Print

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

[Jimmy James]

Make sure you take a good  Keg, Barrel or Demijohn with you
Freebooter

[tonyH]

My son's been making cider, so I've raided the cellar!

Tony

[Jimmy James]

Not taking up residence are you?
Freebooter

[tonyH]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

[tonyH]

Having de-hibernated and partially thawed out, I've just another teeny, weeny question for the knowledgeable.

I've been sorting the drive train for Arquebuse prior to getting the kit from George Sitek and I've come upon the fact that the shafts are inclined towards each othet in the horizontal plane. I'e. they're closer in at the prop end than at the front. Only by about 4 degrees ( 2 degrees each side) but still significant.

Is this common practice or is it another experiment from the period?

Tony

[Jimmy James]

That's a new one on me Tony. This would tend to make her react more to the offset thrust of the screws (ie: going ahead on the stb'd' engine would swing her head to port ) though with such a small angle it's hard to see how much effect it would really have.... most ships props and shafts are in line (parallel) But I have been on ships who's prop's are winged out slightly to offset the twisting thrust and make them easer to steer on one engine.  How are the props set up... are they inward or outward turning???
Jimmy
Freebooter

[tonyH]

There's probably a definite answer to the 'hand' in idiosyncratic French on the drawing but that's beyond me.

If, however, I trust the model in the Paris museum, they turn outwards at the top. They appear to be VERY coarse pitch (over 45 degrees) with a deep scoop blade so it's going to be very interesting to see how George translates the drawings!

[Jimmy James]

This day at Eton Park is going to be very in--ter--rest--ing
Freebooter

[logoman]

found this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu-nCWtzgB8

[tonyH]

BRILLIANT Logoman,

I think that my reading of the cyrillics means that she is the TB Deraki which was built in France in sections and assembled in Varna in 1907/8.

It also indicates that IF it was a ship-handling aid that they needed it for single screw vessels as well as the twins.

Many Thanks

Tony

[Colin Bishop]

I googled the Varna Museum and there are some good still pictures there:

http://12121.hostinguk.com/varna_naval_museum.htm
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav258.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav238.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/navo128.JPG
http://12121.hostinguk.com/nav248.JPG

There is probably enough information here to model the fitting but it's still not clear exactly how it was used. The 'knitted' fender is very obvious though.

You could probably email the museum from this site for more info: http://www.jicabg.org/museum/search/VarnaMM-e.html They might be able to send you some more detailed photos plus possibly an explanation of what it was used for.

This does seem to be something of a breakthrough.

Colin

[tobyker]

interesting, but it could well be an aid to loading the bow tube.

[Colin Bishop]

I don't think so as the fitting is identical on boats where there is no bow tube.

Colin

[RickF]

As far as I know, bow tubes were loaded from inside the fo'c'sle.

Rick

[Martin (Admin)]

GREAT find Colin!  
those fittings on the spar, don't look very strong though, not very strong at all !
 To me it looks lke it tilts upwards and just stored horizontally. Why? I have no idea....

[Colin Bishop]

It was Logoman's find really - I just followed it up.

I agree that those fittings look too fragile to take the weight of the ship in any way although the spar itself is quite substantial. Although the forward fitting appears to release, from what I can see of the after one it is fixed and would not permit pivoting. However the thing on the front is obviously some kind of fender.

So the mystery remains - unless it's a prototype in flight refuelling probe...

Colin

[tobyker]

Rick - I thought so in general too, but I know some early types of tube were muzzle loaded. However the torpedo crane theory fails because of the latest excellent photo which shows the deck fittings are too flimsy for it to take the weight of a torpedo.

The "spar" must have some purpose - If it can't be used to lift, does it push or pull, or is something stored inside it? Does it fold flat to get it out of the line of fire - but if so wouldn't it be stowed vertical in the use position, and folded down at Action Stations?  Does it swing out sideways as a boat spar to tie a tender to? If it does have to be unbolted, the railings will be unsupported. Does the whole thing slide out forwards? Why does it have to extend forward of the stem, so it has to have a buffer on it? And, therefore, why can't it be mounted further aft so it doesn't protrude? Has anyone e-mailed the Musee de la Marine? If this fitting did not occur on HM Torpedo boats, what did foreign navies do with their TBs that was different from ours? Is there evidence of some fitting on HM boats which suggests that we did it a different way? We built loads of TBs for other navies, so maybe there is some evidence available in the UK. I wish I still had access to the MoD Naval Historical Library. Will the aardvaarks.........

Well done Logoman and Colin - about time fresh fuel was added to the blaze!

[RickF]

In an idle moment I had a look at my (reprint) copy of Sleeman's Torpedoes and Torpedo Warfare (1889).

He has quite a lot to say about spar torpedoes, including the fact that the French Navy were keen on them following successes in China in 1884. However, in 1889, most spar torpedoes still in use were of the McEvoy type,  fired electrically. This necessitated a hollow spar to protect the wiring. The boom shown, apart from being too short, appears solid.

Another system, invented by US General Hiram Berdan, is also described. To call it "Heath Robinson" does it more credit than it deserves, but somewhere in the set-up would be a forward-pointing spar - probably with a fender - so it's just possible . . .

The "Berdan" system is as follows: about 50 feet abaft the bow of the torpedo boat, a strong tube or light cannon is fixed vertically and opened downwards, one on each side; in each of these tubes a torpedo (8 feet by 14 inches) is placed, and connected by a wire to a stout bumpkin placed forward on each bow. The torpedo is propelled by means of four (6-inch) rocket tubes, each 32 inches long, and carries a 200-lb. charge of explosive.

A long pole projects ahead of the boat, which on striking the enemy, reverses the boat's engines, and fires the rockets; the gas, thus generated by the rockets in the tubes, ejects the torpedoes downwards, swinging them forward round the bumpkins as centres by the wire, thus causing them to pass under the net into contact with the ship.

Anyone fancy a suicide mission?

Rick

[Martin (Admin)]

Can't be anything to do with torpedo loading as it's there even when the bow torpedo isn't...

http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=17389.msg180107#msg180107

[Jimmy James]

Tony , Looking at the clamps on the Russian T Boat I would say that the bowsprit could be run in and out, very much the way a lot of fishing smacks used to run their's in and out.. This could explain why in the pictures of some of the French vessels they seem to be different lengths, It doesn't however give us a clew as to the main usage of the said spar ,,, I wonder if the one in the Russian picture is an original or a replacement put on for show, as except for the fender on the end it seems to have no fittings attached to it at all
Jimmy
 Freebooter

[tonyH]

I've checked the drawings and the main torpedo tubes on the Arquebuse were for the short 14 inch type of torpedo rather than the later (and soon to become the standard) long 18 inch types. It could be the same on the Bulgairian TB.

The weight of the 14 inch types were generally not much more than 5-600lbs and I'd have thought that the fittings were up to that.
It's possible - just - that although there was no bow tube on the Arquebuse, old habits died very hard and it was a sort of vestigial crane for removing 'duds'.

I'm pretty certain that it's not the explanation but I thought that I'd add the info.

Kind regards to all

Tony

[Jimmy James]

You learn something new every day ... I didn't know the 14" fish were tube launched I thought they were crane/davit or cradle launched and the tubes came in with the 18" as I said something new Tks !
Jimmy

[tonyH]

Hi JJ,

I was, to be perfectly accurate, slightly economical with the numerical truth. The dimension on the drawing is 383mm or nigh on 15ins but it is not easy to determine whether this is the internal or external diameter of the tube. Whichever it is, it's certainly in the 14 inch area!

Tony

 

[tonyH]

Dear Friends,

It is with Deep Sadness that I must tell you that Our Quest may be nearing the End.

I have been advised that Certain Documents, from the annals of Augustin Normand and dated 29th November 1909, exist that confirm that the Fat, Pointy Thing is nothing more than a front Shock Absorber pour l'absorbtion de choc and that the Rear Tubular Mount could be Tightened to give Sliding Resistance.

The Information has come from both France and Canada and I have asked for a Copy of the Documents which will be Exhibited Here in due course, all being well.

This has been a Long and Dangerous Journey that we have followed in search of the Truth. The Road has veered Hither and Thither; There and Back again and to all those who Guessed the Final Outcome goes my Deepest Respect.

For now - Adieu

[Colin Bishop]

Gosh Tony, just think what they could have done had it been spring loaded....

Colin