Rookie Ship Design Project, Part 2

Discussion in 'General' started by webwookie, Apr 28, 2008.

  1. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,295
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    ? I thought he was talking about the actual armor for the SS?

    And you, young man, are up way past your bedtime!
     
  2. klibben

    klibben Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    790
    We don't need no stinkin bedtimes!
     
  3. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    75g so far is good. That works for me. ~15g to spare for masts and deck details works. If you could find out how heavy a 4" long piece of termite armor is, I can run the numbers easily enough from there.
     
  4. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    Here's a screen capture of the model progress. The hull model is nowhere near complete and doesn't yet represent a configuration suitable for baseboard construction but the superstructure is coming along quickly.
    [​IMG]
    There's still a fair bit of trimming that the superstructure will need once there's a finalized hull model.
     
  5. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,206
    Oh my. Thats looking pretty sharp. Just one note, the superstructure on those plans is a little taller than scale, and some of the detail parts (turrets and rangefinders) are oversized. Not much of a problem for me, as there is a guy in my club who makes super-detailed American 5" turrets, radars, and rangefinders, but something to keep in mind when you start on that part.
     
  6. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366

    That's good to know, especially this early in the process. Since the destroyers are going to need more design iterations than the Emile Bertin needed, I'll publish the files/drawings for the superstructure decks and other parts as "alpha" versions with revision numbers starting at 0.1. The files won't be published as a 1.0 until somebody has successfully built and verified the buildability of the design, verified the design's ability to be fitted with running hardware and a pump, and arming with at least a single cannon. Any revisions beyond 1.0 will be dependent upon developments beyond those requirements. Budget permitting, I may be building a hull or two as a byproduct of the development program.

    Following is what I'd like to plan upon as a "worst case" development schedule:

    Alpha
    Week 0 - 0.1 - Initial component data for hull released (solid "plug" model, superstructure part drafts)
    Week 2 - 0.2 - Preliminary internal component selections (based upon initial data) and packaging with initial hull
    Week 4 - 0.3 - Revisions of design incorporating running gear
    Week 7 - 0.4 - Prototype hull/superstructure with running gear installed and able to be tested on the water
    Week 10- 0.5 - Suggested armament package(s) ready for testing
    Week 14- 0.6 - Prototype hull/superstructure with mountings for armament package(s) ready
    Beta
    Week 16- 0.7 - A "functioning" prototype ship should be completed with candidate armament configuration(s)
    Week 20- 0.8 - Configuration(s) should be narrowed to those feasible for use; component Bill Of Materials should be "frozen" and all further changes are only to correct issues in the design; "instruction" document should be sufficiently complete to be suitable for use by a rookie builder with limited assistance
    Release Candidates
    Week 21- 0.9 - if further revisions are required at this point to correct issues, revisions will follow a naming format of 0.9.xx
    Release
    Week 24- 1.0 - full design release

    As we run into any currently unforeseen delays, the targeted schedule will be modified accordingly. Also, since the Emile Bertin superstructure and internals are still in-progress, the schedule will need to be revised as those of us involved are dividing our energies between the two projects.
     
  7. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,206
    Wow, only 24 weeks until the full design release? I would call that a "best case scenario". Still, that doesn't mean it's impossible, and I certainly mean to help as much as I can. Unfortunately, I will not be able to stick to the testing schedule. I have other obligations that require my shop-time, so it may be a while before I can begin construction on one.

    Anyway, for initial component selections, I was thinking we should try using Battler's Connection standard gear. Off the top of my head, the gear we would need includes:
    1 Unit cannon kit system
    Micro Bilge Pump
    7.2v 365 Motors
    1.25" Props 4 Blade 25 Pitch
    5" Prop Shafts
    We could possibly substitute one 400-size motor and that two-shaft gearbox that Tugboat is making for the two 365-size motors, but I don't know if that would be powerful enough or not.

    For batteries, I was thinking a 6-cell AA pack of NiMH's, and a Mtroniks ESC for throttle control. What do you guys think?
     
  8. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366

    I agree that we should attempt to build the design around the Battlers Connection components as much as possible.
    My previous Gearing worked well on 6 cells driving a single 380-size motor; I had mounted them in a battery holder like this: Visit this site (the one I had used had the leads attached instead of a 9V snap). I don't however, remember how it did as far as speed is concerned. The stuffing tubes were short; I'd guess they weren't over one or two inches in length and the bulk of the shafts were exposed.
     
  9. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    What are everybody's thoughts with regards to prop diameter selection? With the current roughed-out geometry, 1" props are approximately the maximum that can fit; should the design be capable of accomodating anything larger?
     
  10. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,295
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    For fast gun purposes, I'd say at least 1.25 or possibly 1.5 inch props.
     
  11. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    1.25 should be more than enough.
     
  12. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    Time for rib configuration/ideas.

    32.5" OA length, 4.875" can be impenetrable. I figure 1" at the stern, 1.375" at the bow, 10 ribs at a thickness of 0.25"? Spacing between ribs is a bit over 2".
     
  13. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    That should fit all formats. I say go with it.
     
  14. tomasa8

    tomasa8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Posts:
    20
    Hey can you email me when you are done with the kit, i would love to buy one. Thanks tomas_a_garcia@msn.com
     
  15. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    I'm not personally planning on selling kits but the data necessary to send to a laser or waterjet cutting shop to have one cut out for you will be freely available to download from the file manager here. Perhaps somebody else here on the forums would be interested in producing destroyer kits at some point in time in the near future (or whenever the design is completed)?
     
  16. tomasa8

    tomasa8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Posts:
    20
    Ok, thanks for the reply.
     
  17. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    Here's a quick update of progress with the hull design. I haven't had as much time to work on it as I had expected so it's been a bit slow-going.
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    Wow! Looking good!
     
  19. webwookie

    webwookie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Posts:
    366
    I discovered some glaring issues with the sweep of the deck curvature that were formed when I rescaled the model in an attempt to preserve scale accuracy. Looks like it'll be a bit of extra work before I can return to generating distinct kit parts in preparation for template sheets. The good news: It's a chance to rework the hull to see if I can incorporate some of the features that appear on the Orfey Class design, including having all the pieces fit onto specific, standard-size sheets.
     
  20. enewbold

    enewbold New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Posts:
    13
    I have a laser cutting machine for my engraving business, and I could cut the parts out for folks at only the cost of the materials.
    Cheers,
    Ed Newbold