HMS Marlborough build

Discussion in 'Warship Builds' started by moose421, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    Well I have stated on the HMS Marlborough. I managed to weight her down to 23.75 lbs. I did this to get the water line. She will be built to battle under MWC rules. Still have the air system and guns to buy yet. Hope the wife doesn't look at my credit card receipts. The hull is a Battlers connection one. I plan on having twin sterns, one haymaker and a bow sidemount. The radio will be a Futaba 6EX 2.4ghz system. MAG switches for the motors. Also I will be using Nimh D cell batteries for the juice. Charging them will be a couple of duratrax piranha digital chargers. I have good luck charging my sub-c for my cruiser so I will try them for my Marlborough.
    The second picture shows were the water line will be. WOW, she is going to sit quite low. A good deck seal is a must.
    The last picture is a future Port Polar Bear battler. She crawled in and found the boat in the tub interesting.
    And yes those are .50 BMG rounds I used to weight the hull down with. They were handy and I thing quite fitting.
    Kim
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    At max weight, they do sit low to the water. Even if the ship is a couple pounds lighter, it still sits low in the water so you have some room to play if you like. :)
     
  3. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    Just a quick update. Have the ribs and impenetrable area laidout. Hopefully this weekend I can get cutting on the hull and get the shafts built.
     
  4. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I'm not sure if I would actually load it down to max displacement. I know that's the "in" trend atm to minimize above damage, but the lighter boats seem to handle a little more crisply. That's also more water the hull can hold before it goes submarine.
     
  5. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I'm with you on that... My winter project (since Evstafi will be pretty much done) is going to be a Strike Models Baden, and I don't plan to go max weight with it, either. I went with scale weight on my I-boat and it took rediculous damage to sink it.
     
  6. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    I did manage to get some time on building today. Had to watch my daughter so my wife did her school work then it was me time. The ribs are all laid out. I did move one to center up in the haymaker area. Also I drilled all the corners where the windows will be cut.

    I am in agreement with you guys as for the weight. I like to look of her with the weight of 23.75lbs.
    Here she is.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  7. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    Well, I got some work done on the Marlborough. Wife and daughter were gon efor the day. I cut and fitted the deck and sub deck. I didn't cut the deck out or figure where the cross braces will be yet. Figure I will wait to get most of the running gear and guns in her first.
    [​IMG]

    Also I started building the shafts. I am trying to get them as level as possible. I will be using 1 3/4" props. One modification of the BC gear boxes that I did was to sand them down about a 1/16 to 1/8" Just to the fiberglass motor plate. This will allow me to shorten the shafts that I made and still keep the angle that I have. Reason I did this was to move the batteries more to the center of the boat. The following picture shows the preliminary layout. As it is now the bow sidemount will be over the bottle and the stern guns will be clear of running gear ( So far!)
    Looking again at a esc for her as well. I have heard good things about the banebots and I think I might go with one. It would make the radio box even smaller.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. djranier

    djranier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,756
    My ID weighed in at 24lbs 4 oz at Nats. She does sits low in the water, but only sank once, and it took, 96 above, and 75 belows to put her down. She uses the concrete sealer for water channeling.
    During Nats they did some pump testing on the boats, and my ID's water output beat all the other boats by quite a bit, only Don C was close to mine. Most boats my ID was moving close to twice what they were able to do, so that of course made mine that much harder to sink. Don and I are both using a outlet that I made.
    You will love the boat, she responds well, and here in the SE Don and I have been teaming up together practicing for Houston Nats. The local VDT, and one that visited from the IRC, all went to the bottom. Right now if everyone that's making them show up, we could have 6 or 7 of them on the water, along with a few Warspite's, looks like it will be fun for the Allies.
     
  9. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    Thanks for the information Dave. REally beging to love the look of her. Yesterday I got the shaft postion finallized. Only have to resin and fibergalss it in. Also the rudders have been set up and need to be resin as well. Got the guns so I really can goto town on set up the internal layout.

    Thanks
    Kim
     
  10. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    Sorry for the time on the update. LIfe has gotten inthe way. But here she is getting float tested in the bath tube. I ended up adding some weight to the starboard side of the stern. Orginally I had the four soleniods balanced two to a side. That changed to ease the plumbing of the air system. Also the stern was riding a little high from where I wanted the waterline.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Next up are some at sea trials. For some reason I managed to make the shafts 1/2 inch to short. I have since added to the shaft tubes and are waiting for some stainless steel rod to come. Once that is done I will test again. Also I forgot to bring a tape measure to layout a speed course. but I figured she was slow. I will be going to larger gear. If to fast then I can slow her down with the EPA settings. Trying out the banebots ESC as well. So far so good. Waterchanneling is working great as well. I have to add some light weight grease to seal up the shafts. The rest of the superstructure was to be painted when the testing accured. That is now done and the turrets have been mounted as well. Just have to make up the barrels and intall them and the casement barrels also. Final details will be added when I get time. I am shooting for this weekend to do another test. Provided all my parts arrive in time.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Kim
     
  11. djranier

    djranier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,756
    How much does she weigh? It looks like she rides even lower than mine.
     
  12. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    When I oringinally float tested it I weighed it down at 23.75 lbs I still have to recheck that. When I did the original I marked a line at the floating waterline and I hope I kept it. Now I just have to get a scale to weight that much.

    Thanks
    Kim
     
  13. djranier

    djranier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,756
    Ok, so she was weighed down in the pics, thats ok then, I thought she was that low without the super and turrets on.
     
  14. moose421

    moose421 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    MMMM, Had not thought of that. You are correct. I forgot to have the superstructure and turrets for the float test. Woops, Now I know I need the scale. At least I built her light from the begining. The bottom edge of the windows should be fine. Hope she dosn't come in over weight.

    Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

    Kim