WW1 version Queen Elizabeth class battleship hulls?

Does anyone know of a manufacturer of the "as built" Queen Elizabeth hull? I know there are some bulged versions out there, just curious to the availablity of the original. Thanks!

 

I could be wrong, but I think Ralph Coles made one.

 

I think his QE hull mold was sold.

 

I thought it had bulges too. It would be great if it didnt though, I think I know someone who might be interested in a unbulged hull.

 

I only know of two QE hulls and I'm pretty sure they're both bulged.

 

If I remember correctly Doc in the IRCWCC had one of Ralph's QE hulls. It was a bulged hull. I know Marty built a couple of wood Warspite hulls that were WWI.

 

no fiberglass WW1 and I don't recomend. I built that version and it does not turn near as well as the bulged versions.

 

Oh, yes, I have built 4 versions of the Warspite.

 

For Treaty the unbulged version gets more speed, which is useful situationally.

 

Yes it is. Plus it can be used in out Jutland Battle.

 

Interesting that the non-bulged version didn't turn as well as the bulged version. I wonder why. Do you think that was due to hull shape in particular, or might there have been other variables, like different propulsion setup, allowed speeds, weight distribution, etc?

 

Wider ships turn better. cet. par.

 

Remember the old Pontiac commercials? Wider is better!

 

Yes, but.... to what extent? Certainly our hobby's "tribal knowledge" states that, given two otherwise perfectly identical boats, the wider one will turn better. I'm very interested, though, how much better, and more importantly, why?

Just to give you an idea why I'm asking, I once compared two Scharnhorsts. Both originally built by the same guy, but one had been refit by me, which included an extensive re-ballasting of the ship. Side-by-side, my ship had half the turning radius and took much less time to complete the turn than the other Scharnhorst, and that was almost entirely due to better weight distribution. Putting all the lead in the center of the boat, then moving it slightly forward or back, instead of trimming it with little pieces at the extreme bow and stern was all it took. the science behind turning a ship is actually very complicated once you start seriously investigating it. I'd like to know what other people have discovered, and how well that matches with my own experiences.

 

I have noticed this also Kotori.Craig and myself built two identical bismarck class ships but mine had a better turning radius than his.I always wondered why this happens and the only thing I could come up with was rudder placement and weight distribution. Its fuuny how two ships of the same class turn differently.

 

Length to beam ratio is what I am told.

 

As anyone who has paddeled a canoe will tell you it is a matter of weight. The boat will always try to turn at the balance point. A canoe with weight in the front is a bear to turn,place the weight in the back and it will turn on a dime.

 

Hull shape and weight distribution are main factors but not the only factors. It's more complex but to keep it very basic weight distribution is the main key. Center of the boat should have most of the ballast and the bow and stern ends should have the same amount of weight or slightly more in the aft end than the bow. The model will turn much better. Some ships have very little weight in the bow and stern or none in the bow and just a littel in the stern with the main ballast on teh ships center.

 

Just browsing on the Bismarck/Tirpitz site and I came across this picture of a model of the Warspite refit version in 1/128 scale here is the link
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/british_models/queenelizabethantrobus.html

 

Nice model