Cheap and simple is one of our objectives, but we also want a ship that people can have fun with. That brings up the question, what counts as fun? Do rookies just want to shoot holes in another boat, or do they want to cause casualties and sink ships? Shooting holes is very, very easy. You just need a destroyer with a bb gun, that's fast and they can run around: *bang* "haha" *bang* "haha". Pick a 1.5 unit ship, give it a 1/2-unit pump and either a 1-unit gun or two 1/2-unit guns, and you'd be set for both Big Gun AND Fast Gun. the only real changes there are for the speed, armor, and rate-of-fire rules. On the other hand, if the average rookie wants to cause casualties and sink ships, something with a little more firepower than one or two chaser cannons is needed. In Big Gun, that means big guns. I'm not sure about Fast Gun, but from my understanding that means either sidemounts or multi-barrel mounts. The cruisers and bigger ships that have been mentioned so far, while more expensive than a lightly armed destroyer, can pack a lot more punch. Personally, I think that the best ship for both formats (with about equal capabilities in each) is a bb-gun destroyer. A Le Fantasque, Mogador, Z-boat, Tashkent, or Capitani Romani, with a bb gun forward and a bb gun back, can be a lot of fun if you're pretty relaxed. You drive around, fire off a few shots, and generally make a pest of yourself. Plus, it allows us to demonstrate the proper technique for building lightweight and strong. Another benefit is that it can be used by more people. Younger children, older adults, and anyone with back injuries could launch and recover the boat with one hand. (try that with a Yamato!) If you want more firepower, then a Dunkerque is actually a very solid choice of ship. In Big Gun, it is allowed up to eight 7/32" cannons and twelve secondary .177" cannons, and it gets medium-weight armor. Now we can't expect a rookie to arm all of that, so one quad turret up front and one or two fixed quad secondaries in the back would make for a very effective layout. Now that wouldn't be be a cheap ship, because the guns alone would run around $450. From what you guys have mentioned, it's also a solid little battlecruiser in Fast Gun, so this may actually make for a good project ship. I also happen to be making an 8-barrel .177" cannon as part of a refit for a Dunkerque right now, and I would be happy to share the design. Tugboat, I think I can clarify things a bit about the Pocket BBs. For a cruiser-sized ship to be effective, it has to have either the speed to outrun hostiles, or it has to have the firepower to deter hostiles. Most cruisers solidly LACK the firepower to deter hostiles. small-caliber shot like .177" and 3/16", at Big Gun rate of fire, are of little concern to marauding battlecruisers, and torpedoes can only fire once every 30 seconds. So most cruisers have to hit and run, taking their shots when their opponent cannot shoot back. A Pocket BB, on the other hand, has big 7/32" cannons. Those don't compare to the big shells thrown around by Iowas, Yamatos, and Bismarks, but they are still quite a formidable threat. Whenever a big bad battlewagon comes near, all the Pocket has to do is throw his rudder one way and swing his guns the other, and lay down a wall of steel. Having been sunk while trying to attack Pocket BBs, I can assure you that they are very hard to attack.
Katori, I do believe that you've hit on something there with the idea of a destroyer. It's much much more up-front engineering for us to ensure that it'll be workable as a combat vessel across formats but once we've collectively figured it out, it'd help to make the small ships more accessible to everybody. An area of concern, however, is that we would need to base operation of the systems around high-availability components. It would require that if we go with the use of an ESC, it would need to be one with widespread availability, not one that is sold by only a few localized hobby shops. With servos, they would need to be small but the specific selection would also need to account for availability. Some things, such as regulator weight, would also need more allowances to permit the use of lower-cost components. A plus is that after construction, in big gun, the destroyer could be "upgraded" to torpedos in place of the single bb cannon if the new recruit so desired. The conventional caprail and deck pattern of construction could even be modified to control topside weight and improve inherent stability.
Well here is the opinion of a newbie to this sport. I have a Mogador that that I am trying to arm. I also have a liberty, and a Lt cruiser, the OPR Dragon under construction. Now I have yet to sail in a battle. With all of the difficulty that I have goen through, I am now wishing that I had started with something large.
ya that is a common thing with small gun at least if it weights less than 5 lbs then normally a new person would have trouble with it cause of weight and size issues if u have ever observed every time new ppl on here say the are gona build an destroyer we try to sway then from that till they have built at least one ship of heavy cruiser size to small battle ship if not more.
Yes, it's difficult to fit everything needed into a ship that small. That's why I proposed the Kirov. She's only got 2 guns for fast gun, so there isn't much more complexity then a single gun ship (both guns driven off one MAV3 I think), and torps for big gun. Decent speed for a torpedo cruiser, and can probably battle both allied or axis. I think that a Kirov is pretty much the best all around choice ship for a multi-format beginner. Good in all formats, plays both sides, roomy, and simple. I think that's pretty much the best balance that can be asked for.
This might be a perfect fit for a "generic" warship. In other words, something that doesn't actually model a "real" class of ship that was ever built, or even designed. A generic ship would generally fit within one of the usual types (battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, destroyer, etc.) in terms of size, speed, weaponry, etc. but not possess any "best-of-type" attributes. By not being modeled on any specific ship, the need for certain compromises could be avoided, as long as it fits within certain parameters. It wouldn't need to be (nor would it be desirable that it be) the "best" in any particular way, but it could be designed to be built & equipped simply so that it's an easy entry-level ship that works OK for any format. Superstructure variations could give it an appropriate "look" for any navy, otherwise hull & all internal parts could be the same for all applications. If enough generic ships could be produced, it should create a fairly large number of people who become expert at building, maintaining, & using them. This would create a natural base of knowledge & support as use of the type grows. The only trouble is, I don't think that there's any club that recognizes/allows a "generic" ship right now. JM
For fast gun, most of the battlecruisers are good beginner boats that are good forgiving designs. Building destroyers for fast gun is a bit like building a Ferrari (Forza Schumacher!) in that it demands really light build techniques and it has very little room. If you want to go with one, I concur with the Mogador or Le Fantastaque as good choices. Pretty simple superstructure, nice and fast in fast gun (21 sec) and in big gun.
"This might be a perfect fit for a "generic" warship. In other words, something that doesn't actually model a "real" class of ship that was ever built, or even designed." unfortunately such a ship is not legal in any of the mainstream fast gun clubs. Big gun seems to be a bit more forgiving about such things.
One of the big reasons why I suggested a bb-gun destroyer is because the cannons and gas equipment that goes into a Fast Gun destroyer can also be used in a Big Gun bb-gun destroyer. Most destroyers have small enough guns to get .177" main cannons, so the caliber would be the same. And to meet the Big Gun foam test, you can adjust the tightness of the o-ring rather than adjusting the pressure settings on the regulator. The other big benefit is that it saves a lot on the cost of cannons. From what I've seen, Fast Gun cannons sell for $25-$30 per cannon. Big Gun cannons sell for $160-$180. The cost difference between a destroyer with one bb gun vs a battlecruiser with two Big Gun cannons is incredible. I do agree, however, that many of the battlecruisers (especially the WWII battlecruisers) make great beginner ships in Big Gun. Dunkerque is a great example, as is Scharnhorst. They're fast and big and well-armed. The WWI battlecruisers fall short in that regard, because 4+ twin turrets is both more expensive than 2 quadruple turrets and less effective. A Dunkerque or similar would make a great second project, after a destroyer.
Mogami would seem to be an excellent option. The only issue with it (a minor issue at that) is that it can only play as an Axis ship, which is why I suggested Kirov instead. Mogami has the advantage of more weight though. A destoyer would be perfect, if they weren't by necessity so light. That makes them difficult to build, and smaller components are often more expensive. A big one like Tashkent though might be doable, and still have the advantage of being able to battle both sides.
I believe a destroyer is a nightmare to build and deploy in either format.I had a mogadore so did mikey ther is no room for anything let along any kind of weapon system.I think the kirov is perfect for all formats.36 knot will keep it out of trouble in big gun,1 gun foreward at 15 degrees and one aft would make a good small gun.Reasonable room and a 3.5 co2 will fit. Can run both sides and looks good.I could not think of a better generic rookie ship other than an armed q ship.
I am a little confused here. The Mogador has four twin turrets. Is it possible to arm all eight cannons?!!! With enought equipment to arm just two cannons I am almost down to the water line! Yes, I am trying to use fast gun equipment in a big gun world.
When considering the issue of needing to develop a sufficiently light design in order for a destroyer to work, keep in mind that the issue of ensuring that the design works (with allowances for less than ideal construction techniques) would be on our shoulders, not on the shoulders of the would-be rookie builders. As far as component complexity/cost is concerned, I believe the design could be configured around the following components: 1. a pair of micro servos (one for steering and one for the combined function of firing and activating/toggling a bilge pump) 2. a single ESC 3. a 3/4 channel micro receiver 4. one fast-gun style cannon 5. a clippard or similar low cost regulator 6. a pair of motors (360 size?) 7. a BC micro bilge pump (or equivalent) At this point, I believe we should be very specific about determining the goals we are attempting to achieve with this project; are we trying to develop a structurally simple and easy to build design, a balanced and but limited-cost starting combat design, a competitive combat design, a simple unarmed vessel to get people onto the water, or something else? My personal opinion of what our decision should be based upon is that simplicity and reliability are paramount, followed by individual combat efficacy (sp?) or literal combat performance. How much that the most skilled battlers target the rookies is something that can be controlled/managed but how easily that a first-time builder gets frustrated with the construction of a balanced combat vessel to the point of giving up is more difficult to predict and control (not every newcomer is going to necessarily ask for help from people already in the hobby before throwing in the towel).
Keep in mind that the Clippard regulator is not rated for the pressure straight from the bottle; you'll need a regular regulator at the bottle.
In that case, I stand corrected. As I haven't personally used Clippard regulators, I had assumed that they were suitable for regulating down from the 800+ psi in a CO2 bottle. Accordingly my list for the core components of a rookie destroyer design is as follows: 1. a pair of micro servos (one for steering and one for the combined function of firing and activating/toggling a bilge pump) 2. a single ESC (possibly with BEC) 3. a 3/4 channel micro receiver 4. one fast-gun style cannon 5. a low cost regulator 6. a pair of motors (360 size?) 7. a BC micro bilge pump (or equivalent) 8. 5 or 6-cell battery pack
Item #4: one fast-gun style cannon. That means only one operational barrel and seven dummy barrels on a Magador. This Photo shows the basic arrangement of equipment in the hull. http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/rcnavalcombat/FileManager/ViewFile.aspx?id=1107 I have completed a float tests with everything required to have two barrels operational. The hull settles right to the water line!
Your list of parts is right on the moneyUnfortunatly they will not fit into any 1/144 I know of.I you did manage to get all that in the boat it would have little freeboard and roll badly.Trust me on this a destroyer is a handfull for an experienced modeler. I think it would frustrate and turn off a rookie.Trust me on this I know from experience quote]Originally posted by webwookie In that case, I stand corrected. As I haven't personally used Clippard regulators, I had assumed that they were suitable for regulating down from the 800+ psi in a CO2 bottle. Accordingly my list for the core components of a rookie destroyer design is as follows: 1. a pair of micro servos (one for steering and one for the combined function of firing and activating/toggling a bilge pump) 2. a single ESC (possibly with BEC) 3. a 3/4 channel micro receiver 4. one fast-gun style cannon 5. a low cost regulator 6. a pair of motors (360 size?) 7. a BC micro bilge pump (or equivalent) 8. 5 or 6-cell battery pack [/quote]
Cruiser Comparison Name: L x W, displacement, shafts rudder, side relevant data for big gun my preferred armament in big gun fast gun data (from MWC ship list) Kirov: 627' x 58', 12200 tons (full), 2 shaft 1? rudder, Allied 36 knots, 2" armor belt, 3x3 7.1" turrets, 2x3 TT, 100 mines 36 knots, 1/16" armor, 1x3 .177" rotating turret, 2x3 TT 23 seconds, 3.0 units (1 pump + 1 gun + 1 gun) Duca d'Aosta: 598' x 55', 8900 tons (full), 2 shaft + 1 rudder, both 37 knots, 70mm+35mm armor belt, 4x2 6" turrets, 2x3 TT 37 knots, *see note, 1x2 .177" rotating turret, 2x3 TT 22 seconds, 2.5 units (1 pump + 1.5 gun; 1 pump + 1 gun + .5 gun; .5 pump + 1 gun + 1 gun) *note: Duca is listed as having a 70mm belt + 35mm splinter bulkhead. If the splinter bulkhead is armor, Duca gets medium thickness 3/32" armor, if it isn't, she gets 1/16" armor. As a tech officer, by first thought is that she gets the thicker armor, but I'd like to discuss it with other club members first because I am not an armor expert. Mogami: 661' x 59', 13200 tons (full), 4 shaft + 2 rudder, Axis 37 knots, 3.9" armor belt, 5x3 6" turrets, 4x3 TT 37 knots, 3/32" armor, 1x3 .177" rotating turret, 2x3 TT 23 seconds, 3.0 units (1 pump + 1 gun + 1 gun) I think any of these cruisers would be an effective fighter while being cheaper than a battleship. They have minor advantages and disadvantages, but nothing major enough to cause me to say one ship stands above the rest. For big gun, I recommend putting in torpedoes and a single rotating turret. The turret could be fixed, to save height and complexity, or it could be removed entirely to save money and drastically reduce complexity. These ships are big enough to use standard servos. BDE RC sells double and triple .177" caliber turrets with 2.5" diameter magazines for $160 and $165. A source and price for torpedoes would still need to be worked out, but I think they will be cheaper. If a rotating cannon and TTs are used, 5 channels are needed; if a fixed cannon and TTs are used, a four channel radio will work.
Yes, I am a rookie and yes I have been getting a little frustrated! There have been times I have been ready to put the Mogador on the shelf and go for a BB.
