Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Queen Mary  (Read 56327 times)

JerryTodd

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Scale Sailor
  • Location: Severna Park Maryland USA
    • Modeling Projects
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2017, 08:19:52 pm »

Way back in 2009, a fellow posted his unorthodox build of the Queen.  His is 8.5 feet long, but, not so deep  ;)

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?531343-QUEEN-MARY-birth-of-a-cardboard-titan

He has several more threads there about this and other large cardboard models he's built.

Oddly, I've found several posts in other forums of 5 foot-ish Queen Marys and not one was built by the owner, but bought complete.

Tug-Kenny RIP

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,670
  • Location: Newport. S Wales
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2017, 10:31:30 am »

Well everyone.........  A big thank you so far for all the help coming my way.   :-))

I am busy copying the pictures (from this Forum) and collating the data.   (the fun part of the job).   I spent the day printing out the sketches and pictures I have, to be able to draw the plans.  So far, I have the side view at 1:200 scale and the frames details.  She looks very long at 5.5 feet and not very tall but time will tell.  (anyone know the height of mid ships to the keel ???   Mine looks rather thin in this aspect, but I'm assured this is correct ?  perhaps it's an illusion because the top decks and funnels are not in the picture yet . ??

I've got a drill for the 2000 window holes Colin.  It's the rest of the build that bother me.

Fantastic hobby when you're getting your teeth into something.   :}

Cheers for now

ken



Logged
Despite the high cost of living   .......... It remains popular

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,984
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2017, 10:51:59 am »

Queen Mary,


 :-)) :-)) :-))


Thanks Ken, I assume you did the editing.


Ned
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,965
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2017, 11:21:27 am »

If it is going to be a working model Ken then you are likely to have some real issues with stability so the more holes the better!

Colin
Logged

John W E

  • I see no ships !!
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,551
  • Location: South shields
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2017, 01:55:30 pm »

Hi Ken,
I really admire you taking on that vessel :-)

What are your thoughts on how you are going to build it as I remember the problems you had with the Titanic's stability - I know when I was considering building P & O liner the Canberra - my thoughts were going along the lines of planking the hull up to the waterline - and then using either 1/16 ply or balsa wood for the sides or even lite ply - also reducing the widths of the frames for the upper sections. 

Also instead of using plasticard for plating use cardboard/cartridge paper.

Just a thought for you Ken.  watching with great interest  :-)) :-))

John
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,965
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2017, 02:30:46 pm »

As John says, it will be tempting to use plasticard but it is quite a heavy material in the thicknesses you would need.

Colin
Logged

Capt Podge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,634
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2017, 02:46:51 pm »

This thread has got the old grey matter wakened up. Now, this is just some thoughts on the stability issue - would it be possible to incorporate, say, a pair of I-beams into the hull bottom, into which would slide an appropriately weighted section of lead. By this I mean the top of the I-beams would be on the inside of the hull and the remainder external. Then, when it comes to displaying the model, an appropriately shaped "plinth" could be slid into the I-beams in place of the lead, thereby mounting the hull proud of the display stand.

Having said all that, I've never tried the idea myself. Could be a way to go but of course would add some more time into your build.

As I say - it's just a thought....

Looking forward to the build as well by the way.

Regards,

Ray.
Logged

Tug-Kenny RIP

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,670
  • Location: Newport. S Wales
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2017, 03:08:39 pm »


You are all correct in your thoughts of stability.  It is on my mind so various ideas are being considered.

The Titanic did overbalance and was never successful on the water.  I hope to improve things with this model by keeping the weight very low down.  The upper-works will be made from lighter plastic to give it a better chance of staying upright. 

cheers

ken
Logged
Despite the high cost of living   .......... It remains popular

Howard

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,093
  • Location: Scotter Lincolnshire
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2017, 03:20:01 pm »

That's a great Idea  Ray I'll remember it for when I build some others.


      Regards Howard.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,965
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2017, 03:32:10 pm »

Ken, You could consider the traditional method of deepening the underwater hull a bit. It need not be very noticeable but will give you some useful buoyancy in hand for extra ballast.

Colin
Logged

Nemo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,847
  • Location: Sussex.
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2017, 03:51:07 pm »

Ken. Not a great deal here to assist you as a builder but a good read anyway- plus you get to play the horns - over and over again!
Bob.

http://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/decks.html
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,561
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2017, 05:13:17 pm »

Suffice to say as a 'structural requirement', I don't understand why the uppermost deck level in her hull looks to be substantially more reinforced with closer rivet to frame spacing and extra joggling plates, than the deck level immediately below

Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

John W E

  • I see no ships !!
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,551
  • Location: South shields
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2017, 05:25:37 pm »

Hi Derek

I do believe the area/steelwork which you are referring to was actually a stiffening belt of steel plating built around the deck level of certain ships.   It was to aid to allow certain movement in the ship - as when the ship is travelling over rough seas and the ship does what is known as 'hogs & sags' between crests of waves.   This stiffening band allows the ship to move slightly.  This practice of adding an extra row of plating as well as rivets was carried on, on all welded ships.  This was up until about the 1960s in certain vessels.    If you have a look at some cargo ships which have been of an all welded construction, they had a band of riveted plating around the top deck, especially oil tankers.  Vertical jogging plats on the outside will no doubt correspond to the butt straps on the inside plating.

Hope this is of some help.

John
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,561
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2017, 05:57:14 pm »

Thanks bluebird......

I had assumed a description such as this, however had never studied such build construction, nor have seen such extreme build plating detail....

I think without  todays computer finite analysis, factors of safety in engineering design in earlier years would have been [an overkill] by todays standards .....

Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

NFMike

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,061
  • Location: Hythe, Hants, UK
    • Plague Marine Services
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2017, 05:59:18 pm »

I've never heard of that before, but it certainly makes sense. The hull is like a beam, and as you can see on a steel I-beam the loads and strength are on the top and bottom. This reinforcing at the top would presumably equal the strength of and around the keel.

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,965
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2017, 05:59:44 pm »

Derek, as John says, it is the top of the 'hull girder' together with the promenade deck above it which is the 'strength deck'.  These are the counterpart of the double bottom/keel and together give the hull its longitudinal strength - a sort of box section really.

The superstructure is literally that, it sits on top and slightly overlaps the strength deck but is not a load bearing component as such. As with the Titanic, there would have been expansion joints in the superstructure to take up any flexing of the main hull.

As you say, they built them strong in those days on the better safe than sorry principle. The stresses on today's welded hulls are indeed subject to computer analysis.

Colin
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,561
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2017, 06:20:05 pm »

Thanks Colin.....

I suspect RMS Queen Mary [circa 1934 build] may be one of the last vessels [of such size] to display conventional exposed round head riveted construction as opposed to blind or flush riveting used in similar or larger vessels some years later....eg., Iowa Class Battleships [circa 1943]

Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

John W E

  • I see no ships !!
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,551
  • Location: South shields
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2017, 06:32:40 pm »

Hi there Derek

Even with modern computers I am afraid the designers still cannot get it right sometimes.   Think of the Royal Navy's Type 42 batch 3 stretched Destroyers - not long after completion they were called back  by to the 'manufacturers' stress on the decks causing the hull to begin to crack.  So what did they do - they welded a box section girder either side of the hull at deck level to strengthen it.   

When I was building a model of the Duburg, I noticed that there was a line along the hull - at first I couldn't understand what it was on the drawing - I contacted Jim Pottinger and he sent me clearer photographs showing that it was a welded stiffening plate, either side of the hull and this was on an all welded hull.  If you can make it out on the photograph - you can see it extends from the rear of the superstructure to just short of the bow.

John
Logged

Nemo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,847
  • Location: Sussex.
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2017, 06:48:09 pm »

Thanks Colin.....I suspect RMS Queen Mary [circa 1934 build] may be one of the last vessels [of such size] to display conventional exposed round head riveted construction as opposed to blind or flush riveting used in similar or larger vessels some years later....eg., Iowa Class Battleships [circa 1943]Derek

I often wondered about the drag effect of all those exposed (as opposed to flush) rivets under water and the cumulative effect on speed and fuel consumption. On the QM there were 10,000,000 of them weighing 4000 tons!.  No wonder welding became the accepted method, accelerated by wartime construction.
Logged

TheLongBuild

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,447
  • Build em, and play hard..
  • Location: Everywhere, But Nowhere !! But mainly in England....
    • Runcorn & District Scale Model Boats
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2017, 06:50:01 pm »

Interesting to see that at one point Disney Owned the Queen Mary.

Tug-Kenny RIP

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,670
  • Location: Newport. S Wales
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2017, 10:58:43 am »


We are on FIRE.    :}  :}

I suppose I'd better build something now   (only joking !).  The plotting and planning is going ahead at a rate on knots now.  Many thanks Nemo for the Web site of interested parties where I've just spent the best part of life reading and digesting the Queen Mary ship and all her interesting details.  (Well I didn't know that,,,,,, comes to mind)

I have loads of structural details now to enable the KEEL to be laid.  I thought I might make it from OAK, Colin, to get some weight  'down there'.   Plans are afoot for an added keel of lead to be fitted lakeside, if to only to keep her 'sailing upright'  !!!



Logged
Despite the high cost of living   .......... It remains popular

Capt Podge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,634
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2017, 05:19:57 pm »

Well now, that's all good news Kenny - hoping all goes well for you.

Regards,

Ray.
Logged

Tug-Kenny RIP

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,670
  • Location: Newport. S Wales
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2017, 10:20:32 am »

TODAY WE STARTED THE BULD

The keel was cut from an old door found in the back of the workshop.  I made it by extending the height of it up inside the ship.

The frames were cut from plywood and sanded to shape.

 
Logged
Despite the high cost of living   .......... It remains popular

Tug-Kenny RIP

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,670
  • Location: Newport. S Wales
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #48 on: January 09, 2017, 10:25:51 am »

Here is the keel with it's added height.  The frames were laid in place to get an overall picture.

She is now 5 foot 3 inches long and looks to become quite a BIG UN     :}    {-)     I hope I can lift it around.

Cheers for now.





Logged
Despite the high cost of living   .......... It remains popular

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,017
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: Queen Mary
« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2017, 08:51:59 pm »

You have given her a good stout keel Ken. I can see the positives of having a wide keel for beamy models and may allow a stuffing tube to be inserted through it without any reinforcement to the basic keel piece.
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   Go Up