The Ship Model Forum

Tzoli!-- that is a great image ! I wish I had had that 16 years ago when I built mine


Agree lino on bridge platforms , not sure about entire sheletrdeck

the triple mount guns, empty shell casings cascading down etc
I think Lino may be sub-optimal.? (

what about the coir matting?

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=33009&start=20#p615290

( I think the white stuff on aft deck, riifs of buildings and turret tops is light snow...)

of course--maybe we will never know :big_grin:
I do have a few nice images that you might not have

send me a PM or an e-mail to
jbyachtservices////////@//////gmail.com

( remove diagonal slashes !! )
and I shall send what little I have
====================================================================================================

my lino distribution belwo


[img]http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/hms/Courageous/700-amw-jb/images/Courageous%20finish22.jpg[/img]

My friend found a very rare aerial view of HMS Courageous which apparently shows the shelter deck being covered in Linoleum while the Main and Forecastle deck seems like steel indeed!
[attachment=0]Courageous 4.jpg[/attachment]

Okay, apparently these are indeed steel decks with I presume dark grey paint, while the original plans called for Linoleum which layout was shown in my previous post eg vertical lines with a few horizontal ones

As I recall, those areas just painted steel, and not linoleum (or whatever material) coated. They're obviously not wood planked. Aren't those for foot traction for the sailors working in those areas? Not for basic walking, I mean for heaving on lines, working the anchors, etc. Every few feet there's a raised bar affixed to the deck to brace your foot against.

- Sean F.

the class was -relatively -lightly built--and known for buckling deck plates * when the main guns were fired

therefore not efficient for their purpoise
hence conversion to mine-layers, carriers etc

To my eye the strip look to be too large to be lino holding down strips--ala IJN ships
and also a mst pecuiar pattern--all lii usually being laid in a rectangular format

theses diagonal strips have ends inboard of the longitudinal--which would leave an 'open' lino joint

To my eye-- :wave_1: ---it looks like ' strip metal' deck plate bracing *--as the strips are much higher than I would expect
a lino-holding-downs strip to be

The Battle Cruiser Repulse also had deck bracing in a similar vein on her foredeck

note the similarity of the diagonals fwd

Just a thought...
:wave_1:
JB

[quote="FFG-7"]they work for you as saved on your computer as cache or whatever but others cannot see them til you posted them differently so other people can see them now.[/quote]

Well I logged in on a different PC (Different OS, Network etc) and it still works.
But I re-upladed them so should work now.

they work for you as saved on your computer as cache or whatever but others cannot see them til you posted them differently so other people can see them now.

Photo of Glorious shows what looks like the Linoleum deck with the pattern shown above
[img]https://i.imgur.com/qU8SUw9.png[/img]
Same for Furious:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/aNuIE40.png[/img]

To me the links are working showing the images and the IMG tag worked as well

HMS Courageous From Burt’s British Battleships of WW1:
[attachment=0]Courageous 0.jpg[/attachment]
HMS Glorious plans shows the original but not implemented deck plan:
[attachment=1]02 - upper deck.jpg[/attachment]

interesting

I am though not convinced that the lino was fitted, I reckoned( on my model)

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/hms/Courageous/700-amw-jb/index.html

that is was painted steel
I shall be interested with your findings

this does not look -- to my eyes -- like lino near the aft turret

Does anybody know what was the Linoleum deck colour of these light Battlecruisers in their original pre carrier form? Especially of that HMS Furious?

My friend could only provide this:
"The deck was almost certainly intended to be linoleum, but I have no idea as to what colour it might have been. I have always assumed some sort of brown colour to more represent the traditional wood it was used instead of: But I don’t know for sure. I would expect that a very dark colour as shown in the photo linked to have publicly raised the hackles of the traditionalists, but I am unaware of any resultant comments made about the colour. Looking at the black and white photos in Burt’s British Battleships of WW1, it seems that the linoleum colour is of a somewhat darker shade than the traditional deck planking but nowhere near as dark as shown in the linked drawing. I am attaching four photos. The first is from Burt’s British Battleships of WW1 and shows the pattern of the installed linoleum on the quarter and forecastle decks of Courageous. The other three photos are of the Courageous ships plans and shows the linoleum covering the same decks. The pattern shown is different from what was installed (I see some photos of Courageous’ decks which confirms the pattern Burt shows)."

The photo in question is this drawing which shows a very dark deck colour:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/HMS_Furious.jpg

For some time now I have been planning the construction of a 1:700 scale model of Furious as completed as a seaplane carrier My first thought was to use one of Admiralty Model Works's kits of the half-sisters, preferably starting with Gglorious, since there is no minelaying gear on the quarterdeck. I was thrown off for quite a time by the difference in beam between Furious and Glorious: 88 feet versus 81 feet, which is 1/8-inch when working in 1:700 scale. I then thought of backdating the Loose Cannon 1918 Furious, since this would have the slightly beamier hull.

While working on this, I noticed that, while Furious had a greater beam and larger displacement, it drew a foot less, and began to wonder why. I was able to access the body plans for Glorious and Furious as designed, and started making measurements. As far as I can tell, the beam on the upper deck of both ships is identical. The difference in beam is entirely below the waterline, where Furious has anti-torpedo bulges that are four feet deeper than those of its half-sisters. This also would broadly explain why Furious draws less water. Unless I am wholly mistaken, this seems to clear the way for using the Admiralty Model Works kit as a basis.

I converted my [i]Glorious[/i] to the 1917 fit:

[img]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/glorious/glorious03.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/glorious/glorious01.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/glorious/glorious07.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5042:2017-11-11-10-14-34&catid=112[/url]

The search light platforms were modified, as were the masts.

Martin; thanks for the tip; Mark will print them for $10 plus $3 shipping.
[quote="MartinJQuinn"][quote="varifleman"]Hello Jim; excellent work. Do you have instructions or a program that will print the excellent deflection scales hat you can share?[/quote]
[url=http://starfighter-decals.com/][b][u]Starfighter Decals[/u][/b][/url] did a set of deflection scales at one time. Contact Mark Tutton at Starfighter, he may be able to print for you to buy.[/quote]

[quote="varifleman"]Hello Jim; excellent work. Do you have instructions or a program that will print the excellent deflection scales hat you can share?[/quote]
[url=http://starfighter-decals.com/][b][u]Starfighter Decals[/u][/b][/url] did a set of deflection scales at one time. Contact Mark Tutton at Starfighter, he may be able to print for you to buy.

Hello Jim; excellent work. Do you have instructions or a program that will print the excellent deflection scales hat you can share?

Tackling Furious Carrier ver by loose cannon here. Q regarding the superstructure, is furious's much different to her sisters? The 2 kit parts on top of the conning tower (what I call oreo pieces) looks a little odd to me as they appear wider than from photos and has wrong shaped/number of baffles

Is there any documented difference in this level compared to those of her half sisters Courageous/Glorious? I'm tempted to scratch build based on the dimensions of the admiralty model works kit parts, would that be a good idea?

Hi,

In British battleships of WW1, Burt has under Appearance Changes after Jutland while still under construction... Other modifications included:
Steel strips (Etna) and coconut matting to weather decks and other positions as applicable, 9 tons added. Another name for Coconut matting is coir matting.

Here is a poor photo I took of a picture hanging in Edinburgh Castle
[attachment=2]Courageous Dry Dock from Edinburgh Castle sm.jpg[/attachment]

Here is the same picture by WW1 artist Charles Pears from the IWM collection
[attachment=1]Courageous Dry Dock Charles Pears sm.jpg[/attachment]

Note the brown coconut matting next to the mine laying rails. Anyone for Coir Brown decks?
[attachment=0]Coir Matting sm.jpg[/attachment]

Cheers,
George

[quote="Gerarddm"]Well, I have just started in on [i]Courageous[/i], and have two questions for fellow builders, or Pavel if he's listening:

[i]A) PE part 27 is a hull paravane I believe, but this part has an attached ladder to it. Yet the drawings and plans show this same paravane without any such ladder extention. Which is correct?[/i]

Is it a frame to store the fitting on to? Or is it a ladder to access to paravane? While some where lain on the deck in a frame of sorts, some where fixed onto the ships superstructure.

[i]B) The box top art and the elevations show a vertical strake on the hull port and starboard, lined up with the rear of the tower. This strake looks like it ends in a small deck box. Query: there is no part for this strake, and no mention of it in the plans themselves. So, what is it? Maybe I should just fabricate a pair our of sheet styrene?

Sounds like a gash shute fixed on either side.
[/i][/quote]