Topic: HMS Glorious 1917 (Read 26239 times)

dodes · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2021, 01:04:23 pm »

That size Nick, you need motors, just sit in it and use a paddle.

raflaunches · « **Reply #26 on:** July 31, 2021, 11:08:55 pm »

Quote from: dodes on July 31, 2021, 01:04:23 pm

That size Nick, you need motors, just sit in it and use a paddle.

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.

ballastanksian · « **Reply #27 on:** August 05, 2021, 10:46:29 pm »

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.

raflaunches · « **Reply #28 on:** August 06, 2021, 03:00:12 am »

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.

raflaunches · « **Reply #29 on:** August 06, 2021, 03:20:38 am »

Quote from: ballastanksian on August 05, 2021, 10:46:29 pm

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!

Geoff · « **Reply #30 on:** August 06, 2021, 04:08:55 pm »

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

raflaunches · « **Reply #31 on:** August 07, 2021, 10:46:31 am »

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

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #32 on:** August 07, 2021, 11:24:07 am »

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

raflaunches · « **Reply #33 on:** August 07, 2021, 11:39:02 am »

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

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #34 on:** August 07, 2021, 12:27:37 pm »

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

raflaunches · « **Reply #35 on:** August 07, 2021, 12:35:27 pm »

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.

raflaunches · « **Reply #36 on:** August 08, 2021, 12:31:19 pm »

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.

Geoff · « **Reply #37 on:** August 09, 2021, 03:28:45 pm »

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

ballastanksian · « **Reply #38 on:** August 09, 2021, 11:14:45 pm »

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.

JimG · « **Reply #39 on:** August 10, 2021, 12:55:39 pm »

Quote from: ballastanksian on August 09, 2021, 11:14:45 pm

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

GG · « **Reply #40 on:** August 10, 2021, 01:12:32 pm »

Ah....JimG,
It's always rewarding to see that others understand the "Square-Cube" rules when attempting to scale anything.
Glynn Guest

raflaunches · « **Reply #41 on:** August 11, 2021, 07:27:37 pm »

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.

ballastanksian · « **Reply #42 on:** August 11, 2021, 10:59:15 pm »

Excellent

raflaunches · « **Reply #43 on:** August 14, 2021, 04:26:02 pm »

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.

raflaunches · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2021, 04:45:32 pm »

For anyone wanting to see the difference between a 12” gun turret and a 15” gun turret..

ballastanksian · « **Reply #45 on:** August 14, 2021, 04:53:56 pm »

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.

raflaunches · « **Reply #46 on:** August 14, 2021, 05:24:53 pm »

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.

KitS · « **Reply #47 on:** August 14, 2021, 05:58:45 pm »

The somewhat similar HMS Furious was built with only TWO guns.

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......

raflaunches · « **Reply #48 on:** August 14, 2021, 06:26:50 pm »

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-

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #49 on:** August 14, 2021, 07:06:37 pm »

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

News:

Author Topic: HMS Glorious 1917 (Read 26239 times)