Topic: IRON DUKE 1914 (Read 166363 times)

dreadnought72 · « **Reply #75 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:49:19 am »

That's great, Pondweed: what's the book?

Andy

Pondweed · « **Reply #76 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:15:30 pm »

Quote from: dreadnought72 on August 17, 2014, 09:49:19 am

That's great, Pondweed: what's the book?

Andy

Sorry mate, it's "Shipyard practice as applied to warship construction" by N McDermaid. (1911) The author was something at Vickers in Barrow.

Moulds For Side Armour
https://archive.org/stream/shipyardpractice00mcderich#page/240/mode/2up

I checked the Anatomy book on Warspite for how they dealt with the different thicknesses of armour on her belt. The drawing shows the main 13" belt tapering to 6" where it meets the 6" strip, which is a different method from earlier ships, the latter used different thicknesses of teak backing to take up the difference.

p.s. I see I posted Warspite images up in an Iron Duke thread. Sorry.

dreadnought72 · « **Reply #77 on:** August 17, 2014, 10:41:41 pm »

Wow - great resource. I've bookmarked that one.

Thanks,

Andy

dodes · « **Reply #78 on:** August 18, 2014, 08:21:39 pm »

I was under the understanding that the Armour plate was fixed to the vessels normal hull plating by a special set up of bolts, if one see's photos of the old vessels in scrapyards or some stripped of armour to serve other purposes at the end of their lives one can see the normal hull and sometimes where the armour fitted.

ballastanksian · « **Reply #79 on:** August 18, 2014, 09:15:52 pm »

They used bolts with conical ends (that look a bit like a stone masons mallet) but this may have been superceded in later years.

dreadnought72 · « **Reply #80 on:** August 20, 2014, 10:39:43 am »

Hopefully returning the thread to its source!

HMS Iron Duke shortly after launch, before her armour belt was bolted on.

Andy

Geoff · « **Reply #81 on:** August 20, 2014, 01:38:59 pm »

Thank you for the feedback and the picture of ID launching. I have seen this bofre but as pointed out it does not show the armour plate sizes. As a estimate I have used plated 4" long to 32 ft in real life which I think would seem about right. Plates were manufactured as large as possible to avoid weak spots at the joints and because the plates are inherently weaker at the edges. Larger plates = less edges!

As mentioned please find attached some update pictures.

I was surprised at the extent of armour covering the hull and there is more to go on additional lengths of 6" and 4" at the bow and stern.

As a further question I am beginning to think of painting and as I'm building ID as she was in 1916 I think I have to use a darker grey. Anyone know if Humbrol have a good match or will this just be a question of mixing to best guess?

Thanks

Geoff

madrob · « **Reply #82 on:** August 20, 2014, 03:31:39 pm »

Looks superb so for Geoff

dodes · « **Reply #83 on:** August 20, 2014, 08:21:10 pm »

That hull is certainly doing justice to the original.

raflaunches · « **Reply #84 on:** August 20, 2014, 08:47:55 pm »

Quote from: Pondweed on August 17, 2014, 06:15:30 pm

Sorry mate, it's "Shipyard practice as applied to warship construction" by N McDermaid. (1911) The author was something at Vickers in Barrow.

Thanks for the recommendation, I managed to find a copy from 1911 for sale on Amazon and what a book!
Considering I'm building a Predreadnought the information is very helpful in construction, layout, and design and it does cover the dreadnought too. Wish id known about the book years ago!

raflaunches · « **Reply #85 on:** August 20, 2014, 08:49:00 pm »

Quote from: Geoff on August 20, 2014, 01:38:59 pm

Thank you for the feedback and the picture of ID launching. I have seen this bofre but as pointed out it does not show the armour plate sizes. As a estimate I have used plated 4" long to 32 ft in real life which I think would seem about right. Plates were manufactured as large as possible to avoid weak spots at the joints and because the plates are inherently weaker at the edges. Larger plates = less edges!

As mentioned please find attached some update pictures.

I was surprised at the extent of armour covering the hull and there is more to go on additional lengths of 6" and 4" at the bow and stern.

As a further question I am beginning to think of painting and as I'm building ID as she was in 1916 I think I have to use a darker grey. Anyone know if Humbrol have a good match or will this just be a question of mixing to best guess?

Thanks

Geoff

Stunning work Geoff, hope to see it complete for the big 100 anniversary!

I think I remember seeing somewhere that Humbrol 27 was the closest colour for RN battleships in home waters in WW1 whilst Humbrol 64 is close for Mediterranean grey.

ballastanksian · « **Reply #86 on:** August 20, 2014, 09:37:01 pm »

Oh I am jealous geoff! That hull is beautiful and so redolent of the shape and feel of an early twentieth century battleship. A reggatta of Jutland era warships together would be a fitting tribute to those who took part and gave their lives in the action. We forget that each capital ship had the equivalent of an infantry battalion aboard, so our battle fleet alone had the equivalent of an army afloat, and this does not include the destroyers and Cruisers!

Keep up the good work Geoff, you will end up with a treasure.

dreadnought72 · « **Reply #87 on:** August 21, 2014, 12:09:03 am »

The best investigation covering WW1 battleship grey I've read is here. Read and enjoy!

Andy

Geoff · « **Reply #88 on:** October 01, 2014, 01:31:47 pm »

By way of an update. The hull plating is now virtually complete other than where there are portholes. In order to get the top strake of plating to fit properly I need to start work on the 6" secondary battery as the cut away in front is plastic card which will affect the plating depth. One thing leads to another!

The secondary battery has proved very challenging to construct as the shape is really quite complex with overlapping plates on places and a cut away on the first 4 guns each side. The geometry is very awkward particularly as I want to have the guns turn. Not under power but my experience suggests its better to have turning gubns as if they catch or hit anything there will be some give as the guns can rotate away from the obstruction.

Despite having the original plans this is a very awkward aspect to model as there is hardly a flat plate in the structure.

In the end I'm building each battery as a separate component off the ship and will add them later but I will need to paint the appetures before I fit the guns so I have to decide on the paint colour for the hull. Lots of dominos with this part!

I'll try tpo post some pictures which may give a better idea of the complexity of the shape shortly.

More to follow

Geoff

ballastanksian · « **Reply #89 on:** October 01, 2014, 11:30:25 pm »

Curves are a bane to model. I know that model engineers will use wooden formers around which, they shape their metal plates but for plastic you are looking at:

-heat forming plastic sheet,
-shaping laminated plastic sheets,
-fabrication from suitable diameters of plastic tube
or
-going down the fibre glass route with its own intricacies of mess and the like.

I did design a railway carriage roof that had multiple curves by shaping an insulation foam former and applying car body filller to it after painting the foam with PVA. I found this to be resilient and after all the sand and fill kerfuffle quite smooth. maybe a similar technique would help you Geoff? I would scribe in plate lines after shaping and finishing as the lines applied while the filler is wet look irregular.

How ever you do it, take it easy and do not loose your patience. You will have a beautiful Battleship to sail soon.

Geoff · « **Reply #90 on:** October 02, 2014, 08:02:31 am »

Thank you for your suggestions which appreciated. I have gone down the Obechi wood approach but am then plating it in plastic card as it gives me the smooth grain free finish I am looking for. I can still sand any irregularities afterwards as well. Looking at it this morning it seems a little big but I think this is perception only as its in white and the adjacent parts of the model are still in wood so it stands out. It still checks in overall measurements with the original plans so I will persevere!

Cheers

Geoff

ballastanksian · « **Reply #91 on:** October 02, 2014, 08:45:05 pm »

No worries, A battleship model of this size and date will be mega complex so you will be using all sorts of materials and practices to get your ship launched. Keep up the good work and lets see some pretty piccies!

Geoff · « **Reply #92 on:** October 15, 2014, 01:53:30 pm »

As an update the hull plating and secondary 6" battery are now complete (absent guns) so I will hope to get some pictures up shortly now there is something to show.

Next question is deck planking. I'm looking for a good, and hopefully not too expensive supply of planks, 1/8" x 1/16" for the deck. But bear in mind she's about 11.5" wide and 6' 6" long so I will need a good supply!

Some basic questions:

1) Where is a good source

2) What would be the best wood to use - obechi, basswoord or something else

Does any one have suggestions for both of the above?

Thanks

Geoff

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #93 on:** October 15, 2014, 05:34:45 pm »

Cornwall Model Boats have various sizes of stripwood which may be suitable.

Also Deans Marine do sheets of planking for capital ships (I think it is 1/96 scale): http://www.deansmarine.co.uk/shop/product_info.php/cPath/5_19/products_id/2254

Colin

Ian K · « **Reply #94 on:** October 15, 2014, 06:20:42 pm »

Hi Geoff,

The Deans marine laser engraved deck panels are excellent, but if you want to go the individual boxwood plank route try here.....
originalmarquetry.co.uk lots of choice and in 1000 mm lengths, they are very good, price wise. I have used them for years.

Regards

Ian

ballastanksian · « **Reply #95 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:13:02 pm »

I have just had a look at their site and it looks like they could do packs of 100 for less than thirty pounds. Obviously a phone call to enquire that this can be done is wise. They do a pack of 100 strips of 1.5x1.5mm bass or sycamore (IIRC) for £22-£23.

Geoff · « **Reply #96 on:** November 03, 2014, 01:54:39 pm »

Just an update. I am making good progress but home PC has died so there is no way I can post pictures at the moment!

Propellor shafts and A brackets have been made out of brass and fitted in place and first coat of red ant-fouling has been applied - she's looking good but once completed I hope no one sees the bottom again as if so I'm in big trouble!

Next question for all of you is propellers. I have decided to go for 4 x 35mm which is a tad larger than scale but I would prefer to have a little too much speed than a little too less and if needed I can always trip them as I have a lathe. The question is should I go for 3 blade or 4 blade? Is there really any great difference in performance? The real ship had 3 blades.

Engines will be two car blower motors (Old Talbot Horizon - yes I know its an old car but I picked some up on spec a good few years ago) so revs will be quite low as I'll be running them on 6 volts.

My other model Neptune from 1918 (6 feet) uses exactley the same engines driving twin 3 blade props but they are larger in diameter about 45mm and she goes okay but is not fast. I'm thinking 4 props of smaller diameter should get me slightly higher speed but smaller props are not so efficient as larger props.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Geoff

ballastanksian · « **Reply #97 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:20:06 pm »

I would go for three blade as, while larger than true scale, they will still look the business at any shows you might display her at. Your extra capacity of speed should help you get the most out of them.

God speed your new or repaired pooter as I need to see your lovely super dreadnought again. I think I have seen an image of your neptune on the web somewhere before and definitly aspire to building a WW1 Battleship.

Geoff · « **Reply #98 on:** November 07, 2014, 02:12:10 pm »

Computer still screwed so can't post any pictures at the mpment. I have repainted the red antfouling in Humbol Wine (no 73 I think), which I have used before as the other red was just too bright in my opinion.

Now thinking about painting the hull so may start this weekend after I have fixed rigols and stern door for walkway etc and cleat mouldings at bow and stern as they overlap the side a little.

Pictures of Neptune and my other battleships are on Model Warships Underway (gallery 30 I think) for those who may be interested. Neptune was build in 1974!

I have just ordered some John Haynes photo etched stanchions and 4 x 35mm brass propellors (3 blade Revarbo).

I now have to complete the stand as I need to start working on her upright!

More updaes to follow

Cheers

Geoff

Rottweiler · « **Reply #99 on:** November 07, 2014, 07:23:31 pm »

Hi ,Geoff,
Your hull shape looks remarkably similar to that on my Hms Ramillies model,dimensions also! I am hoping you will manage to get a few photos up soon.Although Ramillies was the first Battleship to be built with interior armour plating,she did have the armour plating belts added later.These did not show on my plans and lines drawings and I have been wondering how to tackle adding them,sizes dimensions etc.I am also looking forward to seeing just how you do the secondary armament also.I shall be following this build with great interest,so keep up the excellent work!
Incidentally, Deans Marine do very good deck planking,it is produced for their superb model of the Warspite, so may I suggest you give Ron Dean a ring,after this weekends Warwick show and have a natter with him?
Aye
Mick F

News:

Author Topic: IRON DUKE 1914 (Read 166363 times)