Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: raflaunches on June 27, 2021, 11:03:42 pm
-
Hi everyone
Been a bit of a while since I did any form of build log especially during lockdown and both Invincible and Albatross stalled. It hasn’t helped that my Mum suffered badly from Covid and I was stuck in isolation for over a month but recently I’ve suffered from work related problems including being stabbed in the back by a Hercules MLG door mechanism system! Nasty gouge and I also suffered from side effects from the Covid jab! Invincible will start again very soon now that the long term project of the brass Tribal rebuild for a family friend has been returned today. Albatross is a challenge that Dad is struggling with due to its smallness so he has wanted to build a large hull which suits his abilities. So Albatross has been passed to me for my workplace work bench once the LST is finished off as it can sit on my back seat very comfortably.
So Dad wanted a big hull to build and my new acquisition of Bob’s CVA-01 meant that a 8ft+ hull can now fit into the van I gave him the plans of HMS Glorious… but wait there is a twist! Most people will heard of Glorious as the aircraft carrier that was sunk in 1940 by Scharnhorst but this is Glorious as built- a Large Light Cruiser! Well that’s the propaganda that the RN managed to pull off to build a Light Battlecruiser! So in 1/96 scale she will be 8ft 2 inches long with two twin 15inch gun turrets she looks glorious (excuse the pun :D ).
So watch this space for a beast of huge proportions and grace.
-
Sounds like you've had a really rough time of things Nick but good to know you're still around.
This is some beast of a model you're going to be producing - looking forward to seeing your progress reports O0
Regards,
Ray.
-
Happy ... the rest of 2021 Nick ?! {:-{
(https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2021/06/27/UxTucPV.jpg) (https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/image/aRV7n)
(https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2021/06/27/HMS_Glorious_1917_profile_drawing.png) (https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/image/as2Z2)
(https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2021/06/27/hms_glorious_battlecruiser_1917-24396.jpg) (https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/image/aRoPZ)
(https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2021/06/27/352d39085cd7b09e3ee47c3ce1fc156c.jpg) (https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/image/aRqvl)
-
Thanks Ray and Martin
I thought 2021 was going to be better than 2020 but unfortunately no, and with the car deciding that it didn’t like it’s brake pads anymore on Friday made it worse! It was like driving a formula 1 car with hot brakes! Smoke and flames. Hopefully got them fixed today, I had hoped to visit Sir Klunk at Wings and Wheels but the car unfortunately took priority. The beast is something I’ve wanted to build since I started to build model boats and was the second set of NMM plans I bought from Greenwich. The nicknames that were given to them made me want to build them- Curious, Spurious, and Outrageous! Such an odd vessel which did engage the German Imperial Navy in 1917 during the second battle of Heligoland Bight. The entire battle was a farce but was the only time the ‘light battlecruisers’ fired in anger.
-
Nick, sorry to hear about your problems. I think it is true that a lot of us have found 2021 to date worse than 2020 in some respects and we have lost some good friends too but being stabbed in the back by a Herc seems particularly unlucky!
Glorious will be an interesting project and an unusual modelling subject. At that size your Dad will have to consider the same issues that the original builders did in constructiing the long thin shallow hull. As you no doubt know, the Captain of Courageous managed to bend the front of his ship up in bad weather and both vessels had to be fitted with additional strengthening.
Colin
-
Nick
Certainly been in the wars, but things can only get better.
Strange world with you posting this as last night I just finished John Wintons book, Lif and death of a carrier., if you have not read it it is fascinating and it gives a good idea of the problems at the t time, RN and RAF etc.
Stop upsetting herky Birds and take care.
Bob
-
" ... stabbed in the back by a Hercules MLG door mechanism system ..."
..... BTW, is the Herc recovering OK? %)
-
Hi guys
Thanks for the kind comments- yes Herky-bird ZH866 is recovering well after a few words with her! :}
I won’t share the pictures of the wound as it’s a bit of a mess but has started to heal nicely. Fingers crossed that everything starts to play ball from now on. I’m on the night shift this week so I’m currently helping Dad to set up the work bench for the ‘beast’ and luckily it fits the area.
See what you think…
-
Keep safe Nick and take it easy :-))
-
Blimey, that's going to be a big one! I actually quite like the Glorious ships as they have a pleasing profile. Hmm two 15" turrets, plenty of room to get them working?
Sorry for all your trials and hope you and your family recover soon.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Well Dad is getting on with the Glorious already! A phone call this afternoon he has confirmed that the keel and two basic frames have been cut out!
If only I could get him trained to use a smart phone to send some pictures- like me you’ll have to wait until Friday morning for them.
Hi Geoff
We’ve improved a lot thanks and the modelling blues have gone away and we’ve come back fully motivated again. Work and illness definitely didn’t help but thankfully everyone is okay now. Hope you are okay- I send you a PM on the forum.
-
What a wonderful and interesting project! Was it the TZoli art work that hooked you? It is quite an elegant design. I especially like the twin flying off platforms, fore and aft. Please keep the pictures coming.
-
Hi Akira
She is a stunning shape and we have always liked the lines of the ship. I actually found the original in one I’d RA Burt’s books on British battleships and the long hull with two turrets certainly appealed and the non-planked deck was the other!
Pictures are coming on Friday- I must admit I’m looking forward to seeing the progress myself :-))
-
Hi everyone
I’ve just walked into the work shed and found this! I was so impressed I put Invincible along side to show the difference in length-31 inches! Dad will be making some intermediate frames between the ones currently made to allow for rigidity and strength.
-
Well that should make your back feel better! :-))
-
Hi everyone
Update on the hull build so far…
More frames, keel marked out and slowly being shaped. Definitely more of a cruiser hull than a battleship/battlecruiser hull- very sleek! :-))
-
You are going to need a bigger pond {-)
-
Looks good there :-))
-
Hi Phil
Extension coming next year for your straight runners ;)
Hi Colin
I’m impressed every Friday I’ve walked through the shed door to see the progress- it’s actually smaller than I expected but that’s down to the beam and draught being less than Invincible!
-
Hi Nick, look forward to seeing this creation, unusual but a pretty hull and lines.
-
Hi Dave
She certainly is a pretty vessel with graceful lines- the weird thing is despite being 8ft 2 inches long she lack actual bulk compared to battleships and earlier battlecruisers- she is definitely more of a cruiser than a capital ship of the era. I keep looking at her thinking about the aircraft carrier conversion and can’t believe they managed to get a flight deck on her! The beam is narrow compared to her length.
-
Probably because she lacked the armour plate of a vessel of the line, so she did not need the beam to support all that extra weight. As a carrier I think her decks were wood at first, could be wrong, but she lacked the 3" armoured decks off the latter purpose built carriers, shame she was wasted due to lack of proper aircraft management. But as I was saying an unusual vessel to model and I think she will look absolutely Glorious on the lake at Wicksteed.
-
More updates on the build. The bows have been shaped into the traditional RN shape for WW1 and the stern has been ‘sharpened’ to create the the early cruiser shape. Measuring up the prop shaft lengths- these might be the longest ones we have had to order. Strangely enough the prop diameter is exactly the same as Invincible’s so we know that they will propel the beast along.
-
High Nick, meant to say there was a programme a few years back, about how she came to be caught out alone except for two destroyers, which both were sunk, though one managed to get a torpedo hit.
-
Even more progress has been made on Glorious. At the cease of play today it had changed again with glue being added to start permanently attaching the frames/bulkheads to the keel. Dad is working out the hull sheeting and where the quarterdeck break is.
The elegance of the hull lines are starting to appear and I don’t think she will be a slouch!
-
That size Nick, you need motors, just sit in it and use a paddle.
-
That size Nick, you need motors, just sit in it and use a paddle.
:D It does look that way, but the actual bulk is minute! It looks huge but that’s due to the length but the beam is only 10.5inches! It’s narrower than the Invincible we have almost finished. We intend to fit the usual car heater motors but only directly power the inner shafts- the outers will be powered by pulleys and belts from the inners due to the narrowness of the hull.
-
Cor, she's a sweety Nick! Pass my compliments onto Steve as that is shaping up nicely. I am pleased to have caught you all at the early stages.
I am sorry to hear about your injuries but am pleased that the assault is healing. Bloomin ruffians those Hercs {:-{
They share lines with the Repulse and Renown from what I can decypher in armour layout drawings from the Battle Cruisers book.
-
Hi Ian
She is a real beaut- I will pass on your kind comments to Steve. When I left Sunday night he had started to skin the port side and has recently turned it around to do the starboard side. More pictures tomorrow :-))
On another note Geoff is kindly making a working turret firing system for me so we can have a firing battle at Mayhem next year.
They do share a lot with the Renown class especially 15” guns, deck layout and secondary armament which is helpful having a copy of the NMM book about HMS Repulse which shows the secondary armament in excellent detail.
-
I am sorry to hear about your injuries but am pleased that the assault is healing. Bloomin ruffians those Hercs !
All fixed now- I even came close to passing my fitness test last week after 2.5 years of rehabilitation physio work on my Achilles’ tendon.
Aircraft suitably told off and given stern words not to do it again! ok2
-
I have found that "O" ring drive works fine and have used this in both Iron Duke and Invincible. With Invincible I needed to increase the speed a little so I used smaller diameter pulley wheels on the outer shafts (about 10% smaller) which made quite a significant difference. I don't have an adjusting wheel on either ship and just use a large "O" ring cut with a very sharp knife and superglued together - superglue and rubber love each other to death!
On ID I built in two spare "O" rings over the shafts so if needed I can change them easily - never need to so didn't replicate this in Invincible.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Well the hull has been removed from the jig after the upper initial planking has been completed. She has to be removed from the jig to sheet the lower hull but I think you’ll agree that she is looking every part a sleek British battlecruiser from this angle. Shafts arrived from SHG this morning and they are the longest we have used- x2 18” and x2 22” long shafts!
As Geoff mentioned we are now looking at motors and methods of propulsion. Problem is that this hull is much narrower than most so we are playing around to see what motor/drive system will fit the area and still drive all four shafts. All part of the fun :-))
-
Nick,
Yes, a really elegant hull. Even in wartime the designers still managed to make a lot of utilitarian ships look good. As I think somebody esle remarked, it's amazing that it was possible to stick a high wide flight deck on top later on.
I doubt if mush power will be needed to drive the model although those shafts must absorb a fair bit of power simply to turn them. Are they tubed along their full length or do they have intermediate bearings? What diameter are they?
Colin
-
Hi Colin
Good the hear from you. They are M5 diameter shafts and will be exposed for approximately 7-9”. We are having to cut down the outer shaft to do so and refit the bushes when at the correct length. We went for M5 because we were concerned about potential whiplash from a smaller diameter shaft.
Regarding the actual hull it’s amazing that they were converted into aircraft carriers as you say from the narrowness of the hull. We were asked if we an universal hull was possible but after some research we discovered that the hull bulges were dramatically enlarged on the conversion to the aircraft carrier layout so constructing both from one hull wasn’t possible. We found the original plans on the NMM website showing the changes and the bulges must be at least 200% bigger than the early version. Hopefully you can see the modifications in 1923 in the attached link:
https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/body-plan-of-hms-glorious-1916-j9566?_pos=1&_sid=5daaf3a8f&_ss=r (https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/body-plan-of-hms-glorious-1916-j9566?_pos=1&_sid=5daaf3a8f&_ss=r)
-
Nick thanks for the link, a bit of digging around suggests that the overall beam was increased by around 9 feet which explains a lot. In some photos you can see the extra just above the waterline.
A lot of ferries have had sponsons added to improve stability and comply with the latest SOLAS regulations.
Getting back to Glorious, it will be interesting to see how responsive to the rudder such a long thin hull is.
Colin
-
That’s what we are studying too. The 8ft 2 inch long hull and one relatively small rudder doesn’t seem to scream manoeuvrability but we discovered with HMS X-1 that we built a few years back that she was surprisingly tight turning for her length to beam ratio. We will make a scale rudder but if it doesn’t work we might make a enlarged version for when it’s on the water.
-
Another update of the progress and we are definitely building it quicker than the real Glorious!
She has started to put weight on and I can say she is getting love handles around the waist area {-)
We wondered how the bulges would look since they were built into the ship’s design from the beginning not like others which were added post war. Well the ply has certainly revealed this smooth bulge each side and it works well being hydrodynamical as the we use the wood to see if it attaches naturally to the frames and it does! Can’t wait to see the final layer of plating to see the beauty of the Light Battlescruiser.
-
With Invincible the outer shafts aren't that long and I used separate lay shafts internally with a Huco coupling at each end to take up any misalignment. Worked okay!
Nice progress with the model.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Regarding the effect of the rudder on such a long hull, Could the fact that the scale weight of the hull is so much below what it should be if weight was directly divided by 96 then Steve's model would weigh 199.8 tons!
Now firstly, a model that heavy would sink on the given size of model straight away before we could even consider the rudder's effect on such mass in water, but as Steve's hull weighs a fraction of a percent of a ton then the rudder does not have so much mass to push around even when water (being the greater mass for given capacity) is taken into account for, the same for X1.
I am to maths what Kenny Everett was to particle physics but I think the light weight of Steve's hull might be beneficial for turning with a scale sized rudder.
A point I must make is that Steve's techniques of planking do give me confidence to have a go at a large hull in the future. Can you ask him to take some images of him painting the inside of the hull etc, as his method did surprise and again impress, as it is not what you would call classic model hull building, which is good for people who might be put off by the precise nature of wooden boat hulls.
-
Regarding the effect of the rudder on such a long hull, Could the fact that the scale weight of the hull is so much below what it should be if weight was directly divided by 96 then Steve's model would weigh 199.8 tons!
The scale weight depends on the volume of the ship so you need the cube of the scale for this. The full size weight should be divided by 96 cubed (884,736). A rough calculation from your figures gives scale weight as around 0.02 tons, around 22Kg, a much more sensible number.
Jim
-
Ah....JimG,
It's always rewarding to see that others understand the "Square-Cube" rules when attempting to scale anything.
Glynn Guest
-
Hi Ian
I’ll take some detailed pictures for you of the planking techniques and sealing methods.
Carrying out the usual research has revealed that some interesting features will be constructed for the 1917 version of Glorious- four on deck torpedo tubes are needed around the aft turret, and the lessons learnt from Jutland means that extra 36” searchlights are fitted around the funnel and the main mast.
-
Excellent :-))
-
More updates on the progress of the hull…
Initial planking 2/3 completed, turrets borrowed from HMS Invincible to show the location and how big this ship was. Considering that the ones shown are only 12-inch guns the 15-inch turrets are a bit bigger but the barrels are certainly more noticeable in the size department.
-
For anyone wanting to see the difference between a 12” gun turret and a 15” gun turret..
-
Firstly, what a ridiculous idea to have so much hull and so little main armament! I know the main reasons and desires, but an extra turret would have made them more efficient gun platforms.
Secondly, It is interesting that the 12inch turret seems longer than the 15inch turret.
Thirdly, She looks gorgeous, even in naked wood. Please pass my compliments on Nick.
-
Hi Ian
You can see why they were nicknamed the Outrageous class when they were being constructed!
An extra turret should have been added for fall of shot at the very least but Fisher was trying to get them past parliament and the Admiralty as the so called Large Light Cruiser project.
I can see how later on this design may have influenced a certain navy into producing a very similar vessel but with triple turrets instead of twins… we called them pocket battleships but in reality they were nothing more than a modernised Glorious… and they worked in that role that the original idea was for- the hunting of cruisers and convoys.
-
The somewhat similar HMS Furious was built with only TWO guns. :o
OK, they were 18", but that's even less that the other two of the class. And later on Furious had a flight deck added forward, so only had ONE main gun......
-
Hi Kit
Yes, Furious the half sister that was even more outrageous than her two older sisters!
These are some of my favourite pictures of Furious in 1/96 scale at Yeovilton FAA Museum as you described-
-
Lord Fisher envisaged these ships as part of his pet 'Baltic Project' which would support landings on the Baltic Coast of Germany to take their armed forces in the rear. The low draught was intended to allow them to get close inshore and the big guns to engage targets far inland. It was all a con on the Admiralty and the politicians and surprising that he got away with it really as the Baltic Project came to nothing.
This left the ships without a role except as supporting forays into the Heligoland Bight by light forces in which they were rather ineffective.
They thus became white elephants until converted into carriers and unfortunately Courgeous and Glorious were both unnecessarily exposed to and succumbed to early demise in WW2.
Colin
-
Hi Colin
Completely agree- they were the biggest con that Fisher ever played but aesthetically they were pleasing looking ships but completely useless for the task given to them- the loss of both ships so early in the Second World War was due to incompetence and lack of experience with modern warfare. I’ve seen some renditions of Glorious and Courageous as modernised light battlescruisers in an alternate time line and they look impressive but in reality they would have suffered like the Graf Spee did from weak armour and damage caused by their own guns.
-
It is interesting how elastic the definition of 'battlecruisers was. The Glorious class,although officiially classified as 'large light cruisers' on the basis of their belt prorection were also considered to be sort of light battlecruisers on the basis of their armament. The Renowns were essentially under armoured battlecruisers with their weak belts.
I have just been re reading Gary Staff's excellent book on German Battlecruisers of WW1. These ships were amazingly robust and absorbed an incredible amount of damage without sinking initially but it was just sheer luck that Seydlitz and Derfflinger made it back to port and didn't suffer the same fate as Lutzow.
Whilst the British battlecruisers proved vulnerable to magazine explosion due to faulty ammunition supply practice the ships themselves proved very resistant to the smaller calibre German guns. Tiger took a great deal of punishment and remained in action although she didn't have much success in hitting the enemy.
Generally, armour plating was very good at keeping shells out while the German torpedo bulkheads were very successful in limiting damage.
At the RN Explosion Museum at Portsmouth there are examples of the various shell sizes and the difference between the 11 and 12 inch shells and the 15 inch ones is quite an eye opener. The 15 inch shell was around twice the weight of the 12 inch and the photos in Staff's book show just how much damage it could do when it exploded properly (which was not always the case).
Colin
-
I remember reading the same book, the interesting points of weakness on most German vessels seemed to be the steering gear and strangely the bow torpedo hatch which reduced the overall speed of the ship. Makes you wonder if the German designers had taken out the pointless bow tube how much more effective they would have been on an already excellent design.
I wonder how much better Glorious and Courageous would have been as a design if they had 12 inch guns instead and have an extra turret but that wording by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915 stating that no ships bigger than a light cruiser could be built led to that devious mind that Fisher had calling them Large Light Cruisers!
-
I feel privileged to live within twenty minutes from that lovely model in an equally fine museum. I used to go once a year and used to enjoy ten minutes of studying the model. It was only ruined once when a Grand Dad walked past with his little Grandson and proudly said that's the Hood Theo!
My mind instantly split into two, the 'It doesn't matter as Theo was unlikely to know what Hood was so don't comment' half fighting the 'For Cripes sake, it isn't the Hood, look at the Big Gun and aircraft, It's HMS Furious! half %% %% [size=78%]. [/size]
[size=78%]Passers by must have thought I had a nervous tick! That was a couple years after hearing a similarly proud Grandfather [/size][size=78%]pointing out the 'King Panther' [/size][size=78%]to his grandson at Bovington. [/size]
[size=78%]He was a Wiley and uber political chap Fisher, but at least he gave us the Dreadnought and Battle Cruisers and a better understanding of Subs and Torpedoes and advocated aviation in the Navy. [/size]
-
Really nice looking hull and excellent progress!
I look forward to more pictures
Cheers
Geoff
-
I being not that bothered what people think would have said to Theo - grandad needs to go to specsavers, he can't even read the label of what ship it is ;D
-
"I being not that bothered what people think would have said to Theo - grandad needs to go to specsavers, he can't even read the label of what ship it is " %% %% %%
I love it when I take my destroyer to the lake and and some mom or dad comes along with a toddler and says" Oh, look at the Battleship!", or when they look at my submarine and ask what it is. Sometimes I feel like saying that it is my trained baby whale.....
-
And if it isn't painted grey then it's the Titanic.
Colin
-
NOW I have to tell everyone that those Coast Guard ships are really icebergs! {-)
-
Start of the second sheeting- this time using 1/32” birch faced marine plywood cut into 2x2.5” rectangles with the longest length cut allowing the grain to run across the shorter length or width. This allows the ply to naturally follow the curvature of the hull easier. We try to overlap the initial layer of planks so they don’t end at the same point thus avoiding a potential weak point. It’s not perfect and filler and sanding is still needed to get a smooth finish that looks correct. We are, of course, using thick type of superglue used in the kitchen cabinet making industry which allows about 10 secs of play and usually stays stuck! We have started on the most difficult sections of the hull getting them to fit first and cutting in the easier section around them.
-
Reference Colin's remarks about the weakness off the anti flash doors etc, it has since came out that the Admirals of the day got approval to double the amount of ammo carried, as they believed in rapid fire than accuracy. Consequence the shells could be accommodated but not the extra cordite bags which were even stowed in the barbets, also the anti flash doors were pinned open all the time to enhance speed off delivery, the armoured cruisers that disappeared in smoke it was said they had cordite cases on deck. The DNC of the day stated he believed our ships should have been able to take alot more damage than they did.
-
Forgot to say Nick, i am really looking forward to see your creation at Wicksted.
-
Nice to see the Elfs hard at work! ;D
-
Hi Dodes and Martin
I’m keeping him busy :-))
Fingers crossed she will be more than a hull by the time Mayhem comes around next year.
-
..... 2 hulls?! {-)
-
:} Three if I’m lucky by May next year! {-)
-
A very inspiring build, can't wait to see the hull completed!
-
A very interesting method of hull construction as I assumed the next stage would be fiberglass. I am watching with interest as I have a very large hull planned!
As regards flash doors and ammunition. There are a number of factors here - firstly peace time stowage was less than war time and this was known and planned for. During the first two battles, Falklands and Dogger Bank which involved the battlecruisers feedback from German survivors commented on the low rate of fire. As a result Beatty instructed the battlecruisers to increase their rate of fire and didn't really care how. As a result they fixed open the magazine doors and opened flash protections and believe in some cases removed them and stockpiled ammunition in the turret trunks.
We need to differentiate between "ammunition" as with big guns shells and cordite are separate elements and are not combined until loaded into the breach. British cordite also had a black powder envelope to facilitate spread between the charges and it became a "crime" for a charge to reach the gun house without the paper envelope being open! So there was also loose black powder about as well. In aggregate this is almost certainly what caused the ships to blow up. Excessive stockpiling of cordite by the crew - basically criminal negligence! After the battle Beatty put about the theory of inadequate protection which was much more palatable that gross negligence.
Examination of the wrecks, particularly of Invincible's aft turret showed cordite charges where they should not have been.
All very sad.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Isn't it <:(
I recall that Steve will sand and fair his hull with vigour and enthusiasm before giving it a good coating with White Gloss Paint inside and out.
My mucous surfaces really hate Cyano these days, its like having bad Hay fever and so avoid it when possible. Good ventilation does alleviate symptoms though.
She's looking fab Steve and Nick :)
-
An interesting point about Glorious is that her initial crew was apparently largely made up of the survivors from HMS Warrior after Jutland.
Colin
-
A photo subtitled "HMS Glorious probably at Scapa Flow during the Great War" made me chuckle. Link to MaritimeQuest.com (https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/pages/aircraft_carriers/hms_glorious_77.htm)
I took a guess at the date and anchorage location but not, of course, from which ship's deck the photo was taken.
-
More progress on the port side- second layer of the ply 99% completed. Still needs filling and sanding but we will do that after the starboard side is done.
Hi Colin
Didn’t realise that the crew were mainly made up by the former crew of the unfortunate armoured cruiser Warrior. I wonder what they thought of their new ship?
Hi HMS Invisible
It’s interesting how many pictures survived but with lack of detail as you mentioned actually helpful information on dates are lost. Luckily good researchers like RA Burt managed to record the refits and mods so thankfully I can probably date these pictures a little better using his book.
-
Didn’t realise that the crew were mainly made up by the former crew of the unfortunate armoured cruiser Warrior. I wonder what they thought of their new ship?
I came across it when reading Richard Osborne's book:
https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Voices-From-the-Past-The-Battle-of-Jutland-Kindle/p/12629
The nature of crews manning warships is not all that well known. HMS Tiger had a reputation of being a not very efficient ship with poor gunnery but it appears that her crew was actually of poor quality and cobbled together to get her into commission as soon as possible. A shame really as the ship herself was a big improvement on the Lion class and withstood a lot of punishment at Jutland. Also she was the best looking of the battlecruisers until her mainmast was relocated.
Colin
-
...
Hi HMS Invisible
It’s interesting how many pictures survived but with lack of detail as you mentioned actually helpful information on dates are lost. Luckily good researchers like RA Burt managed to record the refits and mods so thankfully I can probably date these pictures a little better using his book.
I have not been to Scapa Flow but I know the geography well enough so my guess was 5th November 1918 on the Forth estuary the moment I saw it.
The same aspect and coastline feature appears in the W L Wyllie print here. (https://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/product.php?ProdID=3974) It is from a ship deck and I doubt anyone was taking photos, nevermind painting :} ,until the weather had calmed.
My grandfather took a photograph of HMS Campania from HMS Glorious, not from deck level so no detail in the foreground.
-
More progress on HMS Glorious. Second layer of plating done with the exception of the bow which will have a brass strip to reinforce the area- if she is going to ram something let it be done properly! {-)
Post pictures we are rebuilding the rudder/keel area as it doesn’t look right so it’s being cut down and redone so it looks smaller. :-))
-
Beeeutiful! The work on the bulge looks intricate.
-
Thank you Ian :-))
I’ll give you a heads up that both Glorious and Invincible will be together tomorrow morning- well on a trolley at least :D
When you compare the size difference it’s boggling how big battlecruiser style vessels became.
-
I saw the Glorious hull at Wicksteed on Sunday - really very nice indeed and I can't wait to see the finished model!
Cheers
Geoff
-
More speed, more range, bigger guns etc etc etc caused the usual growth spurts!
It was the same with all classes of warship. From Torpedo Boat Destroyers of the mid ninties to V&Ws in the Teens, Pre Dreadnoughts got a bit larger with time, and Dreadnoughts went from 500 odd feet to 600 odd feet, and the KGVs of the thirties were sniffing around 750 feet.
I cannot wait to see these gorgeous models next year all being well.
-
An bit of a delayed update, Dad is building between home related jobs so the build has slowed slightly but started again this week with the prop shafts and motors.
The shafts are the longest we have incorporated into a model- 18 inches and 22 inches long. All are 5mm in diameter as the exposed sections are quite long to be a smaller size (7-8inches!). We considered several propulsion methods and had initially thought of using pulleys and belts but we couldn’t get small enough versions for the area due to the narrowness of the hull and the gap between shafts being less than 1 inch. So conventional methods are going to be applied with four Action 700 motors- 1 per shaft- to drive the beast forward.
We have some excellent 15inch gun barbettes/firing system/rotational system from Geoff Dixon which have been trial fitted but shafts had to be fitted to ensure everything fit- see next update for the new gun system!
Ignore the enclosed shafts in the second picture-it’s being used to ensure everything lines up, we have shortened outer shafts so the exposed shafts can be used ;)
-
Looking good Nick, ready for mayhem next year ?
-
Hi Phil
Good to hear from you, hope all is well in Abbott-land.
Hopefully she will be 80-90% completed by then- well that’s the prediction %)
-
I like your simple home made motor mounts. They look much better able to cope with the dictates of an odd hull and saves hours of carving and shaving bought ones to fit, and/or then throwing them away as they didn't work right after all only to buy more!
So Steve will complete the test fit of these and associated gear before giving the inside a good coat of Gloss white.
-
Thanks Ian
Yes that’s the only plan, make sure everything fits then seal up
-
Useful to know, thanks Nick.
-
Next update- told you they would start coming in fast!
Aft turret firing and turning system trial fitted above the props to see what clearance we have and what needs modifying. This is the Geoff Dixon special for 15inch armed turrets, slightly improved over the system fitted to his Invincible but essentially the same system. It’s going to be fun next year :D
-
Its getting exciting %% The larger barbettes must have been heaven for Geoff given their larger diameter.
-
Hi Ian
The actual barbette made by Geoff are dictated by the amount of fog fluid for the firing system (60ml) if I remember Geoff’s briefing. The real external barbettes are even bigger! We are using acrylic tube 100mm in diameter, the firing fluid chamber is 75mm! They are real beasts of guns compared to the 12 inch guns!
-
Ah, I see. That is in fact a good idea having a standard size across the board.
Yup, 15inch guns are majestic!!
-
Back to the other end… the less bang sounding end!
The 5mm diameter shafts being test fitted with the outer casing cut down for the first time showing how long the exposed inner shaft is! Tried to fit a 1.7” diameter prop but these proved way too big so some 1.5” diameter versions will be ordered from Prop Shop very soon.
-
Hi Nick.....interesting relationship between the rudder axis and propellers....one would imagine she was a handful to steer.....
Is there any text suggesting that the two outboard turbines were used for assistance in tight steerage or mooring?
Will you be using these two outboard motors for steerage?
Derek
-
Hi Derek
We’ve been studying this too and we think the shape of the aft section of the ship helped to guide the hydrodynamic flow towards the rudder. It’s a largish single rudder which will have a direct effect on the steering due to being positioned just behind the two inboard props. The outer shafts on the model will assist steering via a mixer unit.
-
Getting those perfectly straight and balanced will be critical to prevent whip I would imagine, even when considering shaft diameter and A Frames. Lovely shaped Hull Guys :o)
-
Thanks Ian :-))
A long time went by before we committed with the superglue to tack them in place. Fibreglass filler is being added tomorrow to completely secure the four shafts. Turrets still fit nicely above the shafts so A frames are next then the rudder.
-
Nick,
Nice to see the build developing. If I may make a suggestion it would be to use double Huco couplings on each shaft as thus will take up any slight misalignment and be easier to fit the motors - there looks to be room.
Loving the build and the 15" barbettes are indeed huge!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Update of the build so far…
As Geoff has suggested double Hucos are on order for the couplings but this weekend Dad has been concentrating on the A-frames for all four shafts. The legs of the frames are some of the easier sets we’ve had to make as the inner shafts sit on the keel giving extra support. All parts are brass tube or strip. Thrust bearings are the next item to be made for the shafts, followed by the single large rudder, before the hull is sealed up ready for hull plating.
-
Nice bit of structural work going on there chaps. The crew is hidden by it placing and the frames are sturdy without looking out of scale and chunky.
:-))
-
Don't forget the thrust bearings, I know someone who sailed his model without any!!! :-) :-)
-
Don't forget the thrust bearings, I know someone who sailed his model without any!!! :-) :-)
I wonder who that may have been… %) :embarrassed:
Sorted now-found them on the shelf where I left them last year!
-
Hi everyone
Been a bit of delay on the build whilst Dad was doing some building work to repair and convert the garage upstairs. Now a majority of that has been done he has restarted the rudder and prop A-frames.
The propeller A-frames are now soldered in position allowing the rudder to be constructed. An interesting shaped rudder Dad has made a wooden template to ensure it fits the keel and pintles. 0.4mm brass sheet is then cut to shape creating two identical sides before they are soldered together with the pivot rod.
-
Upstairs Garage? Exactly how did you word the planning application? %)
-
Upstairs Garage? Exactly how did you word the planning application? %)
:} {-) You can see why it’s taken so long!
Should be an upstairs flat above the garage for my sister. She gets to live upstairs and we get to play in the garage beneath but as you can imagine that a lot of work was needed to fireproof and separate everything.
At least we get to play with the boats again :-))
-
Yay for playing with boats again!!!!! I saw a period image (on this forum IIRC) showing the skeleton of a ship's rudder and being amazed at the complexity of castings and rivetted plating, and this is before you get to the plates that form the actual rudder skin!
Looking fab Nick.
-
Hi Ian
Many thanks- she is coming along nicely once again. Yay for playtime :-))
The rudder has been filed and filled to fit and will have a final sand to smooth it completely tomorrow. The motors on the other hand are being a bit of nightmare at the moment especially the outers. Luckily the double coupling allows it to run smoothly in this position but it’s not 100% ideal. The joys of narrow hulls and large-ish motors!
Hopefully more tomorrow.
-
That looks really painful Nick!
Colin
-
Hi Colin
Yes it’s been a bit of pain in the preverbal behind! Might have to carefully reduce the length of the inner shaft tubes to move them further aft in the hull to give greater clearance for the outer motors. Due to the time passed since we initially planned this area we have forgotten or not remembered how we planned to do them.
-
Hi Nick, can you increase the length of the coupling to allow the outer motor to just slip in behind the inner motor ?
-
Hi Alan
Possibly, I’ll have a look tomorrow morning to see how if any thing can be added.
Happy New Year by the way to you :-))
-
Hi Alan
Possibly, I’ll have a look tomorrow morning to see how if any thing can be added.
Happy New Year by the way to you :-))
Happy New Year to you too Nick :-)) :-)
-
Hmm, what happened to the earlier set up as the motors seemed to fit okay. I would counsel you shorten the inner shafts so you can move the inner motors aft so you get a much better fit for the outer motors or alternatively move the outer motors forward even if it means cutting a hole in another bulkhead. You can always construct a waterproof box around the rear of the motors so there is room. The hull will easily be strong enough to take this kind of modification.
Whilst the couplings will work with the current level of misalignment it will put a great strain on the couplings which will at some point fail and in any case will cause vibration.
Nice to see the progress!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Nick, as an alternative could you move the outer engines forwards into the next section and use a lay shaft with a coupling at each end as this would solve the alignment issue. I'm thinking you probably have room to do this!! :-)
Cheers
Geoff
-
I have had issues similar to this before. I solved them by taking a dogbone, in this case a Dumas nylon one, cutting it in half and inserting each half into a piece of brass tubing to fit. I think it was 3/16 id. I cross drilled thru the tubing and the dogbone half and oined the dogbone into place with a brass micro screw, although just piece of brass rod would work as well. The nice thing about this rig is that you can make the jack shaft as long or short as you want, as long as it in not shorter than the original dogbone.
Just a thought.
-
Hi everyone
Sometimes work just stops play so Dad has been correcting the problem over the last few evenings.
When we trial fitted the motors in August/Sept the prop shaft tubes were not permanently fitted to the hull but when he came to fit them permanently in November he accidentally glued them so the motor ends were all level when they should be staggered. So to correct this the inner shaft has been reduced in length by approximately 1 inch allowing the inner motor to move aft and the outer motor to move inboard straightening both couplings.
On another good note: the Glorious now has her props from Prop Shop- a pair of 1415 LH and RH 3 bladed items fit beautifully as per the original vessel. They should propel this model very well especially with four motors.
-
Another way to skin the cat! Poor cat. I am glad it worked out for you. Simon's wheels look wonderful, of course!
-
Raflaunches,
I see you solved your motor placement problems with the use of couplings to cope with the misalignment of the shafts. You, and possibly others, might find it interesting that, provided the shafts are in the same plane (doesn't matter if the plane is vertical, horizontal or anything in-between), the couplings we use in this hobby can accommodate surprisingly large angles with little power loss.
Having long striven to keep motor and prop shafts perfectly aligned, it seemed worthwhile to see just what angular misalignment could you get away with. So a little experiment was undertaken to fill the Covid enforced free time.
Much to my surprise the single Universal (Carden/Hooke type) did not seem significantly distressed by angles up 10 degrees. This was similar to a coupling made up from some silicone tubing about 11 mm O/D.
The other couplings (Double Universal,Ball and Socket, Dog Bone and 8 mm O/D silicone tubing) could accept double this angle. In fact the "Ball and Socket" and "Dog Bone" types did not seem to be aware of any misalignment at all.
Not an exhaustive experiment and, as said earlier, the two shafts were in the same plane. But, it does suggest that my previous obsession with getting both motor and prop shafts perfectly aligned could have been misplaced?
A fully detailed article was sent to the magazine Model Boats several months ago, so I will not elaborate any further.
Glynn Guest [size=78%] [/size]
-
Handy video animation here showing relative motions and why a single joint is not constant velocity but a double one is.
Even I could understand it. %)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCMZz6YhbOQ
Colin
-
How very interesting! I suspect that if the angle is slight then there will be very little practical difference but if a significant angle the output shaft will be rotating at different speeds depending on its point in the curve/motion but in aggregate will probably be very close to the input shaft, unless I'm reading this wrong but what a fascinating take on this topic.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Yes, at significant angles you could get propeller oscillation - would that have an effect on the motor or ESC?
I was just wondering if it puts sress on some of the bearing surfaces leading to uneven wear.
Colin
-
Re my previous post on coupling test.
I must confess although knowing about this possible problem with simple couplings, I have never experienced them in practice.
This might be due to my preference for "loose" rather then "tight" couplings. Some Universal types have been so stiff when first bought that they might have well been rigid couplings. If they could not be freed-up with a running in session then I'll admit to opening up the holes slightly'.
Simple motor-prop shaft coupling made with silicone tubing would only suffer from some hysteresis losses from the repeated bending/unbending cycles along with some frictional losses from side loading at the bearings I guess?
It still seems the best idea to get motor and prop shafts in line, but I refuse to loose any sleep if my next model demands a modest angular mismatch, provided the shafts are at least in the same plane!
Glynn Guest
-
I guess the big problem with the single flexible joint is that it is creating harmonic impulses into the prop shaft when at an angle and not straight . Depending on certain other factors such as the shape of the hull and stiffness of the shaft mountings their is the likelihood of generating all sorts of vibration and noise.
-
I think one of unmentioned problems is current draw by the motor. I always put an ammeter in circuit when aligning a motor. It is amazing how little variation in angle can increase the load.
-
As everyone is talking about flexible couplings, myself gave up mechanical couplings some time ago because of noise etc and went over to rubber hose couplings and have not looked back since. They can accept some misalignments and they do take out some of the stress caused by overloading when as some do full speed one way and then full the next way, which technically can only be done on steam recip engines.
-
Excellant video Colin. Thank you for posting it. It explains where a lot of folks vibrations come from.
-
Hi everyone and especially Ballastankian who wanted to know this process that my Dad uses for inside his hulls.
I’ve included some pictures of using PVA (Wood glue) method but it takes a while to do and we still paint over the top of it anyway.
In areas that have large gaps we paint on PVA to fill the gaps and seal the area. We usually run it around the frames to skin plates much in similar way that you’d seal up a shower tray.
Using the paint method we use oil based household paint by Dulex. It can be thinned slightly with white spirit to allow the paint to seep into the wood grain. You will need to apply several layers to build up until you get a solid coat of paint. The final picture shows that there was a small hole in the hull that wasn’t 100% visible but the thinned paint seeped through and sealed the gap internally. The outside of this hull will be painted with a resin and sanded flat so I can paint with spray rattle cans and airbrushes.
-
Super dooper chaps! Do say thanks to Steve for me Nick. I recall his description, but there's nowt like some snaps to give the eye-brain coordination something to latch onto.
I assume Steve uses whatever Oil based household paint he has to hand as long as there is enough to do the job reliably?
-
Some trial fitting today to see what can fit inside the hull which when you take in to account the access is less than it looks! So we will need the following SLA batteries:
4x 12v (2 per drive system and 1 per turret firing system)
4x 6v (2 joined to make 12v for smoke generator, 1 for rx and servos, 1 for ballast)
As a rough estimate using the scale converter for weight it equates to approx 23kg or approx 51lb. Currently the hull and the batteries tried so far only come to approx 18kg (39.6lb)! I think we are going to have to get the hull sealed up and see what it really needs to ballast to the waterline as 5kg is a lot of ballast to add!
We have used an average weight of the real Glorious of approx 20,000 imperial tons using the scale converter. If it proves to be true she becomes the second heaviest model we have made!
-
Nice to see progress on this very interesting model. Just one question, how did you get the model tom stay on the wall! {-) {-)
Cheers
Geoff
-
To be fair Nick, while 5KG is a lot of weight, you have a lot of hull! She'll be a burley lass when completed.
-
Hi Ian
Yes there is still plenty of space to add the extra ballast if needed- we are going to leave the deck off until full ballast trials are carried out as it may have to be permanent.
I didn’t think I’d be able to reply from my current location but things have turned out better than expected in sunny Cyprus! :-))
-
Have a good tour.
-
Hi Ian
Yes there is still plenty of space to add the extra ballast if needed- we are going to leave the deck off until full ballast trials are carried out as it may have to be permanent.
I didn’t think I’d be able to reply from my current location but things have turned out better than expected in sunny Cyprus! :-))
Keo time and Mteaksa Brandy %%
-
No time for Keo- supposed to be a dry detachment! {-)
-
Pictures of deck being fitted by Dad. Hopefully I’ll get to see it for real next Saturday :-))
-
:}
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xv3C2yNR/Glorious-a.jpg)
-
Thanks Martin for the picture editing :-))
Some more updates from the weekend in the workshop by dad:
-
Looking good!
Cheers
Geoff
-
Mmmm, so sleek! If I were King George V, I think I would have had a moment of vanity and had her converted into a royal super yacht!
The Navy could have had her back to convert when I got bored and was looking at a newer model ;)
She looks brilliant Steve! You are an artiste.
-
Well Nick & Dad...it has been many years since the words 'classically attractive lines :kiss: ' could be attributed to a Warship
Do we know who was actually responsible for the Courageous-class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous-class_battlecruiser) design?, or was it simply from the Naval Design Office?
Derek
-
Hi Derek
The ship’s designer (well in charge of the design team) was the respected designer Sir Eustace Tennyson d’Eyncourt who led the design teams for a majority of WW1 vessels after Sit Phillip Watt.
She is a beautiful look ship if a little lost in what she was for- her crew certainly didn’t know!
-
Thanks Nick.......
I did not know of this Chaps history or involvement........just shows what can be achieved from an Apprentice :-)) to his final work O0
.....the WIKI people conclude.....
"d'Eyncourt created some of the most elegant and eye-pleasing warships ever designed"
Derek
-
He also had a hand in the design of the first tanks! he was on the Landship Committee that worked on what a tank was and should look like, coming up with designs and ideas towards which Little Willie, 'Mother' and subsequent Rhomboid tanks came about.
-
Hi everyone
I thought I’d show for fun the immense size difference between Glorious and Invincible! Glorious is sitting on a small box to bring her to Invincible’s waterline revealing her origins within Fisher’s Baltic Fleet plan. In 1/96 scale Glorious is over 2ft longer but is narrower and has less draught than Invincible.
-
Like a bloody Greyhound Nick! You would think that Dreadnought was a Pre-Dreadnought going by the difference in length. It is also difficult to believe that Hood was nearly 100 feet longer still!
Pass my compliments on to Steve for such a lovely model in progress. I can't wait to see her on the water.
-
She's a real belter Nick. Those lines are fantastic and the build quality shows them off superbly. How are you at 3-point turns by the way? %)
Tony
-
From your pictures, it is hard to imagine that Glorious and Invicible are even the same scale.The size difference is amazing.Invicible looks to be a tender to Glorious.Incredible lines.....
-
Thanks everyone for the kind comments :-))
When you also consider that Dreadnought 1906 in 1/96 scale is 4.5 inches shorter than Invincible! And even more scary… Hood is another 10 inches longer than Glorious! Considering that Glorious is designated a light cruiser is even more insane!
-
As a straight running boat you are cheating Nick as your boat will be halfway down the course before you start {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)
Really awesome work from Steve and yourself, will it be at Mayhem ? Cannot wait to se the beast for real :-))
-
Fantastic!
Seeing the model makes it clearer just how much ship there is in front of the forward turret - what did they do with all that space?
Hopefully see the fleet at Wicksteed in a few months...
-
That's a good point James. Some spaces must have fair echoed with emptiness.
-
Manpower was generally located & lodged relatively closeby to strategic equipment.......Stoker Ratings close by boilers, Engine ratings close by engine spaces and Artificer ratings around armaments etc.....coal bunkers 'generally' closeby the boiler spaces, ammunitions closeby the gunmounts
So yes, that does appear to leave quite some large spaces FWD to occupy [Men & materials].........I am guessing a continuous Hollywood Boularvade companionway complete with trolley railing broken only by the watertight bulkheads
[the trolleys able to be pushed through open successive bulkhead doors without being unloaded]
It is something I had never considered, what do the Plans indicate Nick? %)
Derek
-
Hi Derek
According to the ship’s plans-
-
With thanks to Martin Gazeley for these pictures.
Another size comparison this time with the German Protected Cruiser SMS Emden whilst at the Dean’s Marine Christmas Open Day last year. I think that if I was an enemy cruiser seeing the beast of Glorious coming towards them I’d think I’d give in!
-
However, you can see why they bent the front end up when steering into heavy weather which entailed extra strengthening built into the bow.
Colin
-
Well thanks Nick, but my guess wrong again :embarrassed: , no evidence a long continuous Hollywood Boularvade companionway whats so ever....Derek
-
Sadly not, but I feel those 'spaces' look lavishly large compared to those on Battleships and Battle cruisers etc. I would like to se the same spaces in longitudinal drawings to see if they were very oblong, or square and spacious? I'm not questioning your findings Nick, just interested :)
-
Nick, A very interesting build, which I shall follow closely.
Thank you for sharing your journey.
Garry
-
Colin...
Not sure I understand ."you can see why they bent the front end up when steering into heavy weather"
I have seen the damage to deck structure hatches, drive gear and hydraulic pipework on a BHP Fleet Operations 100,00 tonner [Iron Somersby] running from the eye of a cyclone on the North West corner of Western Australia, so have an understanding of the un-imaginable forces <*< involved with an ocean, however in this case there was no apparent damage to the hull
With the Glorious, do you mean reinforcement of the hull post build and during Trials & pre-acceptance?
Derek
-
Hi Derek
During speed trials it was discovered on Courageous that in heavy seas she had her bows buckled and bent resulting in a reinforcement inside the ship. Glorious didn’t receive hers until much later.
-
I couldn't remember which one it was. I believe the captain was initially blamed for driving the ship too hard in rough seas.
Colin
-
The hull has been sanded down, resin coated, refilled, and sanded once again. She is now ready for the final coat of resin to seal up and then she will receive a plating layer from lithoplate.
A nice day for the sanding and filling though :-))
-
Lesson 1- never trust the weatherman! Because I believed them I didn’t bother charging or loading boats.
Lesson 2- resin really cures quickly at this time of year!
Lesson 3- don’t pick up the first hairy brush to apply said resin… malted like a Labrador on a carpet!
So in learning today- always have the batteries ready to go, if you don’t go sailing make sure you mix the resin up for the weather conditions, and finally always use a nylon hair brush instead of horse hair! Any way final coat of resin applied, knowing my luck it’ll rain now %%
-
Well, despite the weather you're still making progress and it's coming along well.
Ray.
-
Thanks Ray
Just given a light coat of primer grey to see how good the sanding and filling was. One side was better due to a better quality hairy stick but looks surprisingly good. More progress coming this week :-))
-
This vessels shape is looking more and more like the one depicted in 'THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN' running through venice
-
Hm hm. That is one sleek ship. So slender.
-
Well she has had her first successful ballasting- the first was a failure when water decided to find its way inside the hull in a rather unplanned way!
As estimated the batteries are correct and she only had approximately 5lb added in trim ballast to get her to the designated waterline.
-
Sleek, lean, beautiful. Very much a race horse. Well done. She looks to be hard to resist notching the throttle forward to create nice bow waves. time will tell. As an aside, what are your transport pals for her? (I do not want to ask if you have a big boot :embarrassed: )
-
Good to see you achieve a ballasting result Nick but what happened in that 2nd picture?
Ray.
Edit :disregard - my eyes need a new test!
-
Hi Akira
Luckily no radio gear in the hull to prevent that temptation :embarrassed:
We have a long wheel base van to transport the beast but she still peaks through in to the cabin!
Hi Ray
So happy she has remained watertight this time, the lake level is dependent on the large lake behind us so our outflow isn’t outflowing at the moment so we have a slightly flooded path. All sorted now with the master bung removed. So she had to be carried over the path to the real waters edge! %%
-
Either that or she's so big that she displaced too much water!
She looks beautiful Nick (as you and Steve well know and have been told loads of times!)
What's next?
-
Yep, that explains it nicely, thanks Nick :-))
Ray.
-
Very nice Nick and Steve, great result.
She's looking good. :-))
Garry
-
This project will restart very soon, I’ve noticed that world of warships has added the Glorious to their range of subjects. Looks about right so far!
-
Hi Nick.......what ate the two different shaped elevated plates shown on this model over/above the A & X turret top shell itself?.....................Derek
-
Hi Derek
They are flying-off platforms for aircraft. I think a Sopwith Pup and a 1 1/2 Strutter could fly off the turret tops with the turrets pointing into the wind.
-
it looks good, that 3d model will be handy :-))
-
Started to mark out the plating and anyone who says that ram bows don’t work my left check and jaw say otherwise! :embarrassed:
Whilst (stupidly) balancing the hull on its side marking the hull plating I dropped my pencil so i dutifully went to pick it up. Glorious being a faithful British WW1 warship decided to attack and promptly slid in to my face! Ouch that hurt didn’t really cover it! :embarrassed: The model is fine if anyone is interested. :-))
-
Well it could have been a lot worse Nick - could've been a sharp tool or maybe a hot soldering iron :o
Anyway, as you said, the ram bow really does work %%
Good to know you can still function at least :-))
Ray.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/WtMKTTWZ/Screenshot-2023-03-12-195839.png) (https://postimg.cc/WtMKTTWZ)
-
{-)
-
Well it could have been a lot worse Nick - could've been a sharp tool or maybe a hot soldering iron :o
Anyway, as you said, the ram bow really does work %%
Good to know you can still function at least :-))
Ray.
Very true Ray. Could have been much worse, thankfully not.
-
But Nick, according to various "MEJA" sources, it's rather fashionable in the right circles to have a broken jaw............some people are rather strange! <*<
-
Ouch!
The Navy drop an F35 off the top of an aircraft carrier...
So the RAF drop an aircraft carrier off the top of...
-
Glorious went for you because ships are female - you just haven't been paying her enough attention to her - you have been warned!! {-)
Geoff
-
To ask for Glorious’ forgiveness for not paying enough attention for a while I’ve been doing research for her on the extremely complex triple 4 inch secondary guns that only the Renown and Courageous classes carried. They were very cumbersome and slow to use but wow they look good in this picture…
Any ideas as to what the things are above each breach on the shield roof? I’m thinking lights but they look very odd.
-
Could they be loudspeakers for passing on fire orders in the noise of battle?
Ralph
-
Very possible Ralph
-
Hi Nick
Interesting! All these minor details we never noticed...
There is a note on the Navweaps page that suggests these are lights (under additional pictures). I've not seen them on other mountings, maybe they realised that illuminating your gun crews in action was a bad idea??
James
-
Hmm, they do indeed look like lights but I can't see the benefit and at night surely not a good ides. Another thing, may be air blasts to blow smoke from the breaches but on balance I think lights.
Picture to follow
Cheers
Geoff
-
Have you seen this?
-
hi there Nick
Have a look at this link Britain 4"/45 (10.2 cm) BL Marks IX and X - NavWeaps (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk9.php) you may already have this, but, I do think they are lights above the guns. Have a look at the photograph in the link this object above the gun shield is very similar and they are saying its a light.
John
-
Doesn't download for me Geoff - 0 bytes
Is it the one on this site:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk9.php
See photos at bottom of page of a single gun mounted on the monitor Sir John Moore where the fitting is captioned as a shaded light. Looking at other photos of the triple mounting o Renown/Repulse it seems that not all mounts were fitted with the lights.
SNAP John!
Colin
-
There is also a diagram in John Lambert's naval weapons volume ii - labelled as a 'loading light'
-
I agree as it is something I missed on my 4inch gun model for HMS Ready and wish I had done the light integral to the breech/shield tarpaulin.
Those mountings are almost analogous to Organ guns! They are impressive though.
-
Thanks for the information everyone. The light is a strange thing as mentioned but being in the military it really doesn’t surprise me if it was supposed to be used in combat conditions!
Looking forward to making these platforms as they are so different to the usual 4 inch layout.
Currently painting up some 1/96 scale figures dressed in WW1 uniforms. Absolutely tiny but they look enough to add a sense of scale to a model.
-
Not bad for model boat figures Nick. I like the uniform colouring.
I wonder how strong the lights were? I imagine that as the light was behind the shield, the enemy would not see much unless very close.
If the light was too strong then it might put the mounting in glorious (excuse pun) silhouette {:-{
-
The light would be directional and behind the shield which would have been pointing at the enemy at a considerable disrtance so unlikely to be very visible but still useful for the gun crews. The guns were manually operated so the crew needed to see what they were doing at night.
Overall a bad design though with three guns in a single mounting and 23 crew tripping over each other. No wonder they were not repeated.The twins were far more efficient.
Colin
-
They are not that smaller than the 1/72nd Airfix crews, though they seem a bit 'shiny' a wet duffle coat is still not shiny though the seal skin ones are, is she being depicted in a force 10 gale? %) %) %) %)
-
Hi Nick have B/W pics of the Norfolk crew then, all hats where dark navy as white tops are peace time only. The outside kit was black oil skins with black rubber wellies, and dry weather buff thick woollen duffle coats . Dampness was a problem with poor ventilation(woollen socks bunged in them to keep warm), father said to me after Norfolk spent 18 months inside the Artic circle most of the crew suffered from T.B.
-
My picture wouldn't down load for me either - I sent it to Nick by e-mail, maybe he can post the plans! Damn computer!!
I did learn that despite its reputation for being cumbersome the triple mount actually worked quite well and according to Friedman its rate of fire was fully compatible with three single mounts - much depended on crew training. Also despite the barrels being independent they soon learned it was best to fire all three at once, a mini salvo which increased the chance of a hit.
It was dropped not because it was cumbersome or slow firing but because the 4" shell was marginal at stopping a destroyer. The corollary being the 6" which fired a 100 pound shell was found to be too cumbersome to operate in a seaway, so with Hood they tried a 5.5" gun which worked quite well, middle ground.
I have ten open shield 5.5" mounts to contemplate on my Hood model soon!!
Cheers
Geoff
-
The 5.5 inch gun has an interesting genesis, summarised here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_5.5-inch_Mk_I_naval_gun
The gun on HMS Chester served by Boy Jack Cornwell at Jutland, where he was awarded a posthumous VC, is in the Imperial War Museum.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/jack-cornwell-and-the-hms-chester-gun
I remember reading somewhere that the open shield guns on cruisers like Chester left their crews very vulnerable to casualties as shell and steel splinters could pass below the shield and inflict lower leg injuries.
Colin
-
Yes, you are correct, one of the things following Jutland was that the shielded guns did not have the shields go low enough but there was a weight penalty and concern that they could be wedged and made inoperable. This almost gets us to the "all or nothing" protection schemes.
Basically thin protection was a waste of time as it only served to detonate a shell which would otherwise only have passed by with minimal damage of casualties. Splinters from near misses was however a very different thing!
Cheers
Geoff
-
As an interesting counterpoint, when HMAS Sydney fought the German raider Kormoran in WW2, Kormoran took her by surprise at close range and quickly wiped out most of the main armament and the bridge. Sydney had a 4 inch secondary armament in unshielded mounts but was unable to use it as attempts to man the unprotected guns were greeted by machine gun fire from Kormoran. One of Sydney's remaining 6 inch turrets in local control holed Kormoran and did enough damage to finally sink her. Sydney herself sank with no survivors.
Colin
-
Hello everyone
I’ve now got into my modelling mojo again after restarting with some Airfix kits.
Last year Geoff mentioned that the stern of Glorious looked ‘low’ and he was correct. The stern was actually 4mm lower than it should be so I have spent this afternoon raising it up using layers of 1/32” plywood and filler. I think it’s started to look better now :-))
-
Had a drunken internet spending spree the other night… :D
How did I feel in the morning when I looked in my emails to see that I had bought 120 items of one thing and 100 of another!!! :o
Luckily my non-sober self had at least been model related spending and it wasn’t horrific as it turned out to be 120 lengths of 1m long 2mm wide 0.5mm deep planks, and 10 packs plastic strip packs of 0.25mm x 1mm x 300mm! It all came flooding back! The planking is for another project I started last year and the plastic strip is for Glorious for the next phase after I’ve sheeted the deck in with lithoplate. It’s for the mass of ‘etna’ anti slip strips that the Courageous and Renown class were famous for having instead of planked decks.
So everything is going fine even if I forget in a drunken stupor! :-))
-
Looks great Nick, glad to see you back building. :-))
-
Thanks James
It’s been such an upheaval over the past year that modelling in any way was pushed back to the end of the day and I didn’t feel like to doing it. Now I’ve settled in to a new job, new role and of course rank, I have more control over my life and my free time. I’m less stressed and loosing weight which is making me much happier. I have plenty of free time compared to pre-June is probably three times as much and I don’t have to worry about getting aircraft fixed and ready to go at short notice. I actually feel happy again!
More modelling and welfare checks tomorrow :-) :-))
-
Pleased for you Nick in getting your mojo back :-)) been there myself. Enjoying your build.
-
Thanks David, I thought that I’d never loose that modelling mojo but I think work was the prime reason why it was pushed back. I discovered that I had hadn’t taken any leave for 8 months (since Christmas!) and in my new job role we have ‘block leave’ which isn’t compulsory but advised. I’ve had two weeks off and it’s made me feel so much better. I had such a stressful job in the last 12 months with the retirement of the Hercules, and with me utilised as a non paid no rank holding sergeant and all the stuff that went with it. Now I’ve achieved the promotion and the job position I have been wanting I can now relax more. We actually have a modelling club at RAF Cosford organised by a mate which is a mix of rc and plastic, railway and aircraft. The evening are mine now instead of works!
Right less of that and back to modelling :-))
-
Good for you Nick! I was wondering how your fleet was coming along as you have some great projects on the go.
I hope to have bench space soon, and maybe get some boat modelling started again.
-
Great to hear you are now feeling more positive about modelling Nick. Always remember it is a hobby which you can put to one side while you deal with more pressing issues and it will always be waiting for you with no pressure when you are ready to come back to it. Even in the hobby most of us have long standing projects on hold while we tackle something that currently appeals more to us.
At the moment I still have to do some fine tuning on my Bilsdale paddler and have a couple of partly finished liner models sitting on the workbench but at the moment I am spending all my modelling time on a Greek fishing boat project because right now I am just enjoying working with basswood, balsa and plywood, plank on frame and generating lots of sawdust with various abrasives. Next step is to cover the hull with gum strip tape to give a good finish, just like I did 60 years ago! My second childhood!
Colin
-
Many thanks Colin. I’m glad I’m back into the actual building again as I was missing it and had a few projects planned. So glad I’ve changed to a calmer environment which actual supports model making. The current Wing Cmdr is very much for out of work hobbies that may get the trainees involved. We have a healthy model club at a Cosford and I intend to bring bits in to work to build in the Tuesday evening sessions. And now I’m in the Sgts mess I have a private room with plenty of space to have a proper work bench for model making.
Look forward to your next build, your Paddlesteamer build is fantastic and I enjoyed reading about it.
-
Well the order from Cornwall Models arrived this morning and so modelling could commence.
I have used lithoplate sheet for the steel deck. This is easy cut to shape with either scissors or a Stanley knife. I had to cut out two hatches for the rudder servo and rudder tiller arm access. Theses will be hidden by careful cutting and sanding to blend into the deck. If you’ve never used lithoplate before you do need to rough up both surfaces to get it to glue down permanently- I did this with some 240 grit sandpaper. I glued it in place with my trusty superglue from B&Q and when the glue had taken proper grip I carefully filed down the edges flush with hull sides.
The anti slip strips are a weird looking piece of the deck and I have decided to use plastic strip 0.25 x 1.0 x 300mm to represent this prominent feature of this class of warship. I have had to start to draw out the basic design so I have created the boxes which will be filled with the ‘etna’ pattern strips which look like little mountains. This is going to take a while! :}
-
Lovely work Nick. Definitely a job to check and recheck whether your mojo is back with a vengeance! It's definitely going to be a star attraction at Mayhem 2024. :-))
-
Many thanks Tony :-))
Considering I’ve only got a few clear shots of the deck with the etna strips it’ll be a close approximation as I’m using the deck profile drawing in RA Burt’s book British Battleships of WW1. There is a lot going on in this area especially when I add the on deck torpedo tubes and gantry’s. It’s making sure it’s symmetrical and looks correct and if I have to measure four times before I commit then it will be four times as it’s such a feature. But thank goodness the mojo for building is back! :-))
-
Nice progress. I would counsel you make a kind of jig for the deck strips. Once you have the first one in place a simple plank should give you the exact space for the next one. I think you are going to have fun!!
Cheers
Geoff
-
As a thought, if you make each strip too long you can run a ruler down the edge and cut and then scrape off the excess so all the angles are the same, maybe!
-
Hi Geoff
It’s like we are like minded! The boxes as I’m calling them are luckily easy to line up using a steel rule and cutting the excess off. I’m making a jig for the etna pattern as you say so I just tape it to the area and line up the strip and few days of superglue to tack them in place before running some super thin glue around them.
I’m actually enjoying this more than I thought!
-
Sometimes the jigs are more fun than the job they are designed to complete. I drew up a load of jigs t make 1:6th track links for a planned (but unfundable at the time) tank model. Lots if fun!
-
Well that was a bit annoying- not you Ian or Geoff! :}
I found a better plan showing the layout of the etna strip boxes- luckily it didn’t affect the ones I had already laid down but thankfully just a sand down to remove the pencil lines to make the box lines that run lengthwise to be more consistent in width. Oh the fun!
The photo of the Glorious I am using shows the area around the turrets and they show more consistent sized width wise plates that travel lengths ways more parallel than the RA Burt drawing. So I’m using the ones in Shipcraft book which seem to match the photos more closely.
-
Some of the excellent pictures found this afternoon in several books on the subject of British Battlecruisers. Yes I know she is a Large Light Cruiser! You can see the deck profile I’ll be referring to for the anti slip etna strips.
-
We have likely seen the same images in similar books Nick! Those strips are annoyingly quite thin, but still need representing. I did wonder if Unbuilt nautilus's* method of representing hull plating using masking tape and filler would work for such a job? I wonder partly because of the availability of that wonderful litho plate. Still, you have made it work so I look forward to seeing them all in place!
*I am sure it was he who did this on a Flower Class corvette model at his club workshop/room some years back.
-
The Etna strips are interesting. Obviously they were cheaper than timber decking which saved money but they were also indicative that the ships were never destined to serve away from home waters as wood decking was needed to insulate the mess decks from temperature extremes. Also it would suggest that the ships were intended to have a relatively short service life when the assumption was that battleships would be replaced after 20 years.
The usual decking back then was teak for capital ships and cruisers but even then it was becoming expensive. When Nelson and Rodney were built the decks were lined with the softer and cheaper fir wood.
Colin
-
Interestingly the Courageous class was the last class to have etna strips, the first being the Renown class. If I remember the reasoning was weight reduction and cheapness. Problem was that Fisher was having his input at this time and was obsessed with his ‘Baltic Invasion Plan’ which relied on fast light (relatively) low draught vessels bombarding the Baltic coastline in support of the proposed invasion plan. The Renown’s were retrofitted with traditional wooden decks during their refits in the 1920s and 1930s whilst the Admiralty didn’t know what to do with the Courageous class post WW1 hence their consideration and eventual conversion into carriers.
Another side note from one of my previous models- the Insect class gunboat was retrofitted post war with fit decks when they were posted to the Far East and the admiralty realised that they needed insulation in the heat of China.
-
Talking about whether they were home waters or overseas, I know one of them served after WW1 on the China station for a while, a friend of mine long time ago offered to to give me two paintings done on spider webs of one of these vessels and a V/W class destroyer painted by a china man in Hong Kong for his father who was stationed out there at the time, the B/C did look impressive in the painting.
-
No insulation for the small monitors of the same period. M33 now at Portsmouth is just a steel box and she served at Gallipoli and in Northern Russia when supporting the White Russians after WW1. Must have been very bad for the crew..
Colin
-
To be fair, it was similar for tank crews in WW2 as the steel did neither protect against heat or cold. I do not recall reading anywhere that the crews of small gun monitors received hard lying.