prinz Eugen had found the range fairly quickly with her smaller guns, after Hood was sunk.  if she was fast enough to range the second British capital ship it would stand to reason that she had also Hood.
If the Germans had continued West instead of turning south (admittedly more dangerous due to to ice) they would have run into a pair of USN battleships and their escorts on 'neutrality patrol' off of Iceland.  Since FDR made sure that the location of the patrol(s) were well known to all the active combatants and Lutjens orders were to avoid contact with superior enemy forces he chose to move south.  There has been some evidence that the Germans knew that at least Prince of Wales was out there (described as being partially ready for combat), but the Germans were surprised that Hood would be ranged against her. Bismark's first salvo was either very badly aimed (being closer to Wales than Hood) or Lutjens was surprised that Hood was there.  The Germans very rapidly solved that problem and one account I read reported that Germans fourth salvo at Hood was a straddle, not bad shooting!
I am reputed to be a bit of rivet counter, and if this offends I am very sorry.
Foo
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 02, 2009, 05:43:44 pm
Why on Earth would it offend me Foo? I just finished watching the National Geographic- "The Battle between Hood and Bismark". According to that (and I'm making NO judgement at all!), Bismarks 5th shot hit the low explosive cordite. The flash travelled the length of the ship below decks and ignited the 4" magazine and blew the ship up. She ended up in 3 pieces, 3000m below the surface. According to the Germans and film shot from Prinz Eugen, it was the Bismark who sank the Hood and later, when the Bismark was cornered, according to the Germans, she was scuttled.
Have you got any piccies of your build? I'd love to see them. Is she scale or semi-scale? Come on, let me see. ;)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 02, 2009, 08:58:11 pm
Martin,
Still working out getting things set where in the beast I want to put it and what I am going to use for motors etc.  The best plans I could find (could afford) were only 1/196 so I am having to have them blown up  by 548%! The newest problem I have it that this results in the hulls lines becoming something over 1/8th inch thick.  That's the bad news, the good is that I live within five miles of two high schools and the college @ Brigham Young University at Idaho campus so I might see if I can get someone from a drafting class to redraw them for not an exorbitant cost.  I am fortunate to live in potato processing country and there are lots of places that have a large variety of electric motors and batteries of all sizes available.  The reason for the electric motive is that at least one local lake does not allow internal combustion during the summer (when it is warm enough to swim).  Got the plans from floating drydock in Florida, and interesting they were drawn some ten feet 'scale' over their intended dimension(s) for beam dimension.  Since I was actually thinking of widening the beam slightly it was a moot point so she will be a a little wider than she would be for 'true scale.
Idaho was built with four shafts and one very large rudder although I will probably choose to use a pair of large electric motors and shafts with blade type rudders behind them.
I am trying to solve questions about stuffing boxes (diameter of the shafts, need for extra support(s) for them, use roller bearings instead of bushings, etc.) before I go too crazy getting things started.
Plans are for a keel laminated out of 2 pieces of 3/4 ply with ribs from a single layer planked with either luan ply in strips or the thin stripping from plaster and lathe.  Both are available from build it center around here.  The entire hull will then be fiber glassed for strength and weatherproofing.
Mostly the problems are time (I actually have too much to think), and money (I am an unemployed carpenter thus have no money).  I am hoping with the spring weather and our new president trying to spend my great great granddaughter's taxes someone will be hiring and things will relax a little.  If that doesn't work I am contemplating writing letters to various local businesses and government agencies to offset costs for materials and services (notably printing, one copy of the hull forms is $2.40! and I need 32 of them some 44 inches wide and 24 inches tall).
My intention is transport on a trailer so I can display for a parade float (that type of thing) and partially offset the emotional cost from the wife.
Foo
P.S. I had seen a very early picture of you Hood (just the center section in the backyard) and was hoping that it would not 'just wither on the vine', I am very glad to see you have made so much progress.
I will start my own thread when i actually get something done other than conceptualizing.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 02, 2009, 11:45:18 pm
Hi Foo
I have a couple of suggestions...
Firstly, the hull coming to 1/8 is okay! It will give strength to your fibraglassing AND ply comes in that thickness. It bends easy AND you can use builders ply (which is cheaper) 'cos you are not worried about open spots in the core. :-))
Secondly, check out your local 'motability' centre- that's what we call them here but they provide electric sit-on scooters for the aged and infirm. They often have ex-models that they take in part exchange that are no good for resale. I sourced two high torque electric engines for 15! (About $25?) Believe me, you will get them cheaper on your side of the pond. The other alternative is to go to a truck wreckers and get a couple of truck starter motors or something similar. If you then gear them (large gear on the motor, small gear on the prop shaft) using old bicycle parts, you will get some serious power out of them and you could use 24volt truck batteries to run them.
Ballast is going to be an issue. Think about installing large, empty water containers early in the build. You will be able to ballast it down to something approaching its plimsol line with relative ease. When you need to transport, you simply pump out the water in the containers using the bilge pump you will (should) have installed. I suggest this for several reasons... I realised quite early that I'm building a boat first and a representation of the Hood second. Secondly, I may seem to have thought a bit ahead but the reality is that I discovered stuff I should have thought about earlier and am now paying for it both literally and figuratively.  :((
You need to be thinking... strength but lightness... you can always add weight later. It's hard taking it away though. Think about 'stressed' members- the structure pushing outward rather than balancing on a keel alone. There are absolutely SUPERB modellers on this forum. The operative word in that sentence is modellers. This is NOT what we are really doing. We are boat builders who are dressing our boats to resemble larger ships. There is an argument that, the larger you get, the more detail you can put on. True BUT... the easier it is for bits to get lost or broken. It is one of those scenarios where 'less is more'. I'm sure you are factoring this in but think about 'escape'. You are going to be sitting in this thing. Can you get out easily? Think, worst case scenario. I've got loads more suggestions but will keep them back for now... You haven't asked for my advice and I can only tell you where I've messed up anyway! :embarrassed:
The main reasons I'm building in three parts is because of storage and transportation and also... if I hole one section, the other two will keep me afloat- they are discreet hulls in their own right- three boats in one.  :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 03, 2009, 12:28:50 am
Martin,
Thank you for the advice, very early on I did indeed also realize that we are both building boats (full scale) that just happen to resemble our chosen subjects.  I always can use advise (I may not always listen to it but I can always use it).  The mobility store idea has merit and along that line there is a place in neighboring city that sells golf carts (and rebuilds them), but that might be overkill both from weight and need for power.  Fortunately during one summer break from school I worked at boat yard and then part time for the Marina on the base (USN dependent as a boy, then joined the Navy. Got a chance to do a NATO cruise around Northern Europe in 81'), so I have some experience in both fabricating and maintaining fulls scale craft.

Here is a question that will undoubtedly draw a flame or two but a battlecruiser thread seems to be the place to ask it.  Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland, wanting to inspire his sailors decided to fly Nelson's message to the sailors "England expects every man to do his duty for god and country" (probably a misquote).  My question is this; i had read that the code book(s) had changed and that the signal now meant "turn 9 (90 degrees) towards the enemy and advance at flank speed" thus the battle cruiser got shot to pieces.  Is that the truth or what?
Foo
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 03, 2009, 10:14:22 am
Hi Foo
Excuse me for being dense (I'm ex-RAF, not navy). Who was Lord Fisher? It was Jellicoe and Beatey at Jutland or... did I miss something? {:-{
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on April 03, 2009, 10:24:29 am
....and why did Nelson single out "England" ?   What an insult to the rest of his country. <:(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: dreadnought72 on April 03, 2009, 11:29:00 am
Here is a question that will undoubtedly draw a flame or two but a battlecruiser thread seems to be the place to ask it.  Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland, wanting to inspire his sailors decided to fly Nelson's message to the sailors "England expects every man to do his duty for god and country" (probably a misquote).  My question is this; i had read that the code book(s) had changed and that the signal now meant "turn 9 (90 degrees) towards the enemy and advance at flank speed" thus the battle cruiser got shot to pieces.  Is that the truth or what?
Nope.

Andy

Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: RickF on April 03, 2009, 11:51:19 am
Arrow5 - as you probably know, the RN is totally tradition-bound and doesn't recognise anything that's less than 100 years old. And of course, Nelson came from Norfolk. Combine the two and you can understand why the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 had completely passed him by.

Rick (Ex-RAF and a Norfolk resident for 30 years)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 03, 2009, 12:32:00 pm
Quote
Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland

Jacky Fisher was not at Jutland, he had resigned from the Admiralty the year before and his seagoing career was over many years before that!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 03, 2009, 03:03:23 pm
oops sorry thanks for straightening out a yank
Foo
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on April 03, 2009, 04:53:09 pm
Good one RickF, I`ll go along with that :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 04, 2009, 08:24:44 am
damned Alzheimer kicking in again!

What I meant to ask was from what I read about dogger bank that the battle cruisers broke the line and turned towards the German BC's and advanced.  The explanation I read was that the admiral (I had thought Jackie Fisher) had tried to inspire the sailors with the quote from Nelson at Trafalgar.
'England expects that every man will do his duty' http://www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavyee.htm
But the code book had been changed and caused the Battle Cruiser line to turn towards the Germans and advance for something like 15 minutes before he (the admiral) could stop them.  Is that true?
Foo
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 04, 2009, 10:35:30 am
No it isn't!

For an account of what happened look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dogger_Bank_(1915) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dogger_Bank_(1915))

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 11, 2009, 08:01:30 pm
Back to the build....! New shot from today. {-) Lots of little bits added...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 11, 2009, 08:04:39 pm
And another...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on April 13, 2009, 03:24:57 am
Martin, you've made a lot of progress since I last saw it, it's awesome, will be quite a site to see on the water.  I see Foo discovered your build, Hello Foo.  There's going to be a demand for escorts soon, I hope someone else is building a 1/35 scale DD or DE because I doubt mine will be ready in time.  Keep up the great work and more photo's too!  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 14, 2009, 12:32:46 am
Took all the sections apart today and turned the midships upside down. I then glassed the seams with fast glass and P40. Should be dry tomorrow and ready for... another layer! It all came apart (properly, not falling apart) in about 15 minutes. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 21, 2009, 08:55:46 pm
Finishes fibre glassing the seams. Now planking away!!!  %%
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: TCC on April 22, 2009, 02:06:10 pm
Martin
I always found it easier to do the edgeing planks/spurn water first and cut the longitudinal planks to sit inside each 'area', ymmv.

Don't envy you doing that planking!!

It's looking well.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tweety777 on April 22, 2009, 02:23:43 pm
Hello Martin,

That is one huge model, and it also starts to look good!!! :-)) :-))

Is the hull painted, or is there still some paintwork to do on the hull?
Appears to me that it would be easier to first have all the paintworks done and then start planking and placing windows, 'cause when there comes paint on either one of them that will look nasty.
Or is there another reason for doing it this way?

Greetings Josse
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 22, 2009, 03:00:13 pm
Hiya Josse
Your point is valid and, yes there is a reason to do it this way though most of the hull painting is now done. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tweety777 on April 22, 2009, 04:25:19 pm
Hi Martin,

What is that reason?
It is not that i doubt about if it's working or not, but just to learn more ways to build a model.

Good luck with this huge model.

Greetings Josse
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 22, 2009, 04:30:28 pm
The hull will be getting several coats of HARD (but flexible) car body paint courtesy of my mate Dorian who owns Autobodycraft here in Bristol. The decks etc will be (largely) taken off for that exercise and anything that cant be removed will be very well shielded. And that's my reason.... :D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: andrewh on April 22, 2009, 05:04:34 pm
Martin

Inspiring little craft :}
The planking oddessy you are setting out on makes me wonder if you could arrange a "plank-in" for mayhemmers.  You would supply warm, weak beer and planks and massed ranks of andrews/andys(maybe an andre) could make light work of the deck :}

Not sure how much of the mighty 'oods deck was tree-wood?  bow to breakwater and quarterdeck?  or is it pretty much the whole enchilada?

If Foo can do stories I can mention that my landlord during my university days in the 60s was a cook on the Hood but was taken off with appendicitis as she left on the last voyage.

andrew
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tweety777 on April 22, 2009, 05:05:46 pm
Hi Martin,

Thanks, that indeed also is a way to do it.
Will the decks remain removeable, or is that just untill the hull is painted?
When you leave them removeable you got plenty of room to get inside the hull to repair or change things out there.

Greetings Josse
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 22, 2009, 05:34:11 pm
Most of the decking will be removable- screws hidden inside bollards etc. As I'm only using 3/16 ply on the sides, it seemed sensible to have some access! As far as the planking is concerned, most of the flat deck had trees on it (at least in 1931- my build date) but I'm learning all the time with this stuff. Like... don't get your fingers in the way of the circular saw when your making very small cuts or the cuts will be in your hands and not in the wood! <*< I would certainly supply beers etc to anyone who wants to help with this "xxxxx" but, I tell you, I just sanded some of the planks and MY GOD, don't they look sweet! ;) I will put some more pictures up later to show you what I mean.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: dreadnought72 on April 23, 2009, 11:24:26 am
... supply warm, weak beer and planks and massed ranks of andrews/andys(maybe an andre) could make light work of the deck :} ...

 :o Ummmm...you may have to count me out. My planking days are nearly over, and I don't want to ever see little strips of wood again.

(Well, for a month or three...)

Andy
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 25, 2009, 01:48:52 pm
Planking... I HATE planking....
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: craftysod on April 25, 2009, 01:54:51 pm
Looking good  :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: fooman2008 on April 26, 2009, 07:27:01 am
Rules I learned the first day of working as a carpenter; (these were pointed out to me with the four fingers on his hand by the foreman)
1) Don't hit the pink things!
2) Don't cut the pink things.
  A) The saw is always sharper than your fingers
3) Always go home with the same number of pink things as you started the day with.

Pretty much for any job I've ever had those rules work pretty well follow them and life is so much easier (I tried to remove my right forefinger a week before Christmas on 07 with a skillsaw).

One thing I am surprised about was how big the turrets on Hood were and how close the guns are together.  Must have been a real joy to work in those things!
Foo
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 26, 2009, 10:32:49 am
That's really quite funny as well as being good advice!  %%
It almost looks wrong with the barrels being so close together but... they obviously knew what they were doing....
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 28, 2009, 08:32:14 pm
So... here's the first bit of pine planking. I will stain it and the different ages of the pine will mean a slightly different density so each plank will soak up a slightly different amount of stain... that's the plan anyway. I now have a plank production line! That's REALLY sad isn't it?:o
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Edward Pinniger on April 29, 2009, 03:46:53 pm
The deck planks certainly look good! The slight variation in plank colour looks quite effective. What materials are you using for the planks, and where do you get them?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 29, 2009, 05:07:06 pm
The section forward of the first breakwater is teak taken from HMS Powerful (broken up in 1927) famous for the relief of Ladysmith in 1897. The rest of the bow section is... pine shelving that I will stain to the same shade as the forward section.  {:-{ I just went over 1000 for this build so I have to use what is to hand or what I can get. Pine would not have been my first choice but it looks better than I thought it would. Also, if you are careful in selecting the sections, it can look quite close grained. ok2
Additionally, I'm sanding them so they are flat and then will use body filler on the cracks, brushing surplus of before dry. When I stain it, the diferent density of the wood and filler will make the lines stick out. %% That's the plan anyway...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on April 29, 2009, 05:17:04 pm
Meant to add today's planking shot! :D I feel like a plank at the moment...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 01, 2009, 08:32:02 pm
okaaayyyy.... slight but irritating (though fixable) booboo! I got so carried away with my planking that I wasn't paying close attention to my planking plan and planked the wrong bit- the 'red' section. It needed to be thicker anyway so I will simply body fill and re-paint. Don't be concerned about the different shade of plank- teak and pine... the pine is to be teak stained soon. I will have to add piccies one at a time...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 01, 2009, 08:33:13 pm
and the other two... ;D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: kiwi96 on May 01, 2009, 09:15:48 pm
Nice build so far. Too much planking for me. maybe thats why I do not do it on my models. Any chance of a photo of you along side so can get an indication of the correct scale. Hard to comprihend in the photos. Cheers, Adrian.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on May 01, 2009, 09:27:14 pm
...or better still sitting in it?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 01, 2009, 10:11:55 pm
You're wish is my command but I'm off to Devon tomorrow so it will have to wait a couple of days. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Capricorn on May 02, 2009, 05:16:06 am
Looking pretty sharp Martin.  You a natural planker, should be done in no time, just keep going and build yourself a nice deck and deck chairs, maybe a garage too O0.  Cap
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 02, 2009, 07:18:05 pm
That may be so but I am getting a little 'board' with it... ;) I 'wood' give it up only I need to nail it down... :D Perhaps we should get all the plankers together and form a 'splinter' group?  %% Enough!!!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 05, 2009, 11:53:53 pm
Couple of new planking shots. Did some filling and sanding of the part that should not have been planked- needed to be thicker so there's a silver lining or at least, not a complete disaster! >>:-(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 05, 2009, 11:55:23 pm
Oops... adding shot of being a plank! %%
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 05, 2009, 11:58:24 pm
Will show 'repair' in next installment! ok2
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 09, 2009, 08:35:11 pm
I was REALLY not looking forward to doing the anchor holes... and it went really well AND I made the anchors as well!!! :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 09, 2009, 08:36:21 pm
Oh... the last shot is of the 'jack staff'... O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 10, 2009, 11:21:56 pm
Some more piccies... %%
One at a time!!!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 10, 2009, 11:22:58 pm
Another... :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 10, 2009, 11:23:46 pm
And another.... :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 10, 2009, 11:24:28 pm
And finally... :-X
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 12, 2009, 12:57:08 am
Just a couple of 'ladder' shots today... not to say that's all I did but I'll bang some more up tomorrow. The ladders were made from an old metal file tray. Let's recycle!!! ;D :-)) :-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 12, 2009, 07:52:53 pm
I just measured her again... I think she's growing... well, she is in the garden!!! Latest measurement is just over 8m! That makes her just under 27 feet!
I put her together (without bolting etc). JUST FOR FUN I put up a very temporary mast so I could fly her brand new Battle Ensign. Had to have a major clear up as the Evening POst is coming in the morning to put it in the paper...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Edward Pinniger on May 13, 2009, 01:41:55 pm
Looks very good - the model is definitely taking shape quickly! It's hard to appreciate the sheer size of the model in the earlier closeup photos.

Is that the Trumpeter 1/350 Hood on the boat deck? {-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 13, 2009, 02:21:34 pm
Thank you Sir! The model is the Airfix 1/400 scale. I used it to get a general hull shape in the early stages and latterly to give some perspective. The story should be in the papers - Bristol Evening Post- in the next couple of days. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tweety777 on May 13, 2009, 04:39:21 pm
Hi Martin,

This model is scale 1:35, isn't it?
I've calculated the length in that scale, and i came out at 7,5m length.
Are you aware that your model might be too long?
Can you still do something against it?

Greetings and good luck with this incredible model, Josse
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 13, 2009, 05:25:08 pm
Hi Josse... the base level keel length is 7.42m which puts her exactly right. However, what is not clear is that the deck length was somewhat longer- our naval architects can guide us but isn't the ship's overall length based on the laid down keel length? The deck length comes out at just over 8m and, yes, it's too late to change if I'm wrong.  %)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: dan on May 13, 2009, 06:01:29 pm
great looking build  :-))
a couple of questions,
how are you going to transport it? I'm guessing you have a van or something similar,
and what are you going to use to power it? is it going to be a small out board motor?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 13, 2009, 06:18:46 pm
Thank you.
It is to be transported in three parts, hopefully racked in either a van or in a horse box or similar. She will be powered by 1-2 Minkota electric outboards mounted inside a concealed well toward the stern.
Martin
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: dan on May 13, 2009, 06:20:23 pm
intresting, im looking forward to seeing pics of it on the water once its done  O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: tweety777 on May 13, 2009, 09:05:10 pm
Hi Martin,

I'm sorry to say, but length overall is really length overall, so that means that the length of the decks really are included.
The thing i hoped for you that could be changed was the scale.
Otherwise, she looks a bit too long, but i think there won't be much people who notice that.
For as far as i can see on your pics, it isn't very well visible that she is too long.

Greetings Josse
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on May 13, 2009, 09:45:06 pm
Well... I will do an accurate measure tomorrow. Maybe it'll shrink in the rain... :D
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: steve pickstock on June 08, 2009, 10:40:45 am
Hope this hasn't come to a halt. Eager to hear more.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: DickyD on June 08, 2009, 11:47:22 am
Hi Josse... the base level keel length is 7.42m which puts her exactly right. However, what is not clear is that the deck length was somewhat longer- our naval architects can guide us but isn't the ship's overall length based on the laid down keel length? The deck length comes out at just over 8m and, yes, it's too late to change if I'm wrong.  %)

I am afraid Josse is right Martin according to the Hood Associations dimensions your Hood should be 7.5M overall.

http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs1.htm

Will anyone notice though ?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on June 08, 2009, 01:52:08 pm
Nope... we're ok. I hadn't got one of the sections entirley together so it is actually 7.42m. I think you will find if you do the math that that is pretty much on the money. If it isn't, then a tolerance of 8mm (Less than half an inch) is not something I will lose sleep over. :D
I've been out of work for 5 weeks so I couldn;'t afford to buy what I needed- loads of time though...
Started another contract last Friday so will be resuming work soon. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: steve pickstock on June 08, 2009, 02:24:35 pm
Great news!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Steamer on June 09, 2009, 01:51:38 am
I am amazed by the gumption you've shown with this build...a 7.42m model! :o

I spent years building an 8m steamlaunch!.....good for you!

Dave
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Walter Cooper on November 18, 2009, 04:39:41 pm
Hello Martin,is there any progress on your HMS Hood?I have been without a computer for the last 5 months until now.Thanks Walter %%
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 03, 2016, 11:57:44 am
I'M BAAAACK!!!!!
So much has happened since I last posted about my 'Mighty Hood'... well, it has been nearly SIX years!
Well... I was within weeks of beginning sea trials. My marriage ended, the Hood went into Yellow Box storage and over the next three years, quietly rotted away...
I learned a HUGE amount with this build and, two weeks ago, I started again. Base measured, cut and in position... personal relationship rock solid, power tools in position, all materials in hand, build schedule ratified... okay... I've got until 21st May to finish and THAT deadline is immovable. 75 years since the sinking in the Denmark Straight. HMS Hood Association annual dinner in Portsmouth - the plan is a flotilla of manned models - if we can arrange it... Anyone in the Barnstaple area want to get involved?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 04, 2016, 01:00:55 pm
(http://C:\Users\mhky\Pictures\HOOD1A.jpg)
Here's where we're at today - should change dramatically by Monday night!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 04, 2016, 02:38:57 pm
Welcome back Martin.   The picture didn't show.   
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: ballastanksian on February 04, 2016, 08:30:58 pm
Oh no <:( You trooper Martin, I would be inconsolable, if after spending that dort of wedge, it rotted away.

Were you able to salvage anything from the original? I hope you managed to get something off of it.

I look forward to seeing some pictures soon.

Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: littoralcombat on February 05, 2016, 12:54:59 pm
Go Martin, I suspect we are all with you on this one!!!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 09, 2016, 12:46:02 pm
Duncan... You "xxxxx"!!! You could have told me! Just found Das kleine Schiffsmuseum! That guy is just insanely talented! Here's me (in my arrogance and ignorance) thinking I was going to build the biggest Hood model ever and it's been done and better than I could hope to... and he's done four!!! ah well - not stopping now!
Guys... You have GOT to check this out! www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSIH4hl650E
You won't regret it...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 09, 2016, 12:55:15 pm
Why will it not allow me to upload an image and just gives me this instead? (http://)
 {:-{
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 09, 2016, 01:42:54 pm
Sorry Martin , I thought you knew via MMSI   :embarrassed: . I tried to track them down on the web. The last I heard was that they are stored in a military museum of some sort in a town near Lake Garda in Northern Italy. Not open to the public. >:-o   Maybe one of our Italian speaking members could help via a model boat forum in that country ?   Any offers?  Fancy a holiday to chase them up ?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 09, 2016, 01:46:51 pm
Absolutely! Let's go get them! :}
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 09, 2016, 03:10:03 pm
If you`ve got the money, I`ve got the time {-) oh and a 30ft trailer.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 09, 2016, 05:49:54 pm
Sorry Martin , I thought you knew via MMSI   :embarrassed: . I tried to track them down on the web. The last I heard was that they are stored in a military museum of some sort in a town near Lake Garda in Northern Italy. Not open to the public. >:-o   Maybe one of our Italian speaking members could help via a model boat forum in that country ?   Any offers?  Fancy a holiday to chase them up ?
   Correction to this, the museum IS open to the public but the model ships are not on view, in fact I don't know if they are still there.  www.museodellaguerra.it  Interesting for military fans and housed in a fine medieval castle on major road and rail links .
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 11, 2016, 02:35:39 pm
Just emailed the museum superintendent - toe in the water so to speak. I thought, let's ask for the ships and see what they say? It WAS a good letter though...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 11, 2016, 04:46:11 pm
....in Italian language of course ?  %)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 15, 2016, 10:45:12 am
I wrote it in English then Google translated it and sent off both. I'm glad I did as I then translated it back into English... it was awful - like one of those Nigerian scam letters suggesting splitting this huge amount of money! If I've heard nothing by Friday, I have a very good Italian friend who could phone them for me... fingers crossed! :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 15, 2016, 11:06:27 am
Local language is always better, they may even reply in English. If they offer a commission to free Mussolini`s hidden gold, just refer them to your Mombasa bank.   I wonder if a dedicated website for manned models is possible ?   The idea has been mooted on the Yahoo Group  Manned-Model-Ships-International by the Canadian chap who has kept it going for a while but feels there a many models like the Italian fleet hidden away  just corroding in barns. A grand review has been suggested.   Hope you are progressing withe the Hood.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 15, 2016, 11:09:57 am
For those that might wonder what we are talking about, search youtube for  Das kliene Schiffsmuseum  posted by Karl V
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: radiojoe on February 15, 2016, 12:47:49 pm
I need a bigger workshop.  %% %% :o

They are magnificent. :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 15, 2016, 02:20:25 pm
Hey Duncan ... I'm STILL vacillating about my engine/s. If you had to find an outboard that was very low vibration (low noise but less important) that would raise a reasonable bow wave - 7+ knots? - what would you be looking at? I ask as I know you've been using one for years and the cost of these bloody Minkota 100lbers is RIDICULOUS!!! %%
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 15, 2016, 03:20:50 pm
Martin a 5hp 4stroke would be more than enough, but again pricey. Nothing is cheap in full-size boating. I would only have an electric motor as a back-up for when local rules forbid i/c engines , handy as a get you home item too.   I had good performance from a two stroke 2.5hp Volvo-Penta but got good offer on a Mercury 5hp two-stroke,  GPS timed at 10 knots.  4 strokes are quieter and less polluting . This when you need to start scrounging the dealers, tell them your ship will make them famous , TV and press coverage etc O0 .... B.S. in fact. :embarrassed: {-)    I notice that the Italian battleship had a car engine and went like a torpedo boat !  He also had a car radiator fan for cockpit ventilation , good idea when using an I/C engine. Petrol fumes and exhaust fumes gather below decks.  Any pictures yet ? 
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 15, 2016, 03:38:16 pm
Check my profile page on FB or the Hood Association page on FB tonight - that's when some are going up. Seeing the boss from Neptune fibre glassing on my way home tonight - hope to blag a freebee...  %) at least the materials for the seams but he's also coming to take a look!!!  O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 15, 2016, 03:49:58 pm
Thats the stuff with the fibreglass people.  Mine was an agricultural sludge tank maker , chopper-gunned the outside of hull, beggars cant be choosers. Weeks of sanding then another outfit put gel-coat to fill the rest. Both free of charge.   Correct paint courtesy of HM Royal Naval Dockyard Rosyth paint stores, undercoat and gloss, 10 gallons each :-X  !  Outboard , Southwest Marine, they went bust <:(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 22, 2016, 09:11:27 am
I'm going to try ONE more time to put up some piccies otherwise I will just direct you elsewhere to see them.  :((
This is from this weekend's work.
No... it's NOT having it. Pictures of my 7.5m HMS Hood manned model (monster!) can be found here; https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Manned_Model_Ships_International/photos/photostream
and/or on facebook at Manned Model Ships International from tonight.
They can be found on my own facebook page NOW - Martin Hall-Kenny
 :-))
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on February 22, 2016, 10:27:44 am

We need to be a member to get in.   :((

Have you tried reducing the picture sizes down to under 150k and posting on here under  'attachments'

ken
 
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 22, 2016, 11:38:15 am
I`ve been having trouble posting pictures too sometimes.  The Manned Model Ship International  closed group on Yahoo will be getting a website open to all soon. In the meantime the Facebook item should be available to all.  Manned models of all sizes will be catered for on the new website with construction hints and tips, regulation links and examples from round the world.  The Facebook pages should at least drum-up some interest and give anyone interested some ideas .
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 22, 2016, 11:40:14 am
all sizes :-)) Kenny !
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 22, 2016, 11:45:47 am
....sail and power O0
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Martin [Admin] on February 22, 2016, 12:00:22 pm
 Use Imgbox.com

(http://i.imgbox.com/cEkbJxRU.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/cEkbJxRU)

Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Arrow5 on February 22, 2016, 12:17:35 pm
OOPS ! the last two pictures were taken off a canoe builders pages just to show an alternative route to building a hull for a manned model. They are not Martin`s HMS Hood. They were part of a discussion on techniques.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 24, 2016, 08:58:23 am
What was removed Martin?
Oh, and thank you for sticking up the picture which is now obsolete. Can I send you some more?
:-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: Martin [Admin] on February 24, 2016, 01:08:36 pm

OOPS ! the last two pictures were taken off a canoe builders pages just to show an alternative route to building a hull for a manned model. They are not Martin`s HMS Hood. They were part of a discussion on techniques.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 24, 2016, 01:14:22 pm
Try this...
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 24, 2016, 01:18:11 pm
I'm flying now!!!  :-)
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 24, 2016, 01:19:18 pm
Small bit of stern to finish and then... we start glassing!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: ballastanksian on February 24, 2016, 10:26:58 pm
Whoop! That is one gorgeous build. Have you found this one quicker to build so far, having learnt so much from your first build?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 25, 2016, 08:24:01 am
Well... given I've only been on it for three very incomplete weekends, I think it's going MUCH faster, giving me optimism that I'll be in time for the Hood anniversary. I learnt so very much from the last one AND with the pictures still being available, it provides a reference 'from beyond the grave'. I don't think the 45lb electric outboard I picked up is going to be enough though... :-(
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: ballastanksian on February 25, 2016, 06:38:45 pm
That is good to hear.

What does 45pounds refer to? Is it the weight of engine or weight of propelling force generated?
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 29, 2016, 11:11:30 am
Let's try again...
45lbs refers to thrust but I'm still hopeful of a petrol (8-10HP) engine!
This weekend brought these advances... one at a time.
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 29, 2016, 11:15:27 am
Raising it onto a support (one end only) took about an hour! This is bloody heavy!
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 29, 2016, 11:17:43 am
My space (cockpit) is getting smaller and smaller! Be not a'feared! As I construct the superstructure- any that becomes 'invisible' is removed! :police:
Title: Re: HMS Hood
Post by: MartinH-K on February 29, 2016, 11:20:46 am
Forgot piccie but here is plus, almost fixed the problem with the stern! Look to the right... the head of the disembodied Martin!!! %%