Discussion in 'Construction' started by __Titan__, Apr 21, 2019.
I love them sooooo much! And the build blog!
Very clean build. A few observations / things to consider
You might want to check some of the impenetrable area vs what's allowed in the rules. Two specific areas I would verify
The second to last window's bottom doesn't look like it follows the 45 curve in the hull. Side shot so can't really tell, but most hulls will have a smooth downward sloping (moving forward) transition until it reaches the 1" below waterline mark. The third to last window could but cut deeper than needed, but most hulls will see the 45 degree point move down around the area of the second window
Casements have that sort of platform on the bottom that extends impenetrable area a good deal beyond the typical curved region + 1/8." You could cut it down so it's only 1/8" high and call it a "stringer," but as is I don't think matches up in current form with what the rules dictate.
I'm assuming internal armor was removed for pictures...if not typical materials are pet resistant dog screen or shower pan liner
I'd try to get the ESC in the water channel for better cooling, also I'd go with 60A version on a $/A basis if you replace
Did you figure out and correct the issue causing the low damage sinks in statesboro? Others could possibly benefit from learning about issue and solution
I'm a firm believer in the theory that the metal object will always find the exposed solder joints
Might not be possible with guns, but the sterns I would try to toe in a bit and angle down. Could also go with 15 degrees. Good stern guns on that boat could remove a waterline...these might be picking off Allied deck division
I'd recommend moving the pump restrictor to the base of the vertical hose (looks like its at top in picture). It would still be accessible from outside hull, but you should see a good boost in flowrate
Good build, hope to see them in person at a battle soon
Similar to the Provence, the deutsland has a fairly sharp transition to past 45 degrees. Ship plans show it thru the second window which was why the windows ended where they did.
If I recall, the issue most of the time was clogged pumps. Still need to screen those pumps guys! Even with the new BC pump base and it's built in screen setup.
Fish tank filter
The bottom of the casemates in the real ship is an entire deck, and is classified as the gunwhale per the current rules. Bottom stringer is on a scale armor step in that location.
A stringer shall be defined as any solid material that hull skin is attached to that forms the shape of the hull and is not classed as a rib.
a. No stringers shall be used unless the shape of the hull dictates. Hull features that dictate the use of a stringer are: bulges, casement decks, casemate guns, knuckles, or armor belts. The stringer may not extend more than one rib beyond where that hull feature is prominent.
b. The surface of the stringer which is against the penetrable area of the hull skin shall be no thicker than 1/8" material but may be any width.
c. The total vertical hard area cannot exceed ½” between any two ribs in the penetrable area of the hull e.g., a ship with both a casemate deck and a defined armor bulge or belt may use two stringers provided that the weather deck is no more than ¼” so that the combined vertical hard area between the ribs is no more than ½”.
And your point? the total solid area is 1/2 inch (1/4" deck, one 1/8" gunwhale/casemate deck, one 1/8" stringer)
see the picture in section 16. the casemates overhang but are mounted on their appropriate deck and is located where the deck really was in the real ship. the lower stringer is required by an armor belt that exists on the real ship. Both are required to make the shape of the hull.
casement deck appears to be 1/4" thick, for 5/8" total, unless there is an invisible air gap I'm not seeing, so specifically it would be in violation of b and c above
No. you are wrong. the casemate deck is made from 1/8" ply, as are all stringers. top deck made from 1/4" ply at the outside of the hull.
See image here
to be clear, this is what i'm talking about. sorry, didn't write this portion of the rules
from the rules:" Casemate: An armored enclosure for guns on a warship. This consists of the cupola and armored areas surrounding the cupola on the same deck". As these bases are requyired for the casemate to actually sit on the deck, we have always considered them to fall under the "armored areas surrounding cupola and on the same deck" category, as the alternate interpretation of requiring an area to be penetrable that can not be penetrated is not logical.
Sorry, 16 is pretty clear, as is 11 cited before, and picture that goes along with 16. Going back to my original statement, you could cut it down or hollow it out and claim as a stringer no greater than 1/8" tall, or remove completely, as is violates the portions mentioned without further explanation or interpretation. Small deviation from scale for fair play.
16. On ships which have casemate mounted cannons, the cupolas may be constructed of impenetrable material. A 1/8" wide strip on each side of the cupola may also be impenetrable. If a flat bulkhead area between cupolas is inset more than 1/2" from the edge of the gunwale the entire casemate area (cupolas and all flat bulkhead areas inset greater than 1/2") may be made impenetrable.
If that is the formal interpretation in your area more power to you. We don't interpret it the same way out here, as it requires you to come to the completely illogical construction requirement of having a penetrable area that can not be penetrated nor tested for penetrability due to being too small. I encourage you (the people going to contests) to find out the interpretation of the CD, and deal with it accordingly.
Text is text, sorry. I’d be nice if clouds of ‘interpretation’ were not conjured whenever something is pointed out that’s not in compliance
I still disagree with you, as if you can't test it you can't validate it. so we stand there. Talk to the CD, see how they would interpret it / test it. That is the end of it.
Actually Greg originally did seek input on this several years ago.
Nothing stopping you from drafting a rule change to make your configuration legal
Wow, I can see why so many people don't like posting photos of their ships in public places. Such animosity over a pretty toy boat. The Deutschland, like many German predreads and early dreadnoughts, has a shape of casemate that is not effectively addressed under the current set of casemate examples. Note how every example in the rulebook uses a casemate with a single cross-sectional profile that is nowhere near what the Deutschland or other early German warships have.
Since the ships have
1) been inspected, approved, and battled in the past, and
2) demonstrated no problems with penetrability, sinkability, or over-competitiveness, and
3) the structure is necessary for proper construction
4) the requested change would require extensive rework and loss of integrity in exchange for no actual gain in target area
I intend to stick with the design as presented. I will seek further guidance at Nats, whether that be an improved set of casemate examples or an additional clause allowing the user to apply common sense.