Resurgam Submarine

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Dear Colin, totally agree about the porthole logic. My model will have 4 until contested. One has actually been recovered and is shown against dimensions on the 3H site. If the count is wrong, at least the scale will be accurate! I am trying to contact the diving clubs involved to see if they can help with a number of issues. Resurgam is now so encrusted with barnacles that the detail needed is not apparent on the 3H undersea photographs.

I know of only 2 photographs of Resurgam. One I call the 90 degree shot and the other the 45 degree shot. These are posted all over and as you say easily available. It seems incredible that bow and stern photographs would not be taken, but have never found any. Can you tell me where the harder to find photographs might be because I'm at a loss?

Best Regards, Len.

£

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

A 1921 article states amongst other things that the Resurgam was 40 feet long with a 9 feet beam. "We had now been at sea about 36 hours, a great part of which time we were under water, and we felt desirous of making some port, as sleeping on board was not attended with as much comfort as we wished!" The article contains two images from The Graphic, that I assume you have, and a broadside photograph claimed to be the first one ever taken of the boat, unfortunately, both ends are only just out of the photograph. There are three men in the conning tower and two more on either side of the top casing. There is also a profile plan (obviously not to scale because it is too short and fat) showing the inside. You probably have these. But if not, I can scan and post them!

Bob

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

Len

I've found a set of line drawings that show the Resurgam had a two bladed propellor

Bob

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Dear Bob (Wilson), thanks for that. Yes I have a copy of the old article but you are right to bring it up. Resurgams dimensions are a real enigma and this is a good example. Current thinking is that she is 45ft x 10 feet but who really knows? We have the patent dimensions but there is no guarantee that she was built to that exact spec. and it's hard to scale the old photographs with any great accuracy. You have to start somewhere and I chose 45×10 for my model.

I have often pondered the description of the voyage, "for a great part of the time we were underwater". I bet they where and not intentionally! Resurgam has no free board whatsoever and in any sort of sea she'd be under in a heart beat. I do not think for one moment Resurgam was cruising serenely at a controlled depth. Liverpool Bay is too shallow for that. Even at a depth of 10 ft she would still feel all the wave action and in places only have 10 feet of keel clearance. I personally believe the crew intended a "surfaced" voyage into deep water, found themselves pushed under many times and eventually ran for a safe haven. They were certainly very brave.

The Graphic drawings are very interesting and I give them much credence. Not particularly for scale but certainly for detail. I try and put my brain back in time. Photography was in its infancy and few newspapers could print photographs anyway. They employed artists to record the scene and their jobs depended on their accuracy and attention to detail.

Please post your pictures Bob. It will enhance this thread, certainly be of interest to any followers, and it just might be that your picture is the one that got away!

Best Regards, Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Bob (Abell), now I know you are just rattling my cage! There is no way Resurgam had a 2 bladed prop! Still, I don't have that drawing so please post it! It might have other details that are important!

I am now totally convinced that Resurgam had a 3 bladed left hand prop. An objective analysis of the 45 degree picture shows it to be so. Although I'm not sure of the provenance, the site http://www.godfreydykes.info. also refers to a three bladed prop. But now , best of all, there is the sketch made by Bill Turner (Diver with the Malvern Archaeological Diving Unit) of the actual wreck on the 14 June 1997. The remains definitely show a three bladed hub!

Best Regards, Len

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

I have scanned the images in, but now find I cannot add them to my pictures. I don't know whether there is something wrong with the site, or if I have just forgotten how to do it! When I click on Edit Photos, all I get is "Page Not Found" Same if I click on "Edit Album Info" but if I click on "view album," they all come up OK!
Bob

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

Len

The drawing showing the two blade prop is not a Jpeg, so I'm having a problem loading it

But don't give up…..I have a cunning plan

Bob

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

It has started working again. If you look closely at the small plan, it appears to have four blade as the end of one is pointing straight towards you. But of course we don't know if the plan is accurate or not.

Bob

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Bob(W), thanks for persevering, it's not the easiest thing in the world to post pictures on this site, I have the same problems. Anyway thanks for doing so as I didn't have a copy of the "Design and Work image". Compare it with your actual photograph and you can play the 'spot the difference game'. (Rivets, towing eyes, deck drains etc.).

Best Regards, Len

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

Len

Here is the picture showing the two bladed prop

It was a GIF file and was unable to save it as a JPEG

So it`s a photograph

Bob

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I suppose it is quite possible that they tried more than one prop design in those days to see which was the most effective.

Colin

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Bob(A), thanks, but it's just another blow up of the patent drawings. Certainly nothing to support the claim for a two bladed prop.

Best regards, Len

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hello Len

Historical records show that 2 bladed propellers were being developed in the late 1870s for what the designers hoped would be craft capable of higher speeds, oddly enough the same elongated thin design was adapted for use on the early aircraft.

Resurgam would certainly have been developed with a 2 bladed propeller which would have been subsequently adapted as trails in the Liverpool dock progressed.

The contemporary photograph definitely shows a weird development of propeller which was faithfully reproduced on the modern replica.

It is entirely possible that the 4 bladed propeller was changed in north wales when the boat went in for repairs, It is also possible that a 3 bladed example was fitted out of simple expedience probably owing to the fact that a 4 bladed replacement was not readily available.

Paul

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Dear Paul, Look carefully at the photographs. Measure the blade angles. Compare those angles with known surrounding angles from the background buildings etc. Consider the fact that the lower rudder is obscuring the view of other blades. Resurgam is pictured with a 3 bladed prop and indeed had a 3 bladed prop. Now to the practicalities, if a prop needed to be repaired, it would be repaired. It would not be redesigned. Put yourself in Garrett's position. Fixing the prop (a simple thing) would have been the least of his worries. He had to get the boat south and probably knew by this time she was not seaworthy.

Best Regards. Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi everybody, I think I have answered my own question about Resurgam's conning tower port holes. In all the photographs only the starboard one is visible. Logic suggests she has 4 (port, starboard, fore and aft). Now ponder this picture of her from 3H consulting

You can clearly see the forward porthole looking inside and through the conning tower. The others are less clear but I think the case for 4 portholes is established.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the 45 degree photograph seems to show something on the upper bow plates. I could never work out what they might be. Then I found Bill Turner's sketch which shows 2 bull's eye portholes:-

This is an excellent find! The detail can easily be put on my model as a cosmetic thing, but, it also allows for the installation of a disguised vertical bow thruster if needed for horizontal control.

Hate barnacles!

The model progresses, will post some pictures soon.

Best regards, Len

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Here you are – I think this just about confirms it – three blades!

Bob

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Bob, Could not agree more.

Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi everybody. We progress. She's now been painted with acid etch red lead inside and out and the detail added to the superstructure (what little there is of it). Drain vents, rivets and portholes. Tried to keep everything reasonably in scale but not too bothered at the moment as I need to get her working and the cosmetics can always be fixed later. The only thing I cannot claim any provenance for is the porthole in the centre if the hatch. I need it to vent all the air, and if I'd been Garrett I would have put one there. The hatch is itself interesting. Mine opens forwards in a conventional manner. It will give me access to the on/off switch and water flow will tend to keep it shut (it's locked by magnets). This means that when my hatch is open the dome is downwards. Look at the 45 degree photograph of Resurgam and the hatch points forwards but the dome is upwards. Now look at the Graphic illustration and the hatch points backwards but the dome is still upwards. Did Resurgam's hatch swing sideways on a pivot? We'll know when she's finally collected from the seabed. Here are the pictures. Not so sure about the rivets but they are only stick on and can easily be stripped. The filler needs to be sanded (used to get a good parting line) and you can see the magnets that hold the hatch closed (for their size, they are amazingly powerful),

All for now, Best Regards, Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Everybody,

The externals go well and I'll post some more pictures soon. However, I need some help about electric motors. In my days it was Orbits, Kako's, Taycols and Decaperms. Now it's all about 365's, 543's, 653's etc. Often the numbers are followed by a hyphen and then other numbers. I think the first two numbers refer to the motors diameter (mm) but after that I have no idea. My boat is 30 inch, 7 kg, with a 3 inch pop. The best I can up with is a 543-12 which is described as traditional scale, but I have no idea what the three dash twelve is all about. Also, can I save some space with a brushless motor? They seem rather neat and small but again I don't understand the nomenclature. Any help much appreciated.

Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Everybody,

The plate lines have now been added to the hull. These were defined by one mill brazing rod soldered to the hull to give a hard edge and the rest done with body filler. After smoothing and some more priming the results were not bad.

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Everybody,

Have now started the wood cladding. I'm using some old oak parquet floor tiles that are about 3 mill thick. The grain size is horrible for any scale effect but as the whole thing is going to be lashed with tar, creosote, or matt black paint I'm not too concerned at this point. Pondered a lot about what adhesive to use. Would have loved to use Araldite Rapid but nobody would guarantee its performance submerged. Eventually used JB Marine Weld that claims everything. We'll see! If helps anybody this is how I did my rivets. Bobble head brush from Aldi. Cats nail clipers. Perfect rivet head! Best Regards, Len

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Everybody, just an update and some pics of the oak (parquet floor) cladding. 3 mm thick, stuck on with JB Marine Weld, filled with Ronseal multipurpose wood filler (antique oak), sanded with P40, and stained with Liberon Spirit Wood Dye. Hull is complete and the topsides progress. Best Regards, Len

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

It is looking very authentic now. How far is it off going in the water?

Bob

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

Hello Len

What was the purpose of the wood areas?

I suppose the ship was quite safe since is was lighter than water…..Any idea where the waterline would come up to?

Bob

[Len Morris 2Participant @lenmorris2]

Hi Bob W. Thanks for your kind comments. Hope to get her in the water mid summer even if she's only a surface vessel, just to verify the basics.

Len

[Author]

Posts