HMS Terrible

This topic is empty.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 38 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
7 May 2012 at 07:35 #6800
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Advert

7 May 2012 at 07:35 #34316
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
I am playing around with the idea of making a 1 : 12 scale model of HMS Terrible, not my usual choice of subject but Bobs work on GE has inspired me to look at these obscure victorian warships.

I do like these hull mounted cannon

Paul
7 May 2012 at 08:38 #34317
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Hello Paul

Are you sure you want to build a 1:12 scale model?

I know you like big models but 42 feet is a bit OTT!

1:70 is about 7 feet

Bob
7 May 2012 at 08:56 #34319
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Found a nice photo of HMS Terrible

Looks like the Spithead review?

Bob
7 May 2012 at 09:01 #34320
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Bob, perhaps he will make one of those ones you SIT in !! like the excellent "Naval warfare" at Scarborough. Very entertaining show, complete with attacking aircraft whizzing across the lake on a drop wire!!

My book says, at 500 feet, they were 100 foot or so longer than the existing battleships, but being armoured cruisers were a bit of a white elephant(s).

Victorian ships… great subject. The sticky out guns are of course ripe for instant damage.Would be easy enough to mount the sticky out barrels on rubber tube I suppose so they will move on contact.

You do need smoke though, lots of it and very black.

Ashley
7 May 2012 at 12:20 #34324
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
This is interesting…..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/17786439

I`ve always liked tin toys!

Bob
7 May 2012 at 15:40 #34326
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Doh!

At the time I was on the CAD doing an imperial to metric conversion at 1:120 but have decided upon 1:60.

Trust ol Bob to spot it.
7 May 2012 at 17:46 #34330
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Hello Paul

Even 1:60 is quite big at 87 inches?

Here`s another very informative website…

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/hms_terrible.html

Bob
7 May 2012 at 18:25 #34332
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Hello Captain Bob

Just over 7ft (in metric its 2200mm) so it would be a decent size and will allow for a fine level of detail.

Paul

Edited By The Fat Controller on 07/05/2012 18:26:50
7 May 2012 at 19:50 #34333
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Bob. I woud like to make a working model looking just like that tin toy . Now that would be fun. You could have the key motorised as well !! My Devastation was supposed to capyure the tin toy look, but I didnt go overboard enough..and its now not quite one thing or the other.

Paul, 7 feet !! is this wise? I know its not wise, and I know you like larger models, but perhaps, just perhaps something smaller might be advisable??

Ashley (talking to the deaf)
7 May 2012 at 19:50 #34334
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Bob. I woud like to make a working model looking just like that tin toy . Now that would be fun. You could have the key motorised as well !! My Devastation was supposed to capture the tin toy look, but I didnt go overboard enough..and its now not quite one thing or the other.

Paul, 7 feet !! is this wise? I know its not wise, and I know you like larger models, but perhaps, just perhaps something smaller might be advisable??

Ashley (talking to the deaf)
7 May 2012 at 20:19 #34337
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Ashley and Paul

There's great fun and interest to be had in making a big model, so, Paul get cracking and if possible, plenty of work in progress pictures…….Starting with the hull cross section?

Take your time and good luck

Capt B
7 May 2012 at 20:32 #34338
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
One important drawback to big boxy models is the ballast!

On a deep hull of this size, the ballast may be 100lb!

The plank hull once again, rears it`s ugly head!……….Any ideas?

Over to Capt P

Bob
7 May 2012 at 22:06 #34339
neil hp
Participant
@neilhp
possibly a plug for a grp mould and then you could incorporate flooding tanks for ballast…but what a beauty when finished…..would love to see it.

good luck Paul…and nice to see you back in the building mode.

neil.
8 May 2012 at 07:37 #34340
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
The plank hull isn't an option this time Bob as I am keen to build the entire hull which has some quite interesting shapes. As usual I will be designing on TurboCad in metric so there will be quite a bit of imperial / metric conversion to sort out.

It has to be big Ashley or there is no point in my building it……half of the challenge is detailing at this scale and the other half is the design and making the beast work…….and that's before getting it to the water. No petrol engines this time as I need something reliable and easily moved into reverse (perhaps a warp drive)

I would welcome suggestions on suitable (cheap) motors/battery combos

I'm not a fan of grp Neil as I prefer to work in wood but I do like the idea of flooding tanks and I am toying with designing a laser level based automatic self trimming system. I'm glad to be designing and building again but I will always be governed by my declining health.

Thanks to all for the comments and I look forward to helpful advice.

Paul
8 May 2012 at 13:06 #34342
Len Ochiltree
Participant
@lenochiltree67043
Posted by ashley needham on 07/05/2012 19:50:12:

Bob. I woud like to make a working model looking just like that tin toy . Now that would be fun. You could have the key motorised as well !! My Devastation was supposed to capyure the tin toy look, but I didnt go overboard enough..and its now not quite one thing or the other.

Paul, 7 feet !! is this wise? I know its not wise, and I know you like larger models, but perhaps, just perhaps something smaller might be advisable??

Ashley (talking to the deaf)

In Stereo it appears

Len.
9 May 2012 at 11:47 #34353
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Paul, how big are the props going to be so we can all pitch in with different and improbable ideas for propulsion (geared MFA 850`s, mine) or simply 900s/800s direct if the props are not too big..it will be no speedboat , after all.

I should think you can fit a fair sized battery (batteries) in a hull tha size. They do some decent SLA types for wheelchairs and wotnot, and of course in voltages greater than 12,

although an 850 would be happy on 12..

Water ballast could be accomplished by simply building in floodable boxes in the hull, sealed with fibreglass, and tube vented, with valves (taps) on the ends of the tubes.. this would allow you to control the water ingress to the ballast tanks and achieve the correct trim.

Firing main armament?? what happened to yer M1 sub?>

Ashley
9 May 2012 at 16:28 #34354
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Hi Ashley

I dont know how big the props will be as I've not worked it out yet but I suspect that they will be quite large. As for motors I will be looking at something large maybe some kind of starter motors and from there I will work out which batteries to use.

The M1 didnt work, I made a 1/4 size version to check the simulations but it would not float correctly (top heavy) I'm not surprised that the real M1 was so difficult to sail.

Paul
9 May 2012 at 17:35 #34356
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Hello Paul

My Great Eastern is powered by two geared down 540 motors and the prop is 3" dia

One large 12v jelly

The total keel weight is only 30 lb and rides fairly high in the water

The motors are quite small, but has a good turn of speed as you will see on the 20th of May….BBC2 AT 9.00 PM

Bob
9 May 2012 at 18:27 #34357
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Hello Bob

I guess that the props will be about 3in but I'm having trouble finding detailed information on the ships construction so I can't start the drawings.

Paul
10 May 2012 at 09:27 #34360
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Paul. 3 inches is not a big one. As the boat will, or should not be, very fast, a fairly modest sized motor geared down should be ok, 600 or something?.

I would put something very LARGE in myself, as you would want to, as a bit of speed is always fun..

Subs.. having built one (only) and so becoming an expert, It was suprising the difference the top makes to the bouyancy of the thing, I would try to make the next one`s top a floodable shell only . If you had working bits in, as per the M1 I can understand the problems you had, I think a redesign with a much deeper hull would be needed.

Ashley
10 May 2012 at 12:54 #34364
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
3in is only a guestimate Ashley I wont know for sure until I do the drawings.

I agree that the M1 should have had a deeper hull but being a scale model I couldnt make it with a deeper hull. Hence the understanding about the problems that they had with the real one.

Paul
10 May 2012 at 19:37 #34365
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Ah well, this is what being a slave to absolute scale does to a man, ruins his submarine.

Being a bit of a heretic I think all "scale" battleships should be built a bit deeper than is proper so you can get some weight in there and have it nice and solid on the water, battleship like and not plastic boat like.

I once saw some footage on u-toob of a whatever…KGV battleship or something , it was a big one, six feet or so..on a large lake in some choppy water.

It was bobbing up and down…..!! ruined the effect it did.

Ashley, Slave to nothing (the missus doesnt read these posts)
12 May 2012 at 07:40 #34378
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Getting fed up of this now as I can only find water line images of these ships and so have no idea what the lower hull / rudder / screws look like.
12 May 2012 at 12:46 #34380
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
D K Browns book "warrior to Dreadnought" has a page of typical first class cruiser underwater profiles. Not a complete set of profiles mind you but probably more than you have.

Would have thought that the general details would have been much of a muchness for cruisers of the time… The Drakes and Cresseys etc?

Can scan and pdf if required (scanner allowing!). Will check out my books on cruisers to see if anything useful can be found. I suppose you do not want to go to the expense of a greenwich museum scan, the obvious way of getting a definative view.

No models in their collection on the web??

Ashley
Author

Posts