Print

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

[lmagna]

Here is a guy out your way who prefers smooth water when sailing his RC ships Kiyo.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5-hsp6N8vQ6q56Eh-wqhpQ/videos

Of course when you realize that most of them are 1/700 then it is not surprising! Quite the talented builder, I wish he showed more than just the ships or items running around on the pond.

[tonyH]

[tonyH]

Hi Lou,
I've always assumed that the US/Canadian ones carried extra weight higher up. The supposed displacement of the British built was just over 1000 tons but Navsource gives the displacement of USS Intensity etc as just short of 1400. Mistranslation of units? Certainly, when I converted a 1/72 kit some time ago there was a lot more going on upstairs. The photo below is my 1/144 version of the US one......very tender on the pond!
Tony

[tonyH]

This is the 1/72 version

[Backerther]

Hi tonyH;


Thanks for some nice pics of 1/72 corvette,superb work !
By the way,is this built from the kit of Revell and RC conversion model?


Kiyo

[Backerther]

Hi Lou,
You did find very unusual model warships mainly of IJN and indeed they are running at 1/700 scale very well on the mirror-like surface.
Judging from the captions, the author must not be a Japanese...


Kiyo

[tonyH]

Hi Kiyo,
Basic kit and rest scratch built apart from 3inch gun, d/c rails and railings which were 3D printed from Shapeways. Same for the 1/144 model
Thanks for the comments.
Tony

[Backerther]

Hi JimG;


Thank you so much for your style of building information.
I think your way is better than my style,but even my style is able to detach the foredeck within 1 minute by loosening 6 tiny screws for battery change at the sailing site,which I think is quite OK.
Anyhow, there must be various ways when it comes to RC conversion procedures,depending upon theirs respective and favorite methods coming from their past experiences...
Frankly speaking,I was at a loss in the beginning how I should do to change a battery..The result was this kind of primitive style!!.....

[lmagna]

Hello Tony


I kind of hate hijacking Kiyo's build yet again, but hopefully he doesn't mind too much.


I would have to drag out a few books pertaining to corvettes and even then there may be mistakes and discrepancies between ships, navies and all sorts of things. Corvettes are hard to get exact numbers on in many cases as there were at least two major designs and many smaller differences that were dependent on the shipyard where they were built and where they were stationed.


I don't have all the numbers right at hand but your sources could be talking about two different designs. The 1000 ton ship could be an early corvette before they added the extended foredeck/crew quarters/ fuel storage etc. They also altered the main deck house and bridge and enlarged both of them. Along with added guns these changes between early and later corvettes could easily account for many tons in additional weight. I know that Wikipedia gives the tonnage between the two as being almost the same at about 1000 +- tons. I am not certain that you could make the internal and external changes that the modified Flowers had and still keep them at the same tonnage. That does not also say that all the added weight was all bad and caused one ship to be more tender than the other. ALL corvettes were considered tender and would roll excessively in almost any seaway. Even that does no mean that they were bad seakeeping ships, in fact quite the opposite was true. They were also noted as being very seaworthy and able to handle virtually anything they encountered but the same may not be said of the crew. The constant violent pitching about that was sometimes so violent that one had to be strapped into his bunk to keep from being thrown out and water ran over even the lower decks. Add a few design picadillo's to the mix like the Galley being located in the shack between the bridge and the stack and required that the mess attendant carry the food across the open deck to get it to the crewman's mess forward. As far as I know this was not changed on the modified corvettes.


As for the handling of your model corvettes, we have much better leeway over the real thing. We can compensate for many handling issues through ballast and running gear and the fact that the rest of the model top hamper is mostly empty. I never built/ran the 1/144th corvette model so I can not speak for it but my 1/72 model ran quite well and was stable enough and I was never worried about her capsizing unless she was ran over. (It happened once and she sank fairly quickly!).


Both your corvettes look fantastic. It is hard to think that they are able to stay so pristine as RC ships. I wish mine looked so nice! DO you also have pictures of the interior layout? 

[lmagna]

A question I forgot to ask Tony. Is it possible that you have your ships ballasted too light? That would also make them roll much more.


Lou

[Backerther]

Hi all and the persons concerned with this thread;
I came up here at snail's pace like the real Flower class corvettes while many earnest arguments have been done among the corvette enthusiasts with which I have been surprised to know their huge amount of information and knowledge....
I just have set the 4"main gun temporarily to check if it sits on properly as per the instruction manuals...
Judging from the both openings beside the gun port,it may look a dual purpose gun though it is impossible to elevate the gun much higher angle due to limited elevating arc teeth...just a plastic display model..??But it does not matter at all for me as I only do expect her to be a good and stable runner on the water realistically that is my final purpose to build her. 

[lmagna]

Looking very nice Kiyo


The British 1917 MK IX 4" even without a shield like was used in the corvettes was not considered a DP gun. it was pretty much considered a surface to surface gun.

[tonyH]

Hi Lou, and I agree that apologies to Kiyo are in order from me too! PM Sent.
Tony

[Backerther]

Hi Lou and tonyH,


I have understood this point very much.
Judging from the profile and supposed caliber(length by bore seemed short for AA purpose)of the 4"gun,even I couldn't believe it a dual purpose gun.  
Kiyo

[derekwarner]

In the grand scheme of things [trajectory] ...[a new word for the year that  Politicians   have discovered  and used a lot with Covid & the aim of our economy] is that the manually driven [powered]  train & elevation mechanism of these 4" gun mounts, was such that attempting to judge the speed and position etc, of an incoming aeroplane, and compensating for pitch & roll of a 1000 ton vessel bobbing around like a cork was an absolute impossibility


If any Flower Class vessel fitted with such a gun mount actually succeeded in shelling an incoming aircraft is described as a feat of luck over anything else


The Vickers machine guns fitted to the Flower Class were however acknowledged as being far superior in defending the vessels against air attack


However Mighty little Warships 

Derek

[JimG]

I beleive that many of these 4" gun mounts were reused ex WW I, no real need for high angle mounts at that time . I would not class a Vickers .303 machine gun as being particularly effective against WW II aircraft, more of a scare gun. The 20mm Oerlikons and the 2pd pompom would have some effect although lacking in numbers for real anti aircraft. Not too much of a concern as mid Atlantic there were only a few FW200 to be defended against and near land at either end there was  air cover available.
Jim

[Niall]

The 4" gun on the Flowers were definately incapable of AA fire.
 This is why ships in the Med and on the Arctic convoys had 4 extra Oerlikons.

[lmagna]

I also would question the effectiveness of a Vickers as a AAA gun other than the possible psychological value to both the crew that they were doing SOMETHING and a warning to the pilot to not get any closer than rock throwing distance. In areas where aircraft were more common they were quickly replaced with 20mm when those guns became available. This was not only true of corvettes but in almost any ship equipped with .303 or even .50. They just didn't have the needed range, or on the case of the .303 the real stopping power.

On the other hand, on those ships taken into US operations the weaponry was soon replaced with American weapons. Some American corvettes appear to have retained the British low angle 4" and it is possible that some may have been equipped with MK10 4"/50cal guns. but with a maximum angle of 20 degrees they were not much of an anti aircraft gun either. Most US ships ended up with the 3"/50 DP guns both fore and aft. I find no evidence of British or Canadian ships getting the same treatment even though in certain areas they also seemed to switch over the the 20mm whenever possible.
Here is one example of A British corvette being transferred to US use and how she looked after conversion:

USS Saucy still with British guns and radar, even still in British camo but already renamed and flying the American flag.


Here she is after a more complete refit for American use.

The British birdcage radar is gone as are the original guns.The mast has been strengthened to hold the SO type radar that has been deleted from the picture by censors. It appears that in this case the forward 4" gun and shield were replaced with a 4"/50, probably from an old four stacker. A DP 3" has been added on the rear boiler casing, and the 2 pounder replaced with at least 20mm guns within the pagoda, and two more singles in tubs on each side just aft of the stack. There are also 20s on the bridge wings and the wings themselves seem to have been cut down.This is just one ship. I believe you would have to go over each ship you were interested in individually to really get it right. Not an easy task with so much conflicting information.

Sorry for being so long winded yet again Kiyo
Lou

[lmagna]

Here are the pictures I tried to use in the above post but I just could not get them to insert.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/12/120906502.jpg

https://www.navsource.org/archives/12/120906501.jpg

[derekwarner]

With the credentials of the Vickers 0.5" machine gun as below, I don't really think a swipe as 'rock-throwing' is a fair suggestion


I don't understand how comparing a single shot .303" projectile velocity at best of 840/Ms, to a .5" machine gun at 600 rounds per minute and a velocity of 770 M/s makes any sence

It is understood that the Flower Class weapons package at the commencement of WW11 was below par, however that was the state of the vessels


Simply installing a bigger gun, is not necessarily the answer


BB63 at her last weapons upgrade/refit installed four [4] Phalanx CIWS......[a version of a machine gun] to deal with 'as last chance' defensive armament


Derek

[Backerther]

Hi gents;
I think it may be about the time to take a very short intermission by posting my Snowberry pics ,though passionate exchange of opinions and comments are going on energetically....
The 4"gun mount platform is set with handrails as seen below as per the instruction manuals as usual;
It's very interesting for me to assemble this kind of plastic model ship as it goes very smoothly,securely and rapidly to the goal of sailing on the water.
I don't know if the projectiles are OK with this color....


By the way,the gun looks so short like my 1/6 US M4A3 Sherman tank's barrel....38cal/3"barrel...like a howitzer!
WW2 US naval guns seem to have adopted longer 50cal...50cal/3" ...50cal/16"for BB63 ...except 38cal/5" like a Sherman tank...

Merry Christmas to you all of model boaters.!!
Though I'm a Buddhist ...

Kiyo

[lmagna]

The 1917 BL 4" MKIX naval gun was a .45 Cal weapon. This would make the barrel 180" long or 2.5" in 1/72 scale.

[Backerther]

Hi all;
The ship has come up here at slow pace though..
The main gun was installed permanently aboard the ship at last.!
The assembly step is just on page17 of whole 45.
I think that one of the merits to assemble this kind of "pla-model"(we Japanese normally call like that) is to be so easy to know or estimate how long the rest of time is required to complete, as referring to the page number.
In this sense,my Snowberry will be ready to go on sailing next spring..April??when the water may be getting warmer..
♪～♬～♩～(^^♪～


Kiyo

[lmagna]

Can I possibly make a suggestion Kiyo?


If you cover the gun pedestal railings with very thin plastic or even thin cloth coated with paint it would look like what they did in many of the real ships and make the railings stronger and less able to get damaged. I used brass railings on my corvette and was glad I did. They held up pretty well over many voyages and trips to the lake.


I really like how your work is progressing.
Lou

[Backerther]

Hi Lou;


I thank you so much for your suggestion and have seen some model ships as done as you suggested to do on the railings.
I quite understand your way is surely far better than mine which method was indicated in the instruction manual.
But I prefer CA to soldering as the later is a bit difficult to do precisely and neatly for me even if the former is weaker than brass.. Moreover,once failed to process the soldering,it takes much time to recover on the plastic deck edge that I greatly feared   ...


I did the following masts and other sensitive assemblies with CA and 2- part epoxy to secure neat and precise results  simply because I was not confident to do successfully other than CA and /or the epoxies...


Kiyo