RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth For reference purposes... they're right at the waterline. Bow sidemount is to stbd, stern sidemount to port, and twin sterns.
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth A 1/8" rod will have to pass thru the 2 stringers on the drop test. If you add in adhesive to the mix do you have concerns that it may not pass? BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth Negative, shipmate. Nowhere does it say that a certain amount of space is required between stringers Only that the stringers must be 1/8" and can only be used if the hull shape requires them. Knowing that the ship would be heavily scrutinized (due to two stringers), I hand-filed the stringers to the correct height and checked them with a caliper. I put the stringers where the edges of the bulges were, so that sheeting would be easier. Seeking advantage didn't enter into it, or I would've spent a lot of time cutting the hull and fitting casements. I'm feeling pretty good that the balsa will pass the drop test anywhere that there isn't a rib or a stringer behind it.
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth In my opinion the dual stringers should be a scoring indicator above 10 pts on 25 pts below 50 pts . But directly between both with out touching 100pts and captain of dual stringered vessel must fetch gatorade or hot cocoa (as season dictates) at the end of the next sortie.
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth True, but will the 1/8" rod pass thru the two stringers? There was are multiple reasons 1/8" was chosen. If it fails in that location it fails
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth So fail my ship for being impenetrable in a solid area. If I intentionally drop test a ship on the edge of the casement deck, it'll fail. Or on a rib. Tell you what, if you come to a Region 3 battle, you can challenge my hull penetrability and have the CD test it. I've already had everyone who has served as a CD in Region 3 in the past 3 years look at it and proclaim it good. At least one person who has served as a Nats CD has proclaimed it good, and as I post pics of everything that I'm doing, and telling how I'm doing it, even. No secrets to be found here, I'm afraid. After the entertaining nature of this year;s Nats, I don't really have to worry about anyone at a Nats checking my boats Even if I worried about it.
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth I would feel that a bb needs to pass between the stringers or by nature that does not seem penetrable. I would say that I would also say that bulk heads are illegal because they defeat the spirit of the rule which is in the wording allready
RE: HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth Fine, I'll work on getting Scharnie ready. Who needs a battleship anyway?
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Tug, I think you should cast the ney-sayers to the side and do what you feel is right. I know that rule interpretation can get heated, but no ship regardless of how many stringers, how few props, how many rudders, how much it has over the next ship will be the doomsday ship, (unless its name is kitikami and the format is big gun). If you finish the Brit I'd love to run my Rodney beside it in the Treaty format.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] I agree with Matt and James. There are always rules lawyers, and you will never please them.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Clark, please keep building your ship. THIS is the place for input and feedback regarding the build, not at pondside first sortie. If there is going to be any controversy regarding a build, it would be better to discuss it and work through the issue rather than to give up OR build it in such a way that creates a controversy. I have an armor belt and only use 1 stringer to make it. So yes I did think the second stringer was un-necessary on your ship however I don't have the knowledge to evaluate that so I didn't bring it up. In addition if no bb can pass between the stringers then you end up with a 3/8 hard area down the middle of your ship. That would be an unfair advantage and I know you are not that kind of guy to go that route. In addition with only 1/2 hard area vertically that would leave you with a 1/4 sub-deck instead of 3/8 (I couldn't tell from the picture) When discussing the Baden'sarmor belt with Tim Beckett he said that if it is placed high then a bb must be able to pass through the hole (no other criteria given). I would assume that it also had to pas a drop test. If it was a small area in the casements I cant see anyone raising an eyebrow but when the area in question is near the waterline and runs the length of the ship then it becomes an issue. When I did the casements on my ship I talked to Tim Beckett and Bob Hoernemann who know the rules very well. I didn't ask anybody in the Axis navy because.. they wouldn't be the ones evaluating my ship.. it would be the other team and/or the CD.. overall the best evaluators for my ships. I realize it may not go with your original plan but please keep building this wonderful ship and work through all the different issues you encounter. See ya J
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] You misunderstand my action. I am done with MWC on the national level. Too much douchebaggery in the recent past. I will pay my dues for next year so that I can continue to play in Region 3, but I have no reason to go further afield. The rules state QUITE clearly that stringers must be placed where the shape of the hull dictates. That to my mind supersedes someone's opinion on how close or far apart said stringers need to be. If someone has a problem with the location of the stringers, they can go back in time and guide the British naval architects to do something differently. I consulted with people both Axis and Allied on this and it has been no secret up to this point, with more than a few pictures. Suddenly now someone shows up to pull teeth for fun at my expense. Not amused.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] My purpose was not to ruffle feathers. I saw an area that I thought was not peneterable by a bb. I would rather state my feeling now than at lakeside. If others think this is ok then ok. Communication is king and I am only trying to prevent future problems. I think it is wonderful to help others by showing builds. This would have prevented Nats issues. Many, many problems can be averted by being open with your build and again I commend you for this.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Sorry that I misinterpreted your intent. I agree that more open is good, which is why I post pics of everything, beyond helping new people see how ships are built. There is easily room for a BB to pass between them, my concern was that balsa supported on both sides of the narrow windows might be less likely to pass a drop test. I posted the question on the regional list and the reply was that they thought the windows between the stringers would pass if tested, but that I needed to have the stringers where they are. Trust me, it's hard as hell to sheet it in any kind of timely fashion and I am not looking forward to repeating this later! As I am cutting and fitting little tiny pieces one at a time, the uncut Tirpitz hull on the wall rack is mocking me cruelly.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Clark, As far as stringers are concerned it is my understanding that you don't get to use as many as you need to model the hull, but based on the rule, you get one. Since I have a casement deck I am allowed two stringers, by the rule, but really its the old sub-deck / top of the hull that they now call a stringer. So I get 1/8 for armor belt, 1/8 stinger for the casement deck (actually my sub-deck) and 1/4 for the upper deck, which combined is 1/2 inch vertically. Since you no longer have the casement deck, that seems to change things for you, based on the rule, you would have to model the bulge with only 1 stringer. I am curious to see where in the rules you found something to allow 2 stringers.. I want two also if I have miss-applied the rules then I will need to add one to my ship. For those following along but no access to current rules here is rule 7 (minus the D part referencing drawings that don't apply) 7. A stringer shall be defined as any solid material that hull skin is attached to that forms the shape of the hull and is not classed as a rib. a) No stringers shall be used unless the shape of the hull dictates. Hull features that dictate the use of a stringer are: bulges, casement guns, knuckles, or armor belts. The stringer may not extend more than one rib beyond where that hull feature is prominent. b) The surface of the stringer which is against the penetrable area of the hull skin shall be no thicker than 1/8" material but may be any width. c) The total vertical hard area cannot exceed 1/2" between any two ribs in the penetrable area of the hull. i.e. A ship with both a casemate deck and a defined armor bulge or belt may use two stringers provided that the weather deck is no more than 1/4" so that the combined vertical hard area between the ribs is no more than 1/2". According to 7C the only way to have two stringers is to have a casement deck, which your ship no longer has. The upper stringer is flat and you don't need that to model the bulge. To make it work you would have to sheet it much like my casements, there would be no fiberglass at the bottom of the window to attach the balsa to. However in the case of your hull, if you put the strip above the bulge on first and then overlap the bottom sheet over the top sheet by 1/8 inch.. it works great and covers the gap. I have been using this on my ship for the last 3 sheet jobs and have been able to make it look pretty darn good. This method uses 3 pieces above the stringer and 3 pieces below. I have to say I love the look of it with the indention, the last sheet job I was able to make both sides match about 90%. I agree that being open is good especially since new captains read these posts, which makes it even more important to get it right for their sake. That way there wouldn't be any surprises at the pond. J
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Thats an interesting interpretation of 7.C, but I believe it is incorrect. 7.C states that there can be no more than 1/2" of vertical hard area inbetween any two ribs, and then follows with an example (the i.e. part) of one such situation where one could possibly use 2 ribs. The only way your interpretation could be correct is if the example (i.e. part) of 7.C was, for example, split into an actual rule. i.e. c) The total vertical hard area cannot exceed 1/2" between any two ribs in the penetrable area of the hull. d) A ship with both a casemate deck and a defined armor bulge or belt may use two stringers provided that the weather deck is no more than 1/4" so that the combined vertical hard area between the ribs is no more than 1/2". In my opinion, the example part of 7.C merely shows one example of such a situation where two ribs may be used, and does not rule out using two ribs for other situations as outlined in 7.A
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] I'm not MWC, so I have no real vote on this, but I have to agree with Chase, the wording indicates that the casemate deck situation is merely an example, and not a requirement of the rule.
RE: HMS Malaya [BUILD CANCELLED] Johnny, your interpretation is exactly opposite of everyone else who has seen the uncut hull in person. And Tim, and Bob, and all of region 3, Axis and Allied. And a bunch of people from outside the region. The rule is one example of how to use the 2 stringers, not the only way. I specifically asked a bunch of people when I was cutting the ribs (out of wood) on Musashi, because the Moose has funky armor belt/bulge shapes that scream out for two stringers, and the reply from Tim was that shapes like that are what the rule was meant for, and why he worded it as Chase pointed out above, rather than singling out ships with a casement deck and an armor belt and leaving it at that. The key part there is 'i.e.' before talking about a casement deck. It means that this is only an example of a possible application. In fact, digging thru the gmail account, I found something from Tim: ***** Quick response. A more detailed response will follow after I get back to my office after lunch. It is legal to have 3 stringers and an 1/8" sub deck now. The casemate rules that I wrote took the 1943 warspite and a few other oddball ships into account. The rules now do not specify a max number of stringers, only a max amount of hard area and that stringers must be needed to be used. I will follow up with the exact rules for you in an hour or two. Catch ya on the flip side, Tim Beckett ***** Seems clear enough, if you read what he said, and then read the rules. Of course, this tells me that now someone is going to go out and find a ship that needs 3 stringers just to do it. On Malaya, the upper stringer is absolutely essential for modelling the shape of the hull; In the pic below, you can better see the sharp angle that the balsa in the middle section (vertically speaking) makes. I need that stringer to have something to glue the bottom edge of the top section of balsa to, and to glue the top edge of the middle section to. The bend is too sharp to bend the balsa to follow. By definition, the shape of the hull dictate that it gets a stringer there. If you look closely, you can see a BB sitting between the two nacent stringers. After dremel-cutting the basic windows out, I hand-filed every section to the tape. Plenty of room for the BB to squeak through. And the tape is 3mm, not 3.17 (1/8"), so 'm actually giving up some legal hard area. Maybe I'll go back and add the .34mm to the bottom of the subdeck Seriously, that's a 30-degree angle (or sharper) from the flat upper hull to that first slope. No WAY you're getting balsa to make that curve. At least, the 20+ battlers who looked at it agree. And trust me, it's a bear to sheet, even with the stringer. So much hull curvature in several dimensions means that no individual piece of balsa covers more than 2 windows, and none apart from at the bow and stern cover more than one section going vertically. So there's like 26 windows lengthwise (rough guesstimate, I'm not in the shop), times 3 vertical sections... probably 60 pieces of balsa sheeting PER SIDE. I finished the stbd side, took 3 hours. Those who have met me in person at a battle, do I seem competitive enough to have done this in search of advantage? For God's sake, I start my cruiser in the middle of the enemy fleet nearly every sortie, and I'm happy if one of my two guns works, and still laugh my way through a battle with a jammed rudder or stuck throttle or what-have-you. I do this for fun and if I sink someone along the way, then that's great, if unlikely. Mike M and Jeff can be holy terrors and I'll still like them even though I will do my best not to have my boat near theirs on the water. I am not a scary battler and I don't really aspire to be. I keep my ships as simple as I can to avoid any conflicts with the rules or the caliper-carrying people out there. And I posted pics for months (literally) prior to cutting this hull. And I hand-filed the ribs and stringers because I knew that someone would check it carefully. I like to think that I go out of my way to build my boats legal, and to share every single detail openly, both to avoid drama, and so that other people can see how I build them and get ideas. I have lost count of the number of people who've told me that they built their first wood hulls after looking at my and Brian K's Vanguard build, or my (still incomplete) Edgar Quinet CAE build. I have no secrets, lots of projects, and lots of friends(even if I've never met most of them in person). That's my enjoyment of the hobby. I would rather cut the Malaya into tiny pieces and burn the remains than have someone think that I'm taking unfair advantage. That's not my reputation and I won't let it become that. Now, it's time for morning coffee. If anyone reads something and thinks that I meant it in a mean way, I didn't. Not my style. If I don't like a person, I just don't talk to them. If you see me at a battle and I'm not talking, ask me what's wrong with my boat, that's probably why I'm silent lol
