Since the Alsace has been completed, battled, and traded off, I have started to think about my next Treaty specific project. I am building a warship that will be legal for Treaty and Fast-gun, but I would still like to have a Treaty only boat. With the large number of Allied ships in my area I am thinking about going Axis for this one. I have had my eye on the O-Class battlecruiser for over a year now. It would be a near perfect counter to the two local Alaska's. Fast at 33 or 35 knots (depending on what conway's says), three props and three rudders, and five units make for a formidable ship. On the other hand, scratch building a hull takes me about a month or two. I was so impressed by Mike Mangus' Scharnhorst pummeling me Saturday at the last event, I regretted not taking Matt up on the Trade offer that Friday. The Scharnhorst gets 5.5 units, 32 knots and has dual rudders. At the same beam and about six inches shorter than the O, it should turn better--I think... Bat has also challenged me to keep a Treaty boat for four years--my current record is, well, the Alsace at four events My dual format boat will be the Sverige, which is a very small 3.5 unit classified as a pre-dread under Treaty, IRCWCC, and MWCI, so I want to stick with something larger and faster that gets sidemounts. I am open to any and all suggestions.
Those are two good ones. There is also the dutch battlecruiser but drawings are hard to come by and either of the German ships are equally good. There is a Japanese BC as well but it does not stand out. For a fast ship with side mounts that is about as good as it gets. A bit slower gets you some creative options but at that point you would be better off with the Alsace;-) Mike B
How many units are you looking at? If you're willing to go big, an Amagi-class BC would be worth your time. They're quite fast, twin rudders and 5 turrets to play with.
I would prefer a class 5 hoestly. The Sverige is close enough to a class 4, and harder to hit. A class 6 is too much ship for me. After doing the super structure on the Kongo Bobo has now, I am looking at another few years until I try to tackle another pagoda superstructure. Both ships I am looking at basically come down to turning for me. How much better will the Scharnhorst turn? The one powered shaft and dual rudders on a ship six inches shorter suggests that it will turn better. It theoretically should be a bit heavier, which is a drawback, but not by a lot. Conversely, the O setup with three powered shafts and three rudders should turn very well too, and the slight speed advantage goes a long way with the ships I battle against on a regular basis. I have plans for the O-class, but nothing yet for the Scharnhorst. I know this is hard to gauge because, as far as I know, no-one has built an O-class for any format. At this moment, I am leaning towards the Scharnhorst because it is shorter (transport is an issue for me ATM) and I know it will change direction like a politician during an election year. I really would like some more input before choosing.
Weight really isn't an issue for a Treaty ship due to multiple factors like no hole counting and relatively scale waterline locations. My Sharnhorst was running light (around 21'ish pounds) with a scale location waterline. That isn't too much weight to handle I think. If you do the O, don't power all three shafts. That will significantly reduce turning. My Sharnhorst was turning as well as my HMS Erin and maintaining speed to boot. In fact, I was shocked to see how well it was turning. But I do think there is room for improvement by going with a better prop, maximizing the motor RPM at speed, and dialing in a bit more rudder throw. It might not pivot in place like Chris K's Bismark, but it ought to be close. Heh.
I would really like to know what motor you end up going with in your Scharnhorst, and I promise it has nothing to do with my (alleged) plans to apply your hard work to my next build I will be going with 12v in that boat as I suddenly have six Clippard solenoids that are looking for a home...
Based on using 12.8v, a 3.18 ratio gearbox, a 2" diameter low pitch curved four blade prop, and data from the Treaty battle (throttle settings and speeds), a 800kv motor should be perfect for my ship's setup. Think I will start looking for one. Heh.
I picked up that Scharnhorst hull from Roland this weekend. It has a low pitch 5-blade 1 7/8" prop. I am going to place an order for the gearbox and motor soon. Since I have never run a ship with a gearbox, what size pinion do I need. The BC gearboxes come with 35 tooth drive gears and the smallest pinion tooth count is 12, so this gives me a ration of 2.92:1 if my math is correct. Also, what motor did you end up going with? I have minor concerns with shaft size and getting the pinion gear to mate with the motor shaft.
I would still go with a 800 - 1000kv motor on a gearbox (assuming 12v power system). There is 11t pinions available that will give a 3.18, though 2.92 will work also with a 800kv motor. The 5mm shaft pinons are easy to get at any online store that caters to r/c rock crawlers. I think Tower Hobbies has some also. Currently, the Sharnhorst has a 1300kv outrunner motor on that same gearbox and voltage. It was an expiriement to see if the 1300kv motor I had on hand would push the ship to 24 seconds fast gun speed. As it turned out, the 1300kv motor was still too much rpm. The Sharnhorst was making 24 second speed at 80% throttle. Closer to the 90% throttle mark I was shooting for, but still not very efficient or using the motor's best power. I'm set that a 1000kv motor should be perfect for my Sharnhorst with it's gearing, voltage, and prop for fast gun speeds. For Treaty, I think an 800kv motor would be the ticket. On a side note, I put that 1300kv motor on a pump and ran it on 12v. It seems to put out as much water as a 12t Titan on 6v even though the 1300kv was only turning 17K rpm. We didn't measure amp draw (didn't have the right tools handy) but it seemed high. Still, with an esc on the pump, it is very easy to diall down the pump rpm to meet Treaty GPM limits.
