Here is my rough hull section drawing of I-400, with a table of distances from the bow of the ship for each frame. It may be reporduced freely, as long as no one is charged for it (ie: don't copy it and sell it, I want it to remain free). When I get a side view done, I'll get it scanned in by the people who print my plans and post it here. If this drawing prints out at the wrong size, pm me and I'll send the original scan via email.
Thanks for scanning this in, where did you get these? they differ from the great-plans version I have. also I printed them out and they're not to scale. I went to Wikipedia and got the measurements of the I-400 and they were 400.3'*39.3'*23' which in 1/96 scale is 50 1/3" * 4 15/16" * 2 7/8" (length, beam, draft). draft I'm assuming is from surface waterline to the bottom of the keel? the horizontal line going through the frames, is that the surfaced water line? the beam, is that overall width or deck width? the plans I have show your frame 5 with more of a strait side like frame 6, not curved or bulged. I went to the hobby store today and saw the 1/350 scale model of the I-400 but its rather pricey $65.00, but I wonder if this would be the most accurate source to derive ship plans from? any takers on this.
Like I said, the scanner might have resized it, or the conversion to the form that the file manager uses. And, like I said, they're rough from a model. If they're not 100% accurate, then modify them to your liking and I promise I'll still be happy The horizontal line is just there for helping line up the frames. Justin, I was thinking about posting some more plans online for general use, maybe some convoys and a couple of combatants in 1/144 and 1/96. For accuracy, I'd want to keep them in tiff form. You cool with that, or should I post them on my server?
tug, didn't mean to sound like I was splitting hairs, It was just that I've seen 3 different plans and many variations of the sub. So it is what it is I guess. On the plus side I just finished getting all the frames I had before scaled to the correct size, next I'll get the pics of the sub enlarged at the print shop, find out the spacing and draw in some ribs to fill in the large gaps and start cutting
Being that mine was rouch and mostly freehand, I have no illusions about it being the definitive plans set for I-400. I do think it's close enough for government work in the absence of real plans. My Surcouf plans (probably what I'm going to use for my own sub someday after I get everything else done) are cleaned up and scaled direct copies of the shipyard plans, so _those_ I'll say are definitive Did you get any of the USN pics of the I-400? They have some on the NHC photo archive site.
Well, I got all the frames drawn-up and there's 26 of them. for the most part they're 2" or more apart (1/4" ply) but there are a few that will around 1" or more apart @ 1/8" ply. I think I had to draw in something like 15 frames. I won't be until this weekend before I can cut them out of ply, but as soon as I do I'll post some pics (or try) of the plans and sub.
I have three different plan sets of the I-400, and all three dis-agree slightly. I'm sure this is due to a lack of surviving original blueprints of her construction. If the beam and the length are within the allowed tolerances, that's probably as good as you can do with the I-400 class. There's just not enough info on her available. Carl
For the rules on penetrable area, I'm going to quote the rule first, then give an example. II.B.4. Penetrable area must extend to 1" below the floating waterline, or to the 45 degree line of the hull. Submarines penetrable area will extend to the bottom of the caprail, or to the upper 45 degree line, whichever is closest to the keel. Example is a Type VII U-boat; Everything between the lines must be penetrable (except ribs, obviously), up to where there is no bulge. In the bulged areas, the upper 45 degree line is closer to the keel than the edge of the caprail. In the areas at the very front and very back, the penetrable area goes up to the bottom of the deck/subdeck area, as there is no "top 45 line" to mess with. I hope that's worded well enough to express how I read the rules
I think that should suffice. anyone know about how much CO2 should be needed to fire 20 torps and 50-75 rounds of BB's on one fill? I don't want to have much more than needed to fire all weapons per sorti along with being able to "blow" and "vent" the MBT 3X
I'm wondering how many watch batteries (smaller than 1/4") it would take to power a zip-zap motor for say a 20-sec torpedo run. The zip-zaps run on 3-4V... I was thinking one could use a piece of plastic ribbon to separate the batteries (preventing a hot run in the tube), with a spurt of CO2 to eject the weapon (which would pull the ribbon from between the batteries to activate the motor). As for MBT blow... I have tested (not in a sub, yet) a brass air reservoir with a clippard valve, with a small air compressor that runs on 6-12V (it's tiny, about 2"x1.25"x.75"). The specs are here: Visit this site At $48, it'll flow enough in a minute or 2 to recharge the EMBT blow system (remember 4 psi is almost 10 feet down, so 4-8psi in the tanks is plenty to blow from a foot or 2 down). The pump is rated for (among many other things) both air and water. The secret evil plan is to have a snorkel mast with a u-bend in the top (discreetly hidden inside the body of the snorkel), so that I can drive to PD (or hover there) and recharge the air banks.
keep in mind that even if you were able to get an electric torp to function (actually turn a prop on its own in this scale), it'll never generate enough speed to penetrate balsa armor.
the diagram of the pump shows an in and out port, are there check valves in these that prevent flow going backwards? and if not can the pump be run in both directions say for sealed high pressure trim tanks?
The pumps are diaphragm pumps, so by their construction, they have check valves in them, otherwise they wouldn't work So, as you guessed above, those check valves also keep it from functioning in the reverse direction. The torp thing was mainly a thought exercise. The motor could probably get a torp to speed, but no propeller that'd fit a 1/4 launch tube would let the torp get up to speed. And there's the issue of countertorque; keeping the torp from spinning while the prop sits still. Not really feasible, but a fanciful thought.
I can't remember where I saw it but there was an individual who was making scale torps that had counter rotating props (like on some of the real ones) to deal with counter torque.
I think the guy you're referring to does counter-rotating torps for a 1/20 scale PT-Boat. I don't know of anyone doing counter-rotating props on torpedoes in a scale smaller than that. See Visit this site From their website, it looks like The Queen's Own just fire the 2+" long torp like a large bullet using C02, which is how Keenan was doing it in BattleStations!. The SubCommittee (which fires torps for show, not for R/C combat) fills the torps with Propel (for safety reasons they stay away from CO2) which comes out a small aperature in the tail, and they put a pin in the aperature and load the torp into the tube. Then a servo pulls the pin from the torp. To help it stay on course, they bend the torpedo fins at about 15 degrees so the torp spins as it goes. Some people also use a burst of propel to blow the torp out of the tube (and off the pin) rather than having the servo pull the pin out, but this can make the torpedo course be more erratic when it leaves the tube... Carl
well I got the solution to my problem for the trim tanks, without having to use a check valve or solenoid valve. peristaltic pump, they're self sealing, reversible, and you can control their speed. anyone run a destroyer in 1/144 scale might be able to help with this, what size CO2 tank do you use, how many guns and rounds can you shoot before refilling?
