Most restrictive hull cut outs?

Discussion in 'Construction' started by c-wiseman, Sep 7, 2017.

  1. c-wiseman

    c-wiseman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    21
    Location:
    Joplin MO
    Hello All
    I was wondering what rules format had the most restrictive hull cut out arrangement. By which I mean what format, if I built to their guidelines, would still be usable in all other formats? I realize that bigger windows required by one format would be a disadvantage in the other formats. I am looking if it is possible to build a single hull that can be used in various formats, but have the option to change the guns to fit the other formats.

    Wow, typing that made me dizzy. Good luck to you when you read it.

    Thanks

    chris
     
  2. Lou

    Lou It's just toy boats -->> C T D <<-- Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    2,092
    Location:
    Smyrna, Georgia
    I would say the internals and layout from Big-Gun to fast gun would be better suited to have two hulls. Or do you mean fast gun and treaty?
     
  3. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,291
    Location:
    Ohio
    Fast gun, including Treaty, is more restrictive, allowing less ribs overall than Big Gun. If you built the longest available ship - Midway - and used 1/4" ribs, they would have to be 2.1" apart. Big Gun allows 1/4" ribs to 2" apart for all lengths, so ships will have more ribs. In Fast Gun you can vary the spacing of the ribs, making them tighter in some areas and more spread out in the rest of the ship. If you space 1/4" ribs less than 2", it would violate the Big Gun rules. So to have a hull that is legal in all formats, calculate the number of 1/4" ribs based on 15% of the length (Fast Gun) and make sure all ribs are a minimum of 2" apart.
     
  4. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,524
    Fast Gun allows 15% of the hull to be impenetrable, including both the solid bow and stern. You can use a few giant ribs, a decent number of medium ribs, a metric butt-load of small ribs, or a fair mix of different types, as long as it all adds up. Big Gun formats use a fixed length for the solid bow and stern (often 1" stern, 2" bow), and a specified rib thickness and penetrable area between ribs (ie 1" penetrable area between 1/8" ribs, 2" penetrable between 1/4" ribs, 3" penetrable between 3/8" ribs, etc). If you actually do the math, Fast Gun is more restrictive for the shorter hull lengths (destroyers, small cruisers, PDNs, etc.) BUT Big Gun is more restrictive for longer hull lengths (WWII battleships, carriers, large heavy cruisers, etc). I don't remember exactly what hull length it switches, but you can sit down and do the math.
     
  5. Kevin P.

    Kevin P. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2015
    Posts:
    1,718
    Location:
    Chantilly, VA
    As a voice of reason (and a good idea fairy killer), I recommend picking the format that has the most actual battles that you could attend (on a pond, with boats, not via keyboards), and solely focus on making a boat that functions in that format, rather than making a boat that tries to meet several rule sets. You will have more fun (and will be more likely to stick with the hobby) if your boat works in one format vice a boat that doesn't work in several formats (from dividing time/effort/priorities/build techniques). Once you conquer that task, then re-evaluate if you want to make /modify the boat to meet a different format.

    If you build to the IRCWCC rule set, you should be able to adapt to Treaty rather easily. I'm not sure how many actual big gun battles happen now a days, I have attended six battles with the IRCWCC this year, seventh coming up in a month.
     
  6. c-wiseman

    c-wiseman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    21
    Location:
    Joplin MO
    Thanks for the input guys. I also totally forgot that big gun uses different thicknesses of balsa "armor," so i guess a multi format ship is really more trouble than it is worth.

    Kevin P. it is easier to have an idea killed than waste money. Unfortunately I seem to be equally far from all active groups. Seven hours to Dallas and NTXBG and ten hours to Chicago and GLASS. Both are a little far to join in friendly weekend battles.

    Mitigating the costs is a big part of trying to get started in the hobby. I want to cut cost where feasible, but want to be smart with the dollars that I spend.

    I do appreciate the guidance.

    chris
     
  7. Kevin P.

    Kevin P. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2015
    Posts:
    1,718
    Location:
    Chantilly, VA
    Chris, have you been in contact with Tom Palmer (active IRCWCC battler)? I think he is near Kansas city
     
  8. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,319
    Rick W and Tom are both in the KC area. Kevin K, Kevin B and Kevin H are all on the St Louis side. Or maybe Kevin B was still in Springfield area...
    We used to battle at Ritter Springs in Springfield, a nice pond.
     
  9. Lou

    Lou It's just toy boats -->> C T D <<-- Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    2,092
    Location:
    Smyrna, Georgia
    Heiko is also with Tom and Rick now in KC.
     
  10. c-wiseman

    c-wiseman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    21
    Location:
    Joplin MO
    OK, Please excuse my ignorance, but how do I get in touch with these gentlemen?