While the Emile Bertin is, admittedly still a work in progress (and by bringing this up, I may be getting a bit ahead of myself), it is progressing steadily and will be a completed design (at least from the structural perspective which is where I will leave off for others to finish) in the foreseeable future. Seeing as it took a matter of weeks to come to a decision for the Emile Bertin, I think we should start the discussion/planning now which brings up the following question: what next? I'd like very much to make the next project a destroyer. As much as I'm certain that everybody likes the larger vessels, destroyers were not only certainly amongst the most plentiful in actual use; having more of the small ships on the water would help to expand the options available for the types of battles and scenarios that can be executed. On that note, what are your thoughts with regards to going with a destroyer and which destroyer do you think would be most appropriate?
Not to hijack this thread, but would anyone working on this project be willing to write up an article for the Scuttlebutt? I think it would make an interesting read for everyone has hasn't been following the thread. (Mind you, the next issue won't be until June)
More destroyers would be a good thing, but they are small. I think for the sake of easier building the discussion should be which 2,000 ton+ destroyer should be done. My votes, just to be odd are HMS Swift (1907) or V-116/S-113 (1918), though finding plans for the latter may not be possible.
If it's to be a discussion of 2 000 ton+ destroyers, how about a Fletcher or Gearing? Where does one locate plans for the HMS Swift?
In no particular order, here's my list: Gearing: Big, fast, and flush-decked. Some versions are twin-rudder, others are single-rudder. One ship was equipped with an experimental propulsion plant and set the class speed record in excess of 40 knots. Hull is similar to Fletcher and might be interchangeable. Le Fantasque Big and fast. Holder of world speed record at 46+ knots. Plenty of choices for gun location, and single-barrel guns won't look funky with one barrel poking out. Plans are available free online. Mogador Bigger than Le Fantasque, but slightly slower. Cleaner, simpler gun arrangement. Plans are available free online. Capitani Romani Big, fast, and flush-decked. Lots of freeboard. simple to construct. Tashkent Big, fast, and clean. Similar to Mogador, but Russian. Z-32 Sleek and fast, although not quite as big as the others. Twin rudders and plenty of options for gun layout. Z-52 Bigger than Z-32, and triple rudders. Fast. Abdiel One of the biggest shiplist mistakes the MWC and IRCWCC have ever made. Abdiel was a highly effective large destroyer that happened to have enlarged cargo holds, not a half-unit minelayer. Big, fast, and well-armed. No torpedoes in Big Gun, but can deploy mines or make cargo runs. Yes, I know that some of these ships are already being made, but I think we shouldn't eliminate any ship on that basis alone. Does anyone else have anything to add?
Raven and Roberts did a set that I got from Loyalhanna. The rudder is very odd though. It is literally strapped to the back of the ship. Of course those 3 huge funnels will be tricky. A lot of topweight in those
Given the lack of a "perfect" destroyer design (at least as far as I know) that can simply be built according to a set of building plans and be able to be armed and run with only very minor tweaks, I don't see why existing manufacture should rule out a vessel. Also, to my knowledge, the Tashkent is the only one being offered by a manufaturer as a kit using wooden hull construction. My limitation at the moment is that for whichever vessel we decide upon, plans will either need to be available for free, available to borrow in the Fredericksburg area, or I may need to ask that somebody donate a set for our purposes here. I'd also like to point out that I'm willing to take on responsibility for the hull and superstructure design; however, other people will need to commit to taking on the tasks of designing/selecting the various internal systems.
I have a set of Gearing plans I can mail you if you go that way. I'd like them back eventually, but you can have them to use for free.
I think that the vendors may well welcome a good planset and to do list for a ship... because with new interest, somebody has to buy all the bits More business is more business! And destroyer glass hulls are about a hundred? Worst case, appoint a spokesperson and ask em I like the idea of Abdeil, because it provides many roles. It can be unarmed transport, minelayer, and armed up with guns... a good 'ol destroyer. This boat will allow progression to an armed boat for those under age. It would also standardize minelaying... and force some effort at minesweepers... Now, keep in mind, I have seen one almost submerge in reverse! I think there are at least two big gun clubs with this model. I think a lot of advice can be gleaned from those captains. I think if you choose the Mogador... or the Tashkent... there may well be a flurry of interest and help as there are many people working on these designs. mike3
If we were to go with a Mogador or le Fantasque, I think I'd be putting myself up as a Guinea Pig for doing a test build; I believe that my incomplete Mogador is suffering from some very odd hull warping that may lead me to scrap her on the ways (or offer her up to another unfortunate soul to attempt corrective action). I have to admit that I like the idea of going with a class that had more rather than less vessels built as it provides more options for historically accurate names without encountering a "twin" on the pond.
I have a question. Is the Gearing "close enough" to the Fletcher that you can simply modify the superstructure and effectively change the class? If the answer is "no", then I would vote for a Le Fantasque. If the answer is "yes", then I think that a fletcher/gearing would be a very, very popular ship.
Destroyers: They played a part in every major sea battle. For some reason that is a topic close to my heart. It has been a source of much heart ache! The main problems with a Destroyer is size and weight. Everything needs to be small and light. The frustration has been so great at times that I was ready to pack that ship in a box and start on something like Tirpitz or BB66 the USS Illinois. (Which reminds me. I found a company that makes motor controllers about the size of a penny! I have asked them about water proof ones. They are thinking about it, and if we can come up with a demand, they will produce them! If anyone is interested, Let me know and I will post contact information.) I have a FNS Mogador on hand. Every time I put the equipment for arming only two cannons into the hull and floating it in the bath tub, she settles very low in the water. What I have been doing is to make the battery packs smaller, and reduce the amount of amunition. (Look to some of my other posts for photos)I have found some very small battery packs. I am concerned as to how long they will last for me on the water. If I do not arm the turrets, it would be easy to arm only the forward Torpedo tubes. Since I play in BIG guns, My aim is to have all eight barrels and the Foward Torpedos operational! There just is not enough room in the stern to arm the rear torpedo tubes. Right now my problem is making light weight breaches for the barrels. I still have a long way to go. If anyone has a light weight design, PLEASE let me know!!!!! While talking about Destroyers, I have drawn up 144 scale plans for the ORP B³yskawica. (A WW2 Polish Destroyer that is still afloat today!) I am not sure how accurated they are, but I believe them to be close enough for a build. Now I am not an expert on Destroyers. In truth, I am a newbie to this hobby. I had talked with club members a lot about building a light cruiser. I have even constructed 144 scale mock up of the ORP Dragon as my first boat. Well, one of the member loaned me a MOG hull to finish. (To help me get into the water faster.) While the MOG has been a challenge, I am looking forward to sailing circles around all the slower ships on the water.
From what I've read, the Sumner class essentially shared hulls with the Fletchers (but added a second rudder and lost half a foot of beam due to the way the shipyards laid the keels). In turn, there was a 14 or so foot "extension" welded/rviveted into the hull deisgn of the Sumners to yield the slight extra length of the Gearing. Ignoring changes made to later Gearing class ships or post-war modifications, I think the superstructure is essentially the same although a portion of the bridge that was built open on the Fletchers may have been closed on the Sumners and Gearings (I think I've seen wartime modifications to Fletchers where that area was closed off in a manner consistent to the configuration of the later classes as-built). In short, my understanding of the three is something along these lines: The Sumner was an iteration of the Fletcher with more guns in less turrets but sat slightly lower in the water while the Gearing was simply a lengthened hull to recover some of the lost free board of the Sumner and improve fuel capacity.
The only problem with destroyers is they are tough to build. They are simply not a suitable choice for a rookie builder. That said, it would be nice to see more on the water. Even veteran builders seem to have issues with ships this small, so what you come up with, while I am convinced should never be recommended for rookies, it would be helpful for the veteran guys who would like the smaller ships. That said the obvious choices are the big ones: Gearing, Tashkent, Shimakaze, Z class, Le Fantasque. Katori: No, the Gearing was stretched. You can however do an Allen M Sumner on a Fletcher hull I believe.
One thing that I did notice with the Mogador, is that I was able to mount everything on the center line of the hull! One thing that I have sugested in the past for someone how is bent on building a DD: Is to build it unarmed. Work all of the bugs out, then attempt to arm it. It looks like the first time I will sail the Mogador it will be as a, ugh, target! My plan is to show my fantail a lot and say, "You can't touch this!"
Per Conway's: Fletcher: 369'1" wl, 376'5" oa x 39'7" x 13'9" full load Sumner: 369'0" wl, 376'6" oa x 40'10" x 14'2" full load Gearing: 383'0" wl, 390'6" oa x 40'10" x 14'4" full load Fletcher/Sumner hulls are probably interchangeable within tolerances allowed by most clubs. Those who are persnickety about scale, accuracy, etc. may find fault. These problems manifest themselves not only in equipment size/weight/cost, but also in the ability to handle wind & wave conditions. Stability even on glass-smooth water can be a problem. Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. If that were true (about the way the shipyards laid the keels) then there would be all sorts of fit problems, from boilers, turbines, aux. equip., etc., even decks not fitting all the way to the furniture in officers' cabins. The Sumner class was designed to make use of the twin 5"/38 mount that was developed as secondary armament for larger ships. Shared power plants, yes; shared hulls, no (although, probably within tolerance for our purposes). A little more than that. No existing Sumners were "stretched". Original Sumners were overweight & couldn't make design speed, which led to the relatively minor design modification called the Gearing class. For those interested, plenty of information about the design evolution can be found in Friedman's U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. JM
I suppose I should have more clearly said that only the design was stretched, and not they physical hulls (my comment on welds and rivets certainly was of no assistance to preserving clarity) of existing vessels. My mistake. ...which is all the more a reason I believe we, collectively, should develop a design for a numerically plentiful destroyer. Inevitably we're going to have to develop some innovative ways of keeping weight to an absolute minimum; builders of this "rookie" destroyer are also going to likely need mentoring/assistance from the more experienced members of the community here to successfully execute their builds. The following is a brief list of some thoughts I had regarding some of the ways we might be able to improve the feasibility of a rookie building such a small, light ship: Build decks with 1/8" or 1/16" material Use aluminum instead of brass where possible Use greater than minimum allowed rib spacing to reduce the number of ribs necessary Build superstructure hollow from 1/16" balsa and/or foam board sheet Use short stuffing tubes just long enough to produce the hull pass-through and have the remainder of the prop shaft exposed between the end of the stuffing tube and props Composite ribs incorporating very thin material with a 1/4" wide strip along the outer edge to provide a surface for attaching sheeting and providing improved impenetrable area to the extent allowed by the rules Specially-designed, high efficiency micro bilge pump based around a 1xx-sized motor using an off-center inlet and varying-cross section oulet involute Micro PWM motor controllers or solid-state switching mechanism Absolute minimum overlap of caprail and deck (significant overlap located only as necessary to permit deck fasteners Lightweight deck fasteners Sacrificial (1/16" balsa) or lightweight, flexible vac-formed plastic turret covers (disposable water bottle thickness?) Li-ion/lithium-polymer batteries hard-anodized aluminum barrels?
