The Ship Model Forum

[quote="DavidP"]the wing turrets' spacing does not look right according to the plans I sent you? what material(s) are you going to make the various decks out of?[/quote]

I took a guess : ) Does anyone know what frame numbers they were close to or centered on?

Hello, all. I'm working on a trio of 3d printed 1/144 scale models of HMS Invincible. I modeled the hull using scans of some of the plans that the Royal Navy museum has online. The first one will probably remain a static model. The second hull is going to be used a a plug for a mold to make copies in fiberglass and I'm planning to add radio control and rotating turrets to the third one. I was given permission to use a model of her superstructure which represents her appearance in late 1914. I'd like for the RC model to reflect her appearance at the battle of Jutland. Are there any pictures or references that would help me update the superstructure details? I'm also wondering if there are good references to the types of ship's boats she'd have carried?

PS. Here's a mock up of the superstructure I'm currently printing.
PPS. I have a thread with more pictures here: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=376344

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Ken who posted in this thread; earlier this year. A great friend of my father, the world gets a little less colourful in his absence and I'll miss the sharp sense of humour! I am not sure that many children of crewmen of these ships remain now, we have the photos, historical record and the memories left behind; but I am heartened to hear the tradition of service continues on in the family. New Zealand was a lucky ship, and I believe his father was aboard her through nearly all the battles in the war. Rest in peace, we will miss you, from those of us in Australia.

biercemountain,

Thank you for confirming my hazy recollection: I am not gaga yet!

I would not like to argue with your Reference but the "low funnels" on German warships seems a bit contradictory: all images of German small and large cruisers, as well as capital ships, that I've seen, show that their funnels were no shorter than any other navies.

Theoretically, any naval architect of the time could have designed a telescopic funnel and a ship yard executed it but how practical it would have been is open to question. Think heat and expanded metal.

That said, the idea of lowering telescopic funnels was intended to "remove" them as an aid to the opposition's using them to establish the inclination of the target: a necessary element in achieving a fire control solution. Someone and it may again have been "Jacky" Fisher, also wanted to eliminate masts, or at least keep the number fitted to just one, for the same purpose.

Be that as it may, weren't the "Invincibles" originally completed with short funnels for the reasons stated before the height had to be increased in order to reduce the smoke problem?

[quote="81542"]biercemountain,

Methinks that it may have been one of "Jacky" Fisher's flights of fancy[/quote]

My source is "The Dreadnoughts" from the Time-Life series "The Seafarers". As you point out the idea was Fisher's but it claims the idea truly was to mimic the low funnels of the German ships and thus give the British ships a few minutes before the spotters realized their error.

How it was supposed to be done in practice isn't discussed. Would the funnels have been quickly lowered upon sighting a vessel or were they just supposed to steam around with them down?

Oh well, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. Could be an interesting modification to a model as well.

biercemountain,

I have a vague recollection of reading something similar many years ago but cannot remember the details. Methinks that it may have been one of "Jacky" Fisher's flights of fancy when he was doing some of his "future thinking" but the idea may have been to reduce the ship's silhouette rather than fool the opposition. He also wanted diesel propulsion but as far as the Royal Navy went, never got it for capital ships.

81542

I was recently surprised to read that these battlecruisers were built with telescoping funnels. It said they could be lowered to fool the lookouts on enemy ships into believing they were a friendly vessel. Can anyone confirm this fact?

I can't imagine the ruse was ever used operationally, or was it?

[quote="mikasa"]With round placement like that, I'm not laughing at anything you do.

I do love me some Albatros. Tell us more about those builds.... (Looks like the upper wing for two planes?)[/quote]

Ah, that target is a 50ft offhand .22 target. I take my post-match used targets and use them to line my airbrush booth. I consider it “recycling” of sorts, LOL. My average was down a bit this season (had to get used to a new CZ rifle).

Albatros? Yes! I’m working on two concurrently with the Invincible. Both are 1/48 Eduard D.III (non OEFFAG) variants. I’m being a bit predictable though by choosing Voss’s “heart” machine and MvR’s “Le Petit Rouge.” I am using 3D decals and photoetch for Voss but photoetch only for von Richthofen. Gonna paint both with oil over acrylic wood grain effect, but MvR’s plane will get a layer or two or dark red (enough to make it obviously red but still hopefully see the wood effect). Attached is a photo showing the underside of the wings (going for a wing tape effect). I hope the moderators don’t mind this wee foray into non naval aircraft!
[attachment=0]DF84518E-8591-44F0-92FD-8984481AEAE2.jpeg[/attachment]

As for Invincible, not much has changed since my last photo: Since then, I’ve painted some small pieces, recreated some lost parts (large mushroom vents) and then fitted all remaining main deck/hull parts. It’s ready for hull rails, gloss coat and weathering. The sea base still needs the white portions of the waves added. I’ll do the superstructure elements as mini builds and add them afterwards (whilst hoping I don’t damage the hull rails!).

[attachment=1]F1173AAC-54EF-496F-9DEA-DE0CE8E0FEB9.jpeg[/attachment]

One thing I botched were the anchor cables/chains. I should’ve scraped them off and used chain or photoetch, but I was lazy and left the moulded plastic bits in place. Hopefully with a bit of paint and a wash it will be okay.

As for this photo, the ship looks very pale, but that’s just due to the flash.

[quote="FW_Allen"]I’m currently working on a Flyhawk 1/700 Invincible model. I’m using it to prepare for my upcoming Flyhawk 1/700 model of Hood. The old Alpha and Omega approach so to speak. I plan to depict the ship as she appeared at the time of the Falklands. I’ve worked out the paint scheme more or less (through posts under camo and paint): she seems to have been somewhat light in appearance with an exceptionally dirty (or is that rust) hull. The planked decks were wood of course and it’s obvious that there would be corticene covering the superstructure decks. The upper masts (above funnel level) should be black, though the exact colour of the structures atop the masts is not entirely clear to me. Painted black or simply grimy due to the tons of coal smoke?

I’ve hit one major snag however: funnel stays. I can work out the rough number and their attachment points on the three funnels, but I can’t see where many of the stays actually anchored to the deck. I’ve seen photos of Inflexible in Ian Johnston’s excellent “Clydebank Battlecruisers” plus the plans in John Roberts’ “British Battlecruisers 1905-1920” and these do show some of the stay anchor positions, but not all.

Can anyone share any other photos/drawings or recommend good publications? Those of you who are Hood enthusiasts know that I’d do the same if the roles were reversed :smallsmile:

I’ve attached a photo of the progress so far. Don’t laugh! I’ve been away from ships for a spell (been doing aircraft for a break), so it’s taking me some time to get back into gear.
[attachment=0]A7F10C0C-554F-4185-984E-DB051F1DE5E2.jpeg[/attachment][/quote]

With round placement like that, I'm not laughing at anything you do.

I do love me some Albatros. Tell us more about those builds.... (Looks like the upper wing for two planes?)

That build is looking good Frank.

I have a link here to a very good model (the builders model?) of HMAS Australia: it may help with general stay arrangement.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM09096?image=1

The model appears greeny-grey with a darker grey, thick bootstrip, and red underneath. Given the recent revelations regarding how Hood was grey/grey black underneath at the time of her loss - do we know the true lower hull colour for the early British battlecruisers?

The following model (builders?) of Iron Duke shows an almost-black grey upper, and light grey underside:

https://www.deviantart.com/rlkitterman/art/HMS-Iron-Duke-619846828

Patches of the superstructure of the Australia model have a darker, more blue grey as well.

(Regarding the thickness of the bootstrip on the model, many Edwardian Australian passenger ships appear to have had a thick Salmon coloured bootstrip above their red lower hulls)

[quote="DavidP"]pm sent.[/quote]
Many thanks David! Response sent!

I’m currently working on a Flyhawk 1/700 Invincible model. I’m using it to prepare for my upcoming Flyhawk 1/700 model of Hood. The old Alpha and Omega approach so to speak. I plan to depict the ship as she appeared at the time of the Falklands. I’ve worked out the paint scheme more or less (through posts under camo and paint): she seems to have been somewhat light in appearance with an exceptionally dirty (or is that rust) hull. The planked decks were wood of course and it’s obvious that there would be corticene covering the superstructure decks. The upper masts (above funnel level) should be black, though the exact colour of the structures atop the masts is not entirely clear to me. Painted black or simply grimy due to the tons of coal smoke?

I’ve hit one major snag however: funnel stays. I can work out the rough number and their attachment points on the three funnels, but I can’t see where many of the stays actually anchored to the deck. I’ve seen photos of Inflexible in Ian Johnston’s excellent “Clydebank Battlecruisers” plus the plans in John Roberts’ “British Battlecruisers 1905-1920” and these do show some of the stay anchor positions, but not all.

Can anyone share any other photos/drawings or recommend good publications? Those of you who are Hood enthusiasts know that I’d do the same if the roles were reversed :smallsmile:

I’ve attached a photo of the progress so far. Don’t laugh! I’ve been away from ships for a spell (been doing aircraft for a break), so it’s taking me some time to get back into gear.
[attachment=0]A7F10C0C-554F-4185-984E-DB051F1DE5E2.jpeg[/attachment]

Hi,

Thanks

Regards
Giampiero

Indomitable's forefunnel was heightened in 1910, Inflexible's in 1911 and Invincible's during her January-February 1915 refit in Gibraltar.

Giampiero,

Add to my last: according to "Breyer" it was "about 2metres." Call it 6ft in Imperial and it will be about right!

Best Wishes,

G

According to Campbell and Parkes, 1910 Indom, 1911 Inflex and Feb 1915 Invinc. No details of the increases in length are given.

Ciao


I was interested in knowing when the first funnels of the Invicible and the Indomitable and theirs were raised and how far the funnels were raised.

Regards
Giampiero

Hi,

How much the first funnel should be raised in 1/700 scale, on the Invicible and on the Indomitable.

Thanks
Giampiero

[quote="DavidP"]I have 16 files at 26.3mb of drawings as fitted for that ship if you need them.[/quote]

Hey, I'll take anything! Shooting you a DM! Thank you.

[quote="Jeff Spencer"]Though this is captioned “Australia”, it is clearly Indefatigable with her high tower of casemate 4-inch guns aft. This, and the Imperial War Museum’s 1915 phot of her from aft, are the only phots of Indefatigable during the war which I have seen, aside from the phots of her end.


https://www.alamyimages.fr/le-hmas-la-nouvelle-zelande-et-l-australie-le-hmas-ww1-image66157600.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=557B41A8-0BCE-44EC-AF2B-BC43ABB40828&p=181734&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dhms%2520indefatigable%26qt_raw%3dhms%2520indefatigable%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d[/quote]

I've managed to secure a full-size copy of this photograph. The collector in question may have more, and of other Grand Fleet vessels that have never been printed. Friend of mine is contacting him for HOPEFULLY a chance to liberate the collection for publishing. Between this, the Jutland photo, 1915 photo, and a pretty accurate line drawing in "British Battlecruisers" by Peter Smith, I have a decent idea of her final configuration. I'm still trying to minimize guesswork.