Nagato build

Well I will post what I can, but some of the stuff will be super secret, like my new waterchannel armour belt setup, so I will have to censor certain items. It's positively ingenious if I do say so myself.

 

lol cool thank you

 

Ummm, isn't that kind of a double standard?

 

No I do not think so, I see alot of you just come on the forum and read what the rest of us are doing, post and make comments, yet I see no input from you. The requlars who are really interested E-mail me direct, and I gladly send them any picture they want, or give them any info. Don and Rick thinks that is what we should do.

But I think it should be a two way street on information, if I put out somthing, I should see somthing back, which I don't from some of you, so of course I'm not going to just give it out to everyone.

I posted the same pictures on the MWC axis list, and received a few comments from one person. I asked if they could tell me if it looked right or not, but I guess they could not be bothered to take the time to respond, why I like this forum much better, the people that are on it all the time, are willing to help out each other out.

 

Whatever makes you happy.

 

Well thank you, it does. []

 

Dave,

Have you given any thought on the stern gun set up? Are you going straight off the stern or angling 15 degrees?
With all the debate in the MWC on reverse, what are your plans for motors and will you use an esc?

 

Lou, what is the advantage in going off to the side 15 deg, or straight back? I have not looking into the issue myself. I know Finster and a few of the others on their Jap ships are angled off 15 deg, but won't that make it harder to hit, if the target is on the other side.

Just as I'm writing this, and thinking about it, I guess the 15 deg off center will allow you to lower your guns a bit more, for the close range shots into the sides of a NC, If I'm guessing Right?

As soon as I get back from Nats, I will install a new drive setup I have thought up into the Roma for testing, the only issue I can see may be excessive cavatation, so it will need to be tested first to see if it works at all.

I did go with your servo idea for the rotates, I ordered a set of the 180 deg gear servo's for $29 from Servo city. So they will give me 120 deg rotation, using the sprockets I have chosen. Then I can always lessen it using the radio throw if I want less. Thanks it will simplify things considerably.

I finally also found all the parts for the barbetts, HD did not carry everything, but Lowes did, so I got them yesterday, the glass ball bearings are also on order.

And finally my new water channeling idea, so I'm actually kind of looking forward to getting back from Nats, just to try out all the new things I have come up with. But I need the break from work anyways, I just have been working too much overtime, and starting to get burned out. 27 hours OT last week.

Bob sent me somthing that Foster wrote up a few years back, and the IRC view from years ago, on the casemate issue, but are we following these views do you know, if we are, I'm cutting alot more out than I should be.

 

Ive read that same opinion by Foster on the casement issue and I dont think that MWCI uses that. Actually I think that the MWCI pretty much lets the captain read and interpret the rules as the rules themselves are pretty sketchy. I brought the casemate issue up before the BOD while I was scratch building my new VDT over the winter and was asked to hold off on that until the reverse issue was taken care of since reverse was deemed to be a larger problem. So I just built it to how I read and understand the current rules. I'll have both my VDTs at NATS next week so if you want I can show you the differences and tell you my thoughts on casemates. Its a touchy subject for a lot of people and getting a good rule will probably be harder than the current reverse stuff so I wouldn't expect a good clarification anytime soon.

 

Looking at my pictures Snipe, what do you think about my cutting plans, am I cutting it right, or would you do anything different?

The 2 forward casemate areas do not sit back the 1/2 inch is why they are marked for cutting, the rest is further back than 1/2 inch.

Touchy is not the word to describe it, lol. If they decide to cut out all casemates, I have no problem with it, as long as they correct the over weight issue on the NC, SD, and Iowa classes. [}]

 

I was unaware that the US battleships were overweight.
The sources listed as used seem to support the the weights listed in the ship list.

Is there something wrong with the source used?

 

Nothing wrong with the sources as far as I know. What I'am refering to is the ship list and the model weight.

If you go to the MWC ship list, and sort by class and look at class 6 and 7 ships Scale model weight, and Standard tonnage, you will notice somthing quite particular.

Ships in the 35,000 ton to 46,000 range Standard tonnage, And then the Scale weight numbers are on average 4 to 6 pounds under the ton weight number.

Examples
Nagato, Standard tonnage 39,200, Scale weight 32.10
Bismarck, Standard tonnage 41,673, Scale weight 37.21
Littorio, Standard tonnage 40,516, Scale weight 34.11

Now we look at the NC, SD, Iowa classes
NC, Standard tonnage 35,000, Scale weight 35.10
SD, Standard tonnage 35,412, Scale weight 35.26
Iowa, Standard tonnage 45,000, Scale weight 44.50

On average the American ships vs the others all ready have their 10% additional weight added to the scale weight of the model. And then it almost looks like they add another additional 10% for the max weight.

When I look at the IRCWCC ship list, guess what, their model weight for the NC, and SD are 33 pounds, not 35. And the rest of the ships are very close, since both clubs used to be together, and we shared the same ship list, how did just a few ships weights on average get increased by a few pounds? Was this somthing the club voted on?

Now when you look at the WW2 pictures of the NC, SD, and Iowa classes at war time loads, no way are they as far down in the water, as the models that we see as being built and fought.

Of course these are just my views, and the club may of voted to increase the weights of these few ships, to make them so much harder to hit, due to the low waterline, don't think so, but it just got me thinking is all.

My personnel view would be to drop all the weight nonsence since very few sources agree anyways, and do what the Big gun people do, build it to the scale waterline, very simple and easy to do.

 

The MWC shiplist committee is anxious to remove errors from the shiplist. My suggestion would be to document any errors and supply the documentation so it can be reviewed and corrected.

Waterlines on ships are variable. The Big Gun method suffers from this flaw.

 

One other item, the scale model weight is the full displacement / 1333, not the standard displacement.

 

Really well thats good to know, I was wondering where those numbers came from. Thanks for the info.

But it still does not explain why the NC, SD models sit so low in the water, when in real life they did not. Or the big difference between the IRC list and the MWC for just these few ships.

I have been researching the full load on these ships, and so far everything I have found is right in the 44,000 tons area, which using your formula of x/1333 matches the IRC weight of 33 pounds. I wonder what source was used to get the 47,000+ weight, I will have to post on the MWC and ask.

I looked on the MWC site, and the main reference source seem to be U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, Naval Institute Press, 1984.

I found a copy for $22 on e-bay and purchased it. By looking at another site which references the same book, it lists the NC at 44,377 which puts it back at the 33 pound weight, which is about what all the sources list it at. I should have the book after Nats and will see for myself.

 

Me too but both my builds have been right on. you know some times I would rather be lucky than good []

 

[:0] I thought it was soposed to work that way []

 

me I built to scale didnt know no better put it in the water and it was right on. cant build no lighter than I did on the Boston so I guess I was preety dam luck [] will have to watch that on my Iowa

say little off topic any luck finding the boofer mold []