The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Richard J OMalley wrote:
Glen
Cool now but soon to be hot . :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:


I test ran the port propulsion system last night and it's way more finicky than the starboard. I built the engines identically so I'm thinking that it just needs a longer run-in and more adjusting. When you see the movies of sailors constantly wandering around the steam engines with wrenches and rags, that's not for show! You keep steam engines running through sheer force of will and constant tinkering.

I will not be running the engines in the boat until all the wood is completely sealed and finish-painted. These little suckers throw a lot of spray laced with steam oil!

UPDATE: Solved the problem. The jam nut had backed off on one of the connecting rods, allowing the piston to rotate in the cylinder. It kept unscrewing itself until the piston was banging on the cylinder head. Pulled the head, reset the piston, locked down the jam nut and everything is fine now.

On the second test run I got 45 minutes of actual running time using a mixture of idle, ahead slow, full speed, etc. That was running the sight glass almost empty under load, so I will limit run times to 30 minutes.


Last edited by Glen the Rotorhead on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:36 am, edited 3 times in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
NukeMM wrote:
Glen,

Just for scale's sake, could you get your hand in a photo with the boilers just for something to compare the size of them with?

Thanks,


Here you go Carl!

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
This is one of the more fiddly phases of construction and I'm glad it's over! The hawse pipes angled up and in, exiting inside the forward compartment where the anchors could be raised and lowered by an internal capstan. Reports were that the ship was so far over weight (170 tons!) that the hawse pipes were usually submerged when underway, which must have made for very soggy living conditions for the crew, because the area where the capstan was located was also the crew area. I partially solved the expected alignment problem by putting holes in the three forward frames, which set the proper angles for the pipes. Then it was a matter of adding the filler blocks sequentially and drilling with a 12" x 1/4" drill from both ends to get the pipes to exit where they were supposed to.

Image

Image

At this point with the filler blocks just roughed out, the whole front end is looking very bug-like! This area of Keokuk was a fully flooding compartment designed to lower the ship's profile for battle. Of course they all turned out to be flooding compartments.


Last edited by Glen the Rotorhead on Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:20 am, edited 3 times in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:11 pm 
Offline
Back-Aft Models
Back-Aft Models

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:44 am
Posts: 2970
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
THANKS, GLEN!! :rolf_3:

Glen the Rotorhead wrote:
NukeMM wrote:
Glen,

Just for scale's sake, could you get your hand in a photo with the boilers just for something to compare the size of them with?

Thanks,


Here you go Carl!

Image

_________________
Carl Musselman
(Formerly Back-Aft Models)

Image

Photobucket
https://app.photobucket.com/u/carlomaha

YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcH4XXgrwKkhbIHgFtIYhAg


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Rudder Linkage
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Image

A minimalist linkage appropriate for a minimalist rudder. The rudder is so small as to be almost useless so I have set up the engines to steer with the screws; kind of like driving a bulldozer, which is also appropriate in this case.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Image

Here are the port side filler blocks almost complete. Once I finish glassing this structure, I will install hull plates of scale thickness and shape. I will probably use 1/16" basswood, although I still haven't totally ruled out sheet aluminum.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:46 pm
Posts: 1012
Glen
You are doing a excellent job on a interesting subject .Hope you don't mind me putting this photo on your build but here is a painting of USS Keokuk taking a beating about 600 yards from Ft Sumter
Image

:thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
If you are not living on the edge then you are taking up to much space


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Richard J OMalley wrote:
Glen
You are doing a excellent job on a interesting subject .Hope you don't mind me putting this photo on your build but here is a painting of USS Keokuk taking a beating about 600 yards from Ft Sumter
Image

:thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:


Thanks Richard. Dowdey is my favorite Keokuk artist. I do believe that he shows Keokuk too close to Sumter and too far up the channel. But it makes for a dramatic image! Below is closer to what I think it really looked like when Weehawken's advance stalled at the marker buoys and the battle line piled up behind her. Keokuk would have proceeded a bit further, getting caught in the crossfire between Sumter and Moultrie. Her armor was totally unsuited for plunging fire from heavy ordnance, which had been noted by her chief engineer before she was placed into service when he advised to keep her away from shore batteries. Turns out he was right! Things would have gotten exciting had she been held in reserve to deal with Palmetto State and Chicora, since she was designed to be a ram and had twice their speed and half their draft. I think she probably would have sunk both of them.

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
I have finished fiberglassing the hull in 4 oz. cloth and added the main deck. The deck has the correct number of armor bands made out of basswood. I will now start adding the casemate armor bands to the hull. Also note the discrepancy between the shape of the deck and the hull at both the bow and stern. I have not come across any definitive information as to whether the deck was rounded at the ends or pointed. The engineering drawings show rounded but when you actually use them, the deck at the bow and stern wants to be pointed. Contemporary engravings show both versions, so they are no help. The main argument for going with the rounded deck is that on the inboard profile of the Corbett drawing, assuming that the stanchions at the bow and stern are set at the same spacings as the rest, the spacing as shown would indicate the sharp turn of a rounded deck, not the gradual turn of a pointed one. A pointed deck would have also severly reduced the internal headroom in the forward compartment, right where the anchor capstan was located. And probably even more important, a pointed deck at the stern would have reduced the headroom in CDR Rhind's quarters!

Image


Last edited by Glen the Rotorhead on Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:11 am, edited 5 times in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:54 pm
Posts: 652
Location: Mudgeeraba, Qld Australia
Hi Glen,

Your workmanship is beautiful, a real sight to behold, well done and thank you for sharing. :woo_hoo: I can't imagine the bravery and confidence it takes to put something hot and hissing inside a small wooden ship.......

As a US historical buff, I wonder if you can answer a question that came up during one of the many silly season BBQ's attended during the holidays.

As the US was originally a British Colony, one would have "assumed" that US warships would have shared many of the Royal Navy traditions, one of which was, of course, alcohol at sea. Do you know when it was that the US Navy went to "dry ships" and what caused this to happen?

Andrew
:wave_1: :wave_1:

_________________
Ex RAN. Anzac, Duchess, Vampire, Yarra, Betano, Bombard, Brisbane, Swan, Melbourne (Carrier), HMS Leander


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Ticonderoga wrote:
Hi Glen,

Your workmanship is beautiful, a real sight to behold, well done and thank you for sharing. :woo_hoo: I can't imagine the bravery and confidence it takes to put something hot and hissing inside a small wooden ship.......

As a US historical buff, I wonder if you can answer a question that came up during one of the many silly season BBQ's attended during the holidays.

As the US was originally a British Colony, one would have "assumed" that US warships would have shared many of the Royal Navy traditions, one of which was, of course, alcohol at sea. Do you know when it was that the US Navy went to "dry ships" and what caused this to happen?

Andrew
:wave_1: :wave_1:


Thanks for the kind words Andrew. Keokuk lends itself nicely to steam because it was so open to outside air. e.g., gratings on the turret tops, open at the bottoms and plenty of hatches.

As for alcohol in the USN, it unilaterally abolished in 1862 but kept sneaking in and out to some degree. The history is so convoluted I will just provide the link:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq32-1.htm

Happy New Year!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:54 pm
Posts: 652
Location: Mudgeeraba, Qld Australia
Hi glen,

Thanks for the link, it will help settle some debates with mu colleagues :big_grin:

Good luck with the build, I will follow with interest.

Andrew
:wave_1: :wave_1:

_________________
Ex RAN. Anzac, Duchess, Vampire, Yarra, Betano, Bombard, Brisbane, Swan, Melbourne (Carrier), HMS Leander


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Starting to fit the gunports to the turrets and doggone if I didn't get the gun decks set at exactly the right height! Don't you love it when a plan comes together? :big_grin:

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:25 pm 
Offline
Back-Aft Models
Back-Aft Models

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:44 am
Posts: 2970
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
Glen the Rotorhead wrote:
Starting to fit the gunports to the turrets and doggone if I didn't get the gun decks set at exactly the right height! Don't you love it when a plan comes together? :big_grin:



Like a Glove!

Sweet! :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Carl Musselman
(Formerly Back-Aft Models)

Image

Photobucket
https://app.photobucket.com/u/carlomaha

YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcH4XXgrwKkhbIHgFtIYhAg


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:51 am
Posts: 2407
Location: Belgium
Quote:
Don't you love it when a plan comes together?


Yes I do, it just never happened to me. For you it definately did. Great job so far. This is quite an interesting project!

_________________
The merchant shipyard


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
The hull is not as smooth as hoped (is it ever?) but nothing that can't be fixed with some more bondo and primer.

Image

Shafts, struts and props test fitted.

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:30 pm
Posts: 5386
Location: Nr Southampton England
EXCELLENT WORK!!

What a beautiful hull shape!!


JB

_________________
....I buy them at three times the speed I build 'em.... will I live long enough to empty my stash...?
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

IPMS UK SIG (special interest group) www.finewaterline.com


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
JIM BAUMANN wrote:
EXCELLENT WORK!!

What a beautiful hull shape!!


JB


Thanks Jim and I totally agree on the hull shape! She was a ram that unfortunately got labeled as a battery. She was ready to be built in 1861 but was rejected and the Monitor was built instead. Had she been built and sent to Hampton Roads instead of Monitor, history would have been changed as she would have quite handily rammed and sunk Virginia. The same would have been true in Charleston Harbor with Chicora and Palmetto State. All three had half the speed and twice the draft of Keokuk, even on her worse day (she wound up way over design weight.) Instead DuPont chose to let Sumter and Moultrie rain heavy caliber shot down on her very think flank and deck armor, and now all she does is snag shrimp nets in the Main Ship Channel.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 107
Starting to lay the deck armor plates. Fact: Keokuk used countersunk 1-1/8 inch dia. bolts on 12 inch centers to attach the outside plates, making for a smooth outer skin. Conjecture: I went with 36 inch by 96 inch deck plates and 36 inch by 180 inch casemate plates with factory installed perforations and used some more "shipyard forensics" to determine the bolt pattern since the only original drawing I have found is just a sectional view. I determined that a full run of bolts on the center of each plate would have probably weakened the armor even more. I believe the casemate plates were one-piece because there are no horizontal butt lines shown on the engraving made shortly before launch, but the artist faithfully reproduced the correct number of vertical butt lines and also the lower hull stiffening strakes. I am making the bolt holes with a hand punch and if my math is correct, I only have around 9,500 more to go...

Image


Last edited by Glen the Rotorhead on Wed May 29, 2013 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 8:02 am
Posts: 1
Hello! I'm a new boy in this board, name is Taeyun Kim of the south Korea.
Your job made me the first log-in on this forum.
This is the most amazing modelling job I've ever seen, especially installing the 'live steam engine' - the Shock!
I guess you established perfect plan for this model, while the most builder start their work by improvising.
I found some 'valves' attached on the pipework, are those working part of the engine or replica?
I look forward to the day when this monitor ship goes to the water.^^

_________________
http://grecore.blog.me/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group