extreme ambition

[fooman2008]

hey there,
I have experience on full scale craft and am a carpenter by trade. I was thinking of making a first boat project....A huge scale ship model that I could sail inside of...The local lake is that, a lake, of something over five acres of water during the summer time (they empty it before the snow flies here in south eastern Idaho). I have a thought that it should fit on a small boat trailer that could be towed behind my small pickup and would thus be limited to less than 1,000 lbs. and 15 feet in length.
Seeing as I would probably enter this craft in local parades it would probably have to be an American ship. Also I would like to be able to to put the ship in the Snake river which runs at 6 knots plus, so it would have to able to achieve that speed without looking like the New Jersey going 65 knots.
I weigh 260 pounds and stand 6'5" so it would have to have a fairly substantial reserve of buoyancy. Also ID is in summer time is something resembling a sauna, so some form of cooling fans for pilot and propulsion would be needed.
I know this is an R/C (radio control) forum but since I plan to remote control various aspects of the model (R/C) I do think this applies to this forum.
I had possibly thought about making this a sub waterline model utilizing a 14 foot canoe for a flotation device under a hull form, possibly utilizing either foam or PVC pipe for ballast/flotation/trim tank. My preferred method of propulsion would be trolling motor(s) enabling me to use foot controls and have my hands free for weapons mounts and other features that are operable.
I have no idea of how to scale something to fit what I need and where to get three view drawings to scale.
A real pies in the sky idea would be to make the craft partially autonomous enabling me to just sit in there and ride in it.

[der kapitan]

Ambitious, Foo, but definitely within the realm of possibility. ;)

There are articles on this forum that have shown how this is done. :)

Deja' vu, Foo? :D

[herrmill]

You'll find some good examples of manned models along with contact info on the following links:

Portsmouth Manned Boat Detail (http://www.pmbdt.co.uk.)

Scale Models Manned Models (http://www.scale-models.co.uk/general-boat-chat/64-very-large-model-boats.html)

Maxim Gorki (http://www.frankfurter-schiffs-modellbau-club.de/index.htm?/maximgorki/maximgorki.htm)

MSN Manned Model Ships (http://groups.msn.com/MannedModelShips)

Chuck

[fooman2008]

hey all:
Since I live in eastern Idaho I have decided that I will try the USS Idaho (BB-42) of the New Mexico class. She was not at Pearl Harbor but served extensively throughout the Pacific campaign. My current problem is finding good pics and scale plans for her circa 1943-45 (i.e. how the topsides were changed in her first overhaul in 1942) I am currently planning to paint her in dazzle camouflage (just for fun's sake). I am looking in model dockyard for a set of plans but Idaho is not a very common ship amongst her sisters (New Mexico, Colorado, Mississippi) and I have not had any success in finding plans for her specifically since I do not know what differences she might have had from the others in her class.

[herrmill]

Try Maryland Silver (http://www.marylandsilver.com/WW2ship.htm). They have plans from the National Archives for what you are seeking. Also try Loyalhanna / Taubman Plans.

W2-43, USS Idaho (BB-42), $57.00
Plans for BB-40, BB-42 & BB-42 by the Bureau of Construction and Repair, dated July 29, 1914
Outboard profile, 16"X42", 1/16" scale
Superstructure, upper decks & bridges, 16"X42", 1/16" scale
Arrangement of armor, 17"X43", 1/16" scale
Cage masts, 16"X42", various scales
Traces of decks, longitudinals, etc., 17"X42", 1/2" scale
Midship section, 16"X20", 3/8" scale
Cross sections: frames 3, 7, 11, 17, 22, 26, 34, 40, 54, 58, 76, 82, 86, 95, 101, 106, 112, 118, 124, 129, 137, 142 & 147, 16"X42", 1/8" scale
The following are plans by the Norfolk Navy Yard for the USS Idaho (BB-42), as of December 30, 1944
Inboard profile, 14"X42", 1/16" scale
Outboard profile, 14"X42", 1/16" scale
Main deck, 12"X42", 1/16" scale
Bridges & platforms: Coning tower platform; chart house platform; flag bridge; searchlight platform; navigating bridge; battle lookout station, fwd; fire control platform, fwd; 5" AA director platform, fwd; signal bridge; battle lookout station, aft; fire control platform, ft; 5"AA director platform, aft. Upper & superstructure decks, 17"X42", 1/16" scale
Ships of class: New Mexico (BB-40) and Mississippi (BB-41)

[fooman2008]

outstanding!! thanx much I will check it out

[fooman2008]

having done some checking of the size of the Idaho I have discovered her to have been
Length: 624 feet
Beam: 97.4 feet
which scales out at perfect 1/35th to be
Length: 17feet 9 inches
Beam: 2 foot 8 inches (sure doesn't seem seem very beamy does it?)
that is figured the old fashioned way (divide figure by 35) to make it fit onto a small boat trailer and possibly make use a canoe for flotation/structural member underneath.

[Predreadnut]

Suppliment the plans with plenty of photo's. This will help point out the differences between the sisterships. Try the National Archive Photo Section, History of all the worlds warships website, maritime photo site,etc. Here's a few.

[fooman2008]

I found a set of really good pics of Idaho showing her final anti-aircraft fit with 5-38's that will be my build I believe. As for my thoughts about her not being beamy enough I am thinking of a mod to use the torpedo blister for trim and ballast. I have not ordered a set of plans yet so I do not know if the blisters are detailed on them, or I am going to have guesstimate about their size and depth. One pic has a good view from overhead portside showing several crewmen working on the top of the bulge.
Also my current puzzle is to find a decent set of three view of a single 5-38 single mount since she will need ten of them. I am currently looking for 20mm mounts and 40mm mounts since there were multiples of those also.
None of these 'problems' is insolvable, just that i am not working very many hours rights now but that is construction in Idaho during the winter, got our first good snow storm this morning, hopefully it won't stay

[fooman2008]

not quite sure is one the mounts from a DD style 5-inch/38 would work or not

[fooman2008]

you sirs, are gentle people and scholars!!!!! that floating drydock link is gold! thank you, thank you, thank you! A set of plans for the secondary batteries will be on list of things I must have for Christmas momentarily!

Foo

[fooman2008]

no for another question I haven't been able to find exactly which 5 inch mounts they put on Idaho during her refit(s) I know the original battery and her first refit (early 42) but not the enclosed mounts. Rats! Do these type of questions every end?

[Predreadnut]

Nope :)

[Predreadnut]

Foo, here you go. On Oct. 22nd 1944 Idaho entered the yard for regunning. Her 5"/25cal's where replaced with 10- 5in./38cal mounts. The Mark 12 5"/38cal where a good compromise between the low angle 5"/51cal and the 5"/25cal high angle AA guns. These where the same as on the Fletcher class destroyers, DP(dual purpose) mounts with a max angle of 85deg elevation. Considered by many as the best dual purpose gun in WWII.

[fooman2008]

you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! That is exactly what I was looking for I have found plans for all the various mounts that I would need but they were not specific about which 5-inch I would need that was perfect!!!!!

[Predreadnut]

I forgot, heres a picture that shows the 5"/38's fairly well. Notice the high elevation of the barrels. Researching things on the computer is fun for me. Its a challenge. :)

[fooman2008]

not that it is a huge big deal but the one two view I have shows an extra 40mm mount that has been replaced with the highest mounted 5-inch wonder why?

[fooman2008]

Like I said in the last post I am wondering why the extra pair of 5-inch instead of the 40mm diagrammed maybe by 44 there were so many kamikazes that the 40mm wasn't effective enough? Now I cant find damned diagram and I can't send the copy I made from home :eek:

[fooman2008]

Hey all
Thanks for the page views and replies.
I am going to order a set of plans for this beast in the next week or so. I do have a question and this board may not be the best to ask this due to her projected size/displacement what should I use for frames and ribs? My current plan is to use 1/2" plywood for the frames, and 1 x 4 (ripped down to 1 x 1 [or 3/4 x 3/4 more accurately in dimensional lumber in the U.S.]). I am almost thinking of sheeting it with strips of Masonite (counter top material), sand to shape, bondo (or water proof epoxy putty), sand to shape then probably three layer of fiberglass (maybe with a lite gel coat if I can afford it).
Propulsion is still projected to be a pair of trolling motors on 12 volts each. Since the drive system is just that much easier this will, essentially, be a waterline model.
A friend has suggested that I use the gun director for vision, utilizing a digital camera for a viewer, not so sure about that. I saw neat article on model warships under way to use a gun director, when you switched the computer on the gun mounts would train to the bearing indicated by the director. I thought that would be very cool but I can't seem to contact the author of the article.
Tentative plans call for powered main turrets, (possibly with a fire monitor/water squirter in one main gun barrel), power main gun director (hopefully linked to the turrets), swiveling secondary (5/38 single mounts). I am also thinking about a smoke generator, and sound generator for the engineering plant, a thought in my mind would be the main guns firing (using compressed air) baby powder for parades, since anything 17+ feet long needs to have another purpose than just taking up the wife's parking spot in the garage.
The torpedo bulges will have ballast/flotation/ trim tanks inside them since from the scale views I have show the tanks at least 4 feet wide giving enough volume to use that space, I hope....

[arrow5]

Fooman, just to update Hermill`s post , the manned models guys are now on www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Manned_Model_Ships_International Come and have a look. Lots of ideas for a big battlewagon. The curves in the hull might be easier with foam, have a look at the HMS Invincible build in the picture pages. The final glassing can by hand laid in stead of the chopper-gun shown. I got an offer I couldnt refuse (free) :D but it took a lot of filling and sanding to get it smooth :( . It sure is bullet-proof though.

[herrmill]

You used a chopper gun on the outside of the hull??? :eek:

Forget about not using a mask... the thought of all that filling & sanding makes you more of a man than I'll ever be! ;)

[arrow5]

I was half the man I was after that too but at least I did it outside and wore a mask. :( What good it did on the top of my head I dont know :o

[fooman2008]

hey all,
still working on getting the where withall for the plans for Idaho but it is nice to see someone working on monsters. I have been trying to keep my mind occupied (but not much else unfortunately) by doing a lot of of posting in other threads. Plus i started my own for sea stories (a favorite hobby of mine).
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=983916&page=4#post11374726
Foo

[arrow5]

Fooman , nice large Battlewagon just posted on the Manned Model Group site mentioned above, post#20, it might inspire you ! Also here is HMS Invincible disguised as a WW 1 flat-top on it`s way to a model plane event , biplanes only !

[Rich S. - CV, CA]

Pretty cool!

[fooman2008]

Hey all
Get my taxes done next week and refund shortly thereafter. I have been 'designing' using windows paint and figuring out stuff works and Ill post what I have with this please let me know what you think.
I have actually been thinking about either get a CAD program or going up to the engineering drawing program at the local college BYU-I (Brigham Young University @ Idaho) and see it they won't help me with some engineering drawings so I can build parts for it.
Tell me what you think.
Foo
P.S. I want that aircraft carrier!

[tigerbay]

There are a number of models with internal balast tanks.

Basically it is a bit like having a twin skin hull. Only the outerskin has holes in it. the neccessary bouyancy is from the inner skin. It seems to work well.

I think the advantage of it is that it is simple with no pumps or pipes to fail.

The hardest part will be getting the design reasonable OK to float on the waterline.

Another thing I have noticed with many manned models, is that they are flat bottomed like a barge. So that they are stable. The idea being that most people won't see below the waterline, and with safety of the crewman in mind, it is an accepable compromise.

[arrow5]

Easiest way is to carry water in 5 gallon containers that can be removed or moved for trimming. Double skinning might be an engineering solution too far as might be your plumbing Fooman. Keep it as simple as possible. The flat bottom isnt very sea-worthy but as tigerbay says a fair comprmise in sheltered waters.

[fooman2008]

The hull form will definitely be modified somewhat for more beam and ease of construction. I plan to make her with a 3 foot beam (scale would be almost 34 inches) not much but coupled with a flatter bottom should make her a little easier to deal with. Since there are not going to be very many (any?) servos for this beast she will probably end up with some kind of linked belt drive to turn the turrets.
As of right now I am planning on putting the helm station in/under the forward superstructure. As the admiral (wife) has informed me there had better be provisions for a second seat for the first mate (daughter 7) under the aft superstructure.
The reason I was going to use multiple tanks is for ease of trim for humans and other stuff aboard and I could get rid of/get more ballast while under way.
I have lines on both, gun barrels for main armament, and the 5-inch secondary gun-houses. Capricorn says when he makes the mounts for his Fletcher he would be willing to make me some (since I need 10).
Never did find out why in the 2 view I have it shows 10 40mm quad mounts and in pics of her as completed she has 8 and 10 5-inch? Wonder why?
Foo

[fooman2008]

I am currently still thinking of going with a pair of trolling type motors (although mounted conventionally) with water cooling and a pair of car batteries for plenty of power. Twin rudders (probably cable operated) and twin throttle controls will complete the power package.
Foo

[andrewhalst]

Foo

Just found your thread - I like your thinking :D
Start with something modest in size and manageable - that's for sensible wimps :D

You touched on construction materials - your rib and plank solutions sound to be spot-on. I found a site which details the building of a memorable hull using a purpose-cut 1/2 wood as a plank, bonded by polyurethane as adhesive.
http://www.aqsim.com/littleleon/forms.html
enjoy!

You being a carpenter will be able to mate planks, I guess, so that you won't need the round rebates and can get a good job with ripped wood.

Perhaps you have said, and I have failed to take in, which year of Idaho are you planning to model?
The original lattice masts would be interesting to see and make!

At your scale, and if you are going for a WW2 version, you could easily R/C the two Kingfishers.

The boat may not be R/C, but it will be Foo/C :D
strength to your arm
andrew

[fooman2008]

Over on WMU someone was asking what their model(s) were supposed to weigh. the formula was full scale displacement time 2240 (not sure what that, water?) divided by three times the scale. Thus 32,000 * 2240 = 71680000/35/35/35=1672 pounds correct?
Remember that this beast scales out at over 17 feet long so that may not be out of line. It will definitely take a trailer, which I had already planned, and I hope to get a dry weight of less than 500lbs, before batteries and other stuff.
http://www.wmunderway.8m.com/cgi/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1227383978/0#9
My 7 seven year old is driving me crazy I may resort to C.S.S. Hunley style propulsion and use a crank in the aft superstructure for her! Any one want a seven year old? I'll sell cheap.....(darn wife says I can't! LOL)
Actually there is a guy around here who runs a human powered ships group around here (Eastern Idaho), hmmm, need more coffee, not enough sleep.

andrewhalst
Thank you for the link if nothing else it will confirm what I want to do with the build. This thread runs parallel to a build thread in the scale models section of boats. Having said that, I want to build her in her late 43' outfitting with the 5-38's and dazzle camouflage.
I am still planning on increasing the beam to 3 feet (scale would be just under 34 inches) and will change the underwater form slightly (for ease of build and room).
Lastly, All of this is in the air pending the arrival of a set of plans (when I get my income tax deduction, thank goodness I don't live in California they have started sending out I.O.U's instead of refund checks!)
Foo

[fooman2008]

rying to figure out how big ballast tanks I will need. What does a cubic foot of water weigh?
Formula for area of a circle is p*R2 (pi times radius squared) so; 3.14 *3(6 in. diameter pipe tentatively) * 3 = 28.26 sq. in. * length = volume of tank correct?
A cubic inch of water = Cubic inch 0.036127 pounds
I figure to need 1100 pounds of ballast (figuring 500 pounds empty weight). (rather have too much ballast tank capacity than not enough)
so: 1100/0.036127 = 3045 cubic inches correct?
thus; 3045/ 28.26 (area of 6 in pipe) = 108 inches of ballast tank (rounding up).
4 tanks planned makes each tank 27 inches long, right?
27 in long 6 in dia. tank 3*3*3.14=28.26*27 in length=76.302 cubic inches.
76.302 cubic inches for each tank give us 3052 total volume * .036127 per cu in and this is where my brain goes into a melt down because I can't it to work out!
Foo

[tigerbay]

I have just looked at a similar problem, but not as big, the weight grows almost exponentially with scale, because of the multilply by power 3.
e.g. 4 kg at 1:10 scale is 18.4kg at 1:6.

I find working in metric easier as 1 liter of water = 1kg. LOL.

But back to your ship.
I have had some more thougths on the advantages of a flat bottomed manned model.

A flat bottom would not only be more stable, it maybe would not require any additional ballast. Also, it would not be as tall (nothing below the waterline) making it easier to transport.
Additionally a flat bottom would be easier to handle for both transport and launch. Hell you could even build wheels into the underbelly

[nick_75au]

Oh, please do it in metric :p , my head's hurting from trying to decipher your last post.
1100 Lbs,
close enough to 500 Kgs, 500,000 cubic cm (1000 cc per litre = 1kg) volume required, 15cm pipe, = 176 cm2 area, 2800cm of pipe or 2.8 meters.
0.7 m of pipe for each tank.
what was the question again :confused:
Nick

[Umi_Ryuzuki]

Doesn't he need 28 meters of tank? :p


1100 pounds divided by 64.42 pound per cubic foot equals 17 cubic feet of water.

17 cubic feet divided by 28.26 square inches(pipe diameter) equals 86.62 feet of pipe.

convert to meters,... 26.4 meters of pipe...

So four pipes 6.6m long, or
.... four pipes 21'-7-7/8" long

You're gonna need a bigger boat.... :D
.
.
.
The original issue is that 1100 ÷0.036127 = 30448.14 cubic inches

[nick_75au]

oh :censored:
I guess metric isn't infallible :o
my heads still hurting
Nick

[fooman2008]

Is it just me or does it smell a lot like burning clutch in here? Or is that burning brain cells and fingertips on keyboards?

[fooman2008]

The original issue is that 1100 ÷0.036127 = 30448.14 cubic inches[/QUOTE]
step 1 find boatswains mate
step 2 find hammer
step 3 hit BM over the head till you get his attention and make sure that he knows that there has to be a better way to do something.
Now just have to find better way, may even go with flat bottom, (as suggested about fifteen times) have to see what happens when I get the plans (next week order) YAY!
Foo

[fooman2008]

finally got it figured out I do need a bigger boat (bigger than 17 feet?)decided to try and see if making the tanks from 6 in., then tried to make it work with 8 in.
area of a circle = pi * r2 31.4 * 3 * 3(radius of 6 in pipe) = 28.26 square inches
weight of water = .036127 per cubic inch.
total weight of ballast required for my ship (figuring 500 lbs dry weight) 1100 lbs
total area of tank(s) required = 1100/.036127 = 30449 cu in.
30449 cu in / 4 (no of tanks) = 7612.25 cu in per tank
7612.25 cu in/ 28.26 area of tank = 269.36 inches long
269.36 in /12 = 22ft 4 in long for each tank
need bigger boat!

With an 8 in pipe
area of pipe 3.14*4*4=50.25 sq in.
weight of water = .036127 per cubic inch.
total weight of ballast required for my ship (figuring 500 lbs dry weight) 1100 lbs
total area of tank(s) required = 1100/.036127 = 30449 cu in.
30449 cu in / 4 (no of tanks) = 7612.25 cu in per tank
7612.25/ 50.25=151.5 inches long for each tank
151.5/12=12 foot 8 in long per tank
still need bigger boat!
but at least the darned math works this time!
Foo

[arrow5]

Water weighs the same as water so how about loading the tubes with convenient size slugs of concrete. It would mean carrying them on the trailer on in the tow vehicle of course. A metal hook or loop cast in to recover them from the far end , breech loaded and pushed to position for trimming. No problems with surge, no water inside hull, no plumbing or pumps. A 20ft boat sounds about right. I think you will be asked to exhibit your ship more often as a static (on-shore) model than in the water so choice of scale-ish shape should be considered ,flat bottomed but not a waterline model. Dummy scale shafts and rudders can be made removable and more practical power system used for on water. Probably half of the scale displacement will work if topside kept very light. I wouldn't advise balsa, too soft and porous, thin ply or maybe heavy guage styrene would be better. If you need your plans enlarged there are details of a source on Yahoo groups Manned Model Ships International, just posted might be worth looking into.

[tigerbay]

I have just thought of a compromise.
That would give you a realistic hull form and stability, and no tanks.

I also agree with arrow, do not use balsa. The superstucture could be thin ply and FG tissue covering for strength.

I also think the mass of water in the false hull base would give you a smoother ride on choppy water. As this water is not freemoving it will behave like ballast.

[Rex R]

silly Q...anyone else remember to include the weight of the pipe? 20' of 4" pvc weighs in at 41.25 lbs... :)
rex

[tigerbay]

Fooman

Have you seen this?
http://groups.yahoo.com/Manned_Model_Ships_International/

I literally have just noticed it.

[Rex R]

pipe weights:
weights given are for schd 40 pvc in 10' lengths.
4" = 20.1 lb.s
5" = 27.3 lb.s
6" = 35.3 lb.s
8" = 53.9 lb.s
10" = 75.5 lb.s
12" = 100.1 lb.s
hth
rex

[arrow5]

Tiger, the link didnt work for me but if you go to Yahoo Groups it will. BTW that is some deep V hull you have in the sketch :eek:

[tigerbay]

:o I dunno what they be like under water. :o
But they might be like that at the end where the fences meet.

[arrow5]

This was my solution, semi- scale/guesswork. The 1" ply keel and formers give basic shape , blue-foam skinned with glassfibre to deck level. The centre six foam sections were cut out leaving enough room for floodable tanks. Some concrete was built-in to the bilges. So far I have not finished the tank idea but just use 20 x 5 gallon containers.

[BigDutch]

Hmmmm. What about a Montana class battleship? Never built but planned to supersede the Iowa class with 1 more turret of 16 inch guns. The project was scrapped after the war ended. Same fittings as an Iowa, just bigger.

[fooman2008]

Montana class was in the running but since I live in Iderho that is what I want to build. I thought the Montana's were to be able to battle it with the Japanese Yamato's and German super battleships (Tirpitz successors). The British had a design that was a successor for Rodney with 15 18 inch guns on a longer hull, both would be interesting but like I said I live in Idaho so......
Foo

[fooman2008]

Finally got my plans (my delay not the floating drydock gentleman) I ordered them last Thursday and they got here on Monday! Gorgeous now just have to get them blown up by 548.6% (1/192 scale and finished model is supposed to be 1/35).
Foo