Print

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

[ambernblu]

Bob,

The shafts are certainly out and slightly steeper than they should be - the one eighth prop/hull clearance, that Deans suggest is almost double, but the props do still 'straddle' the rudder shape comfortably and 'look' OK. I must admit to originally considering ripping the deck off and starting from scratch, but I talked myself out if it - currently regularly updating that decision and looking for reasons to convince myself it was the right one to make at the time! 

Because of the above, the motors are a quarter of an inch below the deck surface, but I can hopefully live with that - I'll let you know when I get it on the water (or not as the case may be! ) The previous builder had his motors lying flat, but since I've corrected that and also added a slightly longer drive train with the Deans couplings, I've inadvertantly increased their height!  :(

Excuse the dark pic, but I'm currently working on replacing the centre deck hatch (which is a flush part of the deck - joints hidden by overlapping walkways!) The original (in the pic!) is getting binned as it was very badly cut out and the plasticard supports were a nightmare - there seems to have been a major miscalculation on the part of the original builder as they appear to have been stuck to the underside of the deck before it was glued in place onto the hull - and as there are balsa deck supports running down either side, one side of the deck opening supports was left sitting on top of the balsa - hence this particular flush deck is (now was!!)higher on one side than the other! Yet another reason for making me wish I have removed the deck at the beginning and started from scratch!  :-\

So I have been busy recently cutting away (and sawing) all the old plasticard from below the deck opening(!) - the next hatch supports will be made from quarter inch square balsa (a la Glynn Guest - which worked really well - (and extremely water tight) last time when the entire quarter deck was removable! - see pic of my original Battle Class 1/144th all balsa 'R/C learning curve' build - 1986 - gosh, is it 20 years?!)

Cheers, Brian

[cbr900]

Brian,

Did you manage to get any of the plastic stuff and try it yet mate....



Roy

[ambernblu]

Brian,
Did you manage to get any of the plastic stuff and try it yet mate....
Roy

Roy... I did thanks - got one of the bigger packs on offer (eBay) for about £4.00. It looks good stuff too, but as I found the two alloy motor mounts which I've used on this re-build job, I'll save this excellent stuff for another model boat application (and post pics on here of course when I do!) 

Cheers, Brian

[malcolmfrary]

I got a smallish pack from maplins (polymorph).  I noticed a disturbing bit of info on the instructions -
"NOTE: Polymorph is a non-toxic material that is fully biodegradable"
The bit about it being non-toxic is no doubt good news.  Biodegradable though?  I cant help wondering how fast?  We make models out of wood, which is also biodegradable, but we can take steps to slow the process down.  How long does, say, a motor mount made of it last in a warm, damp environment?

[cbr900]

Malcom,

It's not a problem mate I have one of those RTR speedboats from ebay and changed the motors to a bit on the faster sized, they get quite warm at full throttle with 4200 mah battery pack, and not 7.2 but 8.4 and the plastic stuff has not yet moved in any way, it has been run about thirty times ....



Roy

[ambernblu]

.... just found these interesting comments on a 2004 cruiser forum site...

'Plastic degrades, but very, very slowly, and only under ultraviolet light or by burning - in fact, according to my late father-in-law, a plastics engineer, burning (if a fire were hot enough!) is about the only way to boidegrade plastic back into its component elements, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The problem is when the fire isn't hot enough to completely break down the plastic and it just forms other, often poisonous, compounds.

Tossing plastic into the ocean where it sinks, practically guarantees that it will not degrade for thousands of years - and consequently I would say that plastic is the single most polluting product our modern society has come up with.

Glass is another item that people seem to think should be put into landfill sites on land, when tossing it in the ocean is a better place for it. Glass is silica, the most common mineral on our earth, and glass tossed into the ocean is back where it came from. If it doesn't break on its trip to the bottom it becomes another home for some small animal. And eventually it will break into smaller and smaller pieces and join the other grains of sand on the world's beaches.'

Food for thought anyway!  :-\

[cbr900]

Brian we have a beach called 90 mile beach and it is that length,
the sand is white to golden, we must have thrown away a hell of a lot of bottles....



Roy

[DickyD]

Add that to the 90 mile beach on north island NZ [actually 65 miles] and you got a lot of bottles!!   

[MINIBOAT MARK]

hi have you tried sticking the motors down with double sided servo tape or as i use selotape sticky fixers and for shaft to motor coupling i find silicone based tubing as used for fuel lines on ic engines secured at shaft and motor with zip ties works quite well and means you do not have to line up motor and shaft

[cbr900]

Miniboat,

That maybe ok for smaller type boats, but the power in some models would rip the tubing at the first hit of power in the water.....



Roy

[ambernblu]

A replacement 'midships flush deck hatch - cut out from an 18 year old piece of 1mm plasticard. OK, so its been in a box all this time, but its as good as if i bought it yesterday to be honest. I reckon this plasticard problem is all about having the stuff out in the fresh air full of UV rays and leaving the model on display in a window or maybe de-bugging your house with Aussie flea spray!  I put it all down to modern living and all that.

Anyway, the original deck (as you can see from the pics) has yellowed somewhat with age and exposure (quite arresting eh?) but not only that, it has also distorted laterally (i.e its no longer completely flat, but slightly rippled in places!) you can see where I've lightly sanded the edges down with wet and dry and the different surface heights can be seen, so a bit more work to do just yet then! (I can guess what you lot are thinking, deck should have been binned a few weeks ago - and you would probably be right!!!)

To add to the strength, instead of the 1mm plasticard supports below this deck opening which i have since cut away (aaarrgghh!!) I have added quarter inch balsa which has given it the extra solidity it needed... and further to that, below the new hatch I've used quarter square balsa to make a (snug!) plug fitting (DickyD - its upside down!    ) which makes me much happier, not only about the added strength this will give the deck, but also the weatherproofing it affords.

I must admit to never being very happy about that particular 'loose' section of deck, especially with it carrying a funnel above it (gust of wind comes to mind?!) I'm probably very wrong (and also a bit paranoid too perhaps!) but it never looked particularly encouraging since the previous builder had not done a good job of cutting the hatch from the original deck piece, hence the need to replace it!

Cheers, Brian

[Too Large - attachment deleted by admin]

[cbr900]

Mate if your not happy with it and you can make it better do so, as the only one you have to please is your self....




Roy

[polaris]

Dear Brian, I also have a Cossack that needs attn. - mercifully no quite so much but significant all the same. May I ask what deck guns you are considering fitting please - apart from the main armament that is of course. I have a Deans plan for her, but you may have different info. to mine and it would be interesting to possibly compare types and numbers fitted. Regards, Bernard

[ambernblu]

Dear Brian, I also have a Cossack that needs attn. - mercifully no quite so much but significant all the same. May I ask what deck guns you are considering fitting please - apart from the main armament that is of course. I have a Deans plan for her, but you may have different info. to mine and it would be interesting to possibly compare types and numbers fitted. Regards, Bernard

Bernard...

I've given the spec for this model a bit of thought and decided to go for an early war, overall plain light grey, F Pennant job (probably F24 HMS Maori as I seem to have more pics of her than most - plus my two New Zealand based brothers and their respective families!)

So the weapon fit will be fairly straightforward too (as per the Deans plan provided) utilising the quad pom pom on the after superstructure and the quad 0.5" m/g mountings between the funnels. I don't think there are (well I can't find them anyway) 2 x 0.303" Lewis guns among the bits that make up what I bought(!) (I do have a few fittings missing and also not enough brass etched railings to go around the deck!) but there were two of these weapons mounted on the signal deck on the 'as-built' ships.

Additional armament (varied depending on specific ship) was added as the war progressed - notably to address the deficiency in Anti-Aircraft fire. I may therefore look out for a pair of single Oerlikons for the bridge wings (to keep the early war weapon fit reasonably realistic - some of these were replaced by pom poms or power-operated twin Oerlikons even by 1941!) I'm hoping Deans will have a couple that I can buy along with some replacement fittings...!

If you go later into the war, there are three or four major alterations to the Tribals (varied depending on the specific ship of course) that you could incorporate into the model. The first being a reduction in the height of the aft funnel to provide a better angle of fire and the removal of the mainmast. Also, X turret was replaced by a twin 4" high angle mount - again to increase A/A capability and of course there is the usual choice of about 3 or 4 fairly garish Admiralty camouflage schemes to choose from, depending on the mods and the specific period of the war you decide to go with.

Let me know how you get on with it and post some pics when you have some... be interesting to compare notes! Cheers, Brian

[polaris]

Dear Brian, Thankyou for your v.thorough reply. I will give thought to all of this and get back to you! Regards, B.

[polaris]

Dear Brian, These 0.5 quads., these look liked stacked barrels so to speak? Mine was fitted with same when acquired. Single Oerlikons are right where you place same. I am no expert per se, just pick things up from p.graphs. and I.net info.! Not sure about Lewis guns as yet, but have seen them mentioned. Rgds., Bernard

[ambernblu]

Bernard....

Yes, the stacked 0.5" quad mounts. They were not thought very highly of and were replaced as soon as possible with more effective armament (they were considered to be worse than useless and inaccurate at close range!) - which consisted initially of single Oerlikons and later by twin power-operated Oerlikons. I understand however that Cossack retained her quad 0.5" mounts well into 1941.... but by then she will also have had her X turret replaced with the high angle twin 4" mount.

The Dean's kit is clearly based on the Spanish Civil War period and therefore limited to the vessel's early life. So to be completely accurate, it will probably pay you to research a specific Tribal at a given point in the war.... you will then have either an 'L',  'F' or 'G' Pennant No., a specific camouflage scheme to go for and individual mods (as previously described) specific to your chosen ship. You couldn't for instance have an 'L' Pennant number Tribal in Western approaches camouflage scheme, still retaining all four or her 4.7" turrets (unless someone knows different of course!  ) I do have a pic of 'G21' Punjabi still carrying her mainmast, with a 4" mount on X position, after funnel at full height and Oerlikons in the bridge wings....!

For my own kit, moving along to an 'F' Pennant No. and adding a single Oerlikon to each of those large and 'empty' bridge wings will do very nicely I think - unless of course I can coax a spare 4" mount from Deans as well...!! 

Cheers, Brian

[polaris]

Dear Brian,

I am currently researching Belfast at the moment, and in parallel destroyers in gnrl. (I have a museum qual. HMS Kelly, and I use this as my template for British destroyers - I know of course that Cossack is a two funnel). As is my way, once I get my teeth into research I do it thoroughly, and, thanks to the help of Bob, John Haynes, and Deans, 'THE' book on Belfast now, I am getting on my way with 'all' things. It's not easy getting you head around things 'new', and, whilst my Family has been involved with things nautical for may years (one part in the merchant Navy since the 1890's, and the other with Yarrows in Glasgow since the 1930's - and whilst I have a good source of info. in Bae but limited due to records now), things, and terminolgy that I have normally taken for granted have taken a new turn, in that I must directly and definitly have identification. I must therefore turn to this - dare I say our as indeed I am but a new member - excellent source of info.. My knowledge now is extensive, however, it is erratic, in as much that whilst I have loads of data, it is a question of getting it in proper order! My reasearch has/has been wide and varied, and encompasses a great deal as you can imagine, so, considering prev. tech. guidance from some, some vague guidance from others, some really excellent advice from two partic. sources, & my own now extensive follow-up research, there is rather rather a lot going on. Therefore, in one sense I know what I am talking about, but in another I don't! - just a slight lack of gnrl. overall knowledge that's all! Sooner or later I will have the answers to hand, and I am not too far away, but, as a WW1 General once said, there is nothing more dangerous than an enthuistic amateur!!!!!!!!! - so I will try not to fit the latter category!

Out of the two WW2 British flotillas of eight destroyers only a few survived the war, sadly Kelly and Cossack did not. The Canadian and Aust. vessels faired rather better. Kelly I have ills. of, but Cossack only ills. of paintings.

Regards, Bernard2

[ambernblu]

Hi Bernard...

As you quite rightly say, getting research information into order (as it were) is probably what I was trying to say - since whilst I don't want to miss an item of equipment that in all probability (and given the rough date I want to aim for) I should have on my model, the further we go into the war with this class of Destroyer the more difficult it seems to pin down exactly which particular mods each vessel would have had at any one given point! The word 'nightmare' certainly springs to mind and as you say, there is a distinct lack of detailed or close-up view pics of these vessels too...!!

Somehow, having 'a generic representative' model of a class isn't at all ideal - we all seek some degree of acuracy in our modelling wherever we can - don't we...? (hence all the painful research!) So in a way, all things taken into account, I've decided (probably as Deans have done - and Airfix before them too!) to take the easiest route out of a dilemma with my model (to have minimum mods!!) and trust I'm 'nearly' right!

If you do find any specific information on the 'missing' Lewis guns, I would of course appreciate hearing from you!

Anyway, all the best with your 1/96th Belfast build - the 1/1 scale ship is of course still moored on the Thames - isn't it?? (Well it was there last time I looked - unless someone has moved it recently??) 

Cheers, Brian

[polaris]

Dear Brian,

I just popped on to see if Mayhem was working again, and, hey presto it is! Hat's off and many thanks to all concerned!

I can only suggest what an A1 modeller said to me, and this is that you build your vessel in the way that you would like to see her built - a personal thing rather then totally factual so to speak. So, my thinking now is that the Admiralty made very regular changes to nearly every vessel they have ever had, therefore we are entitled to artistic license - within reason of course!

Don't have time to write properly now, but will reply doring the week.

Regards, Bernard2

[polaris]

Dear Brian,

Continuing from my last, with the Belfast for example, she is going to be finished to represent the period 1939 to 1945. Nothing will be fitted that was not on her during this time, but the intention is to show what was on her in WW2. She is not going to be 'crammed', and her superstructure will little changed from the 1939 vessel, however, some minor 'tweaks' here and there are being v.carefully considered. This representation presents it's own problems of course, but it does take the slight conflict out of data/old p.graphs situation, in that I can use the most reliable info out of all I have and then determine from this what was on her - and where - and then work out how I can best use it - with as much historical accuracy with it's placement as I can! So, with your Lewis gun 'problem', you know they were fitted so it's just a question of where you think they would be best placed.

Regards, Bernard2

[ambernblu]

Bernard

Thanks for your thoughts on the problem - it would be interesting to hear what other warship modellers thought! I'll hopefully be adding those Lewis guns at some point (in time and somewhere on the model!)

Yes, I agree, the Admiralty were indeed constantly adding and updating their warships throughout the war, as the newer systems became available, sub-hunting technology in particular improved dramatically during that period - as of necessity! 

Good luck with the Belfast build - maybe post some pics of her when you have made some progress?

Cheers, Brian

[polaris]

Dear Brian,

What I said in my last is due to another Member on here (indeed, the one who directed me on here in the first place), and I will use his wise philosophy from now on. I will not mention any names, but this person will know who I mean! To endeavour to make a vessel in it's pure likeness at a certain given date is very difficult, unless, that is, one has a definitve set of p.graphs taken at a specific date... only this can be costrued as 'accurate' I feel? - however, how often is this possible?

Re my Cossack, I have ordered a Bridge Deck HA Director and also Range Finder, since after comparison with Kelly, ills. of Cossack and p.graphs., those fitted to mine are clearly wrongly constructed, are also not quite in the right place... but the new ones should balance since they will be 'smaller', I will have to work my way around the Bridge 'partition' somehow, but I am not going down the road of major surgery in this! Accuracy yes, total perfection no!

Re Belfast, a good few people are 'involved' in this one way and another, and I think it only right that 'The Project' is documented in a more formal way, in that an article should be composed detailing the progression from acquisition to completion. If my efforts can help others similar to me - demonstrating what I intend to accomplish that is - then I will consider that I have done 'a service' so to speak - and also achieved something personal at the same time - if you get my drift.

Getting back to the Lewis gun 'situation', again, this really isup to you where you place them, but this sort of weapon was placed nerarer to the Bridge I feel, so that 'Orders' could be quickly trans. as might have been required. Again, this is a personal 'thing', and is entirely up to you where you place them - no-one else has a right to say one way and another! As you say, it would be interesting to see what others might have to say with this gnrl. thinking.

Regards, Bernard