Drag Props and Debate (Split from Seydlitz build)

Moving a stringer is.

 

Well that is a different matter, but if the stringer is in its scale position and a bb doesn't pass it is still legal.

 

I have heard "It's not in the rules" for 4 years now. Tired of it.

Agreed. However, the stringer was NOT in the scale location and was moved so a BB could not pass through it. And there wasn't even feigned innocence, it was "Its not in the rules". I was standing there when it was said.

 

I can understand that it's frustrating, but I still don't think it's a good enough reason to insult people.

 

I have not called anyone a name, but he continues to do it. And I did not have any space between the subdeck, and stringer. So it was legal, get over it.

And again I never said its not in the rules, I said I made it to the scale dimensions, even if its not in the rules as you keep saying, how is it illegal?

We are semi scale, when I cut the top off to meet the proper dimensions, it raised the armour belt.

 

I'm curious, so after you cut the hull down to the scale height, was the stringer the scale height down from the top of the hull?

 

No of course not, and I pointed that out when it was brought up. Due to the person who made the plug, made a error, or the plans he used were wrong to start with.

What is more important is that the armour belt was scale from the bottom of the boat. So when it was shot at, it was not going to be on the waterline or below, blocking higher point shots. The placement made no difference as it was when the boat was scored.

 

So you're saying that because the stringer wasn't in its scale position it wasn't blocking higher point shots. Maybe so, but if it was in the position that it was preventing bbs from passing between it and the subdeck (not sure if this is the case. correct me if I'm wrong) it is effectively turning the area from the stringer up into hard area that can't be scored whatsoever. This is most likely what the people at nats had a problem with if what everything I'm hearing is true. (again, correct me if I'm wrong)

 

They were together yes, no gap, but the boat then had an additional 1/8 below the armour belt, so the actual opening cut into the hull from the bottom of the armour belt to the water-line, is no different in area, no matter where the armour belt is located. The most it was off from scale was 3/16 of a inch, and since we are semi-scale that is minor. And it actually makes it easier for someone shooting at the boat to score hits. Look at most hits on boats, they are not just under the deck, but much lower.

What is the difference between the area.

1. 1x1+1x.125, with a gap between the subdeck.
and
2. 1x1.125, no gap.

? Nothing, the penetrable area is the same no matter where the armour belt is located. What matters is where it is located when scoring points, and if it blocks higher point shots. Which mine did not.

 

I agree that adjusting the hull to around 4.1" was correct based on quick line drawing measurements. I don't see how the stringer placement meets the 'hull shape must be relatively scale' requirement or the part about 'a stringer may be used where the shape of the hull dictates...' The real ship did not have an armor belt 6ft down from the deck, so the shape of the hull did not dictate placing a stringer there.

It would not have been scale from the bottom based on math either, assuming the hull height was correct. Pictures of the real ship and line drawings place it around 3/4 to 7/8 from the deck (I don't have plans), which would have made the ship susceptible to stern guns, but probably not waterline shots based on the ship being weighed down (which would have been fine).

The difference in placement exceeds any plausible build tolerance error, either 2% or 1/8." Where in the rules does it say 'builder may adjust stringer location at will?'

 

A fair question. I feel if the attempt is made to adjust the height of the hull to scale then the attempt should be made to get the stringer in the scale location as well.

Also perhaps we could break this thread off too? I think we have wandered too far from drag discs.

 

I remember tweaking blades with pliers and burning myself on scorching hot rheostats. With the proliferation of gearboxes and the wide variety of props it isnt that hard to get on speed. I came into the hobby in '03 and tweaked many a hawker 2v cell powered liberty ship. We had club loaners (NTXBG) and they all had a personality. Losing drag discs isn't that bad it is just a little extra work.

However, I don't agree with just taking them from ESC guys. That leaves mag throttle types with the byproduct turning advantage.

There are enough people that are a little off on their speed just due to battery voltage inconsistency during speed testing. They set it up with fully charged batteries then on battle day the voltage is a little lower and the ship is slow. This stuff happens all the time. If a mag throttle guy is a little off for some reason it isn't a big deal in my book.

 

We can put this one to bed with all shafts must have the same props on powered and un-powered shafts. No disks. Easy...
Will the ships lose the tighter turning? Sure, but they ALL will lose it.
Toy boats...If the intent is to be fair in regards to individual ship setups, then lose this and move on. We have plenty of other issues to tackle

 

Not that simple. You can take a metal disk, cut some slits in it and then give the resulting blades a small twist and say it's a prop, cause it is, but it would be the same as having a disk.
To solve this problem once and for all there should be a rule change making a provision for disks and put a size limit, say 1/4" bigger than the prop on the boat. That makes it simple yet effective.

 

Or 0 pitch props?

 

Why make it more difficult than it has to be. Stating disk covers all sides of the argument. 0 pitch prop just will lead to more confusion.

 

I was saying you don't habe to even pitch the blades. The board is going to discuss this and release clarification, hopefully soon.

 

I thought maybe that's what you meant but wasn't sure. Wanted to cover all the bases.

Du sprichst Deutsch?

 

You're probably right. Why one shouldn't rely on Google Translate for an accurate translation. Knew I should've looked to my books!