The Ship Model Forum

DariusP, no mistake is present, you are absolutely right.


Here, as funnels on original drawings look.
Though here, IMHO, other extreme measure - BORODINO's funnels is too short.




As you can see, width of funnels at BORODINO it is valid less, than at other ships (13' - 1 15/16" and 14' - 0").
I cannot tell yet why so it has turned out. Probably, the reason that at BORODINO there were other machines and boilers, than by other ships.
The quantity of air which is passing through the boilers depends on height of a funnel. Probably, for boilers of this type, such height of funnels was sufficient, аnd by other ships, with boilers of other type, the height of pipes should be increased..

I agree that Borodino funnels in this drawing look indeed to be too short but you are an amazing guy Kronma coming up with a wonderfull stuff which I have never seen before! Where did you get hold of drawings of Oriol and Borodino WITH MEASUREMENTS???? Do you have any more drawings of Borodino and/or Orel with measurements in your archive? Those drawings could help to anser so many unresolved questions!

BTW those feet and inches in the drawings of funnel bases are the same as feet and inches we use today?

In any case, thank you very much!

It's the copies of original drawings, 1900-1904.
I bought them in the Central Naval Archive and in the Central Navy Museum in St. Petersburgh, Russia.

How would I go about buying a set for myself? Is it at all possible?

I think, that indeed.
Compare to this photo.





Unfortunately, I do not know.
At the moment the Archive is closed - it moves in a new building.

Kronma,
thanks for the post about the Suvorov turret, yes it would be difficult to ask her to take her hat off you have a lot of good material on these ships. It is clear that there were railings and netting running between the sighting hoods. But they look a different height to the one in the previous photo, almost waist height rather than just above knee height, is it Aleksander III too? Or could it be Suvorov?

And thanks for the material on Borodino's funnel, it was good to see evidence that Borodino's funnels were skinnier than the others. I never thought there would be anything to indicate that they could be skinnier.

I had contacted the St. Petersburg museum a while ago but have not had a reply. If they're moving it would explain the delay. Hopefully they'll be in their new premisies soon.

One more BORODINO's photo

Well, there is nothing to it but wait until they re-open

But maybe you will be able to clear up a couple of things for me? Have you got any idea what were the sizes and positions of cabins on Borodino's main bridge conning tower platform and chart house platform?
For example original drawings seems to suggest that chart house was closed at the back but Malkov draws it as having 3 walls and open back. He also draws the cabin behind the chart house and being much wider than chart house while original drawings suggest it was narrower....

Pay attention, that it is two DIFFERENT state organizations - Navy Archive and the Navy Museum.
Both are in Petersburg. The Archive is closed (crossing), the Museum - works, but nothing changes it, unfortunately.
They are not engaged in SEARCH and the ANALYSIS of drawings. They only KEEP them…
And to analyze it is necessary, because, only in official in funds of Archive 1874 drawings on the ships of BORODINO-type are stored. And among them - preliminary projects, the various variants changed and cancelled drawings. In general, that is not useful at construction of model since mismatches a final kind of the ship.
Therefore, to choose the necessary drawing, it is necessary to look through tens similar, to compare them to photos, and only then to do a copy of the necessary sheets.
If I am not mistaken, as Archives in the world work all.
So, be not surprised, that you have not received the answer - if in the letter concrete numbers of drawings (codes) hardly, someone will select for you materials have not been specified. Alas…
And one more moment … Pay attention, that to Russia it has not been written ANY book about the DESIGN and the device of the ships of BORODINO-type. This theme demands processing huge quantity graphic both photo-features, and greater expenses of time and money. Meanwhile, anybody from authors was not solved on it…

Kronma,
thanks for the reply, I was assuming it was the archive of the museum that was moving.


I know what you mean about having to sort through 10's of ship plans to find the one you're after.

Which would you recommend as a source of photographs, the archives when it re-opens or the museum? Good quality pictures like the ones you are posting are very difficult to find where I am.

Thanks
John

Roman1 I am hoping to get the Slava book and can try to get you a copy if you like? "pm" me if you're interested....

A card model of her or Tsessarevich would be very interesting!!
Thanks
John

Forgive, and what means "card model"?



If to search for photos - that, certainly, the Museum.
Drawings and documents, among which there is a correspondence " About construction " the ships, are stored in Archive. There too there are photos.

Hi Kronma,
card (or paper) models are what are sold by navarin.ru, for example

http://www.navarin.ru/product_info.php/products_id/572

I thought it would have been difficult to make Slava or Tsessarevich in card because of all those curves, but if they can make HMS Victory or Belle Poule in card, then maybe not..

Thanks very much for the info about the museum, I will try there.

Best wishes
John

I believe, you know, that 152-mm gun turrets for the ships of BORODINO-type have been designed and constructed at two different factories - Putilov’s and Metal’s. Therefore, the design and appearance of towers differed.
By these drawings and photos, (it seems to me), that the "Т" shape was at the ORYOL and BORODINO.
On SLAVA, rellings also had the "T" form, but were noticeably smaller height.
Though, that the nobility precisely, it is necessary to look Albums of drawings of turrets. They were kept.

I am still trying to work out just what exactly is this "T" you guys talk about? Shape of the railing on secondary turrets in plan view?

Here is some additional data to Kronma's post:

305mm turrets of "Borodino", "Orel" & "Slava" (as well as "Retvizan" and "Potiemkin Tvarichevskij") were build at "Metal" factory and 305mm turrets of "Suvorov" and "Aleks.III" at "Putilov" factory

152mm turrets of "Borodino", "Orel" & "Slava" (plus 4 "Bogatyr" cruisers) were of "Metal's" factory construction while those of "Suvorov" and "Aleks.III" were "Putilov's".

It seems clear to me (and supported by Kronma pics) that while "Metal" 152mm turrets did have "T" shape railing and (less clear) that the "Putilov's" ones had had different shape in "Suvorov" and different in "Aleks.III".

Yes, I speak about it.





It agree, too so it seems to me. Though, I cannot find an explanation, what for so have made...

LOL that's more like a "mushroom" that a "T"

And yes, the shapes of railing on Suvorov turrets seems to be like the one in the second or (depending on the photo you look at) third picture in your post. But I am really puzzled by Aleks.III... In your photos of her 152mm turrets I can see at least 3 different patterns of railings:
1- pic in top left hand corner (high railing, perfectly circular, no gap for sighting hoods),
2- 3rd pic from the top in the left hand row (high railing, not a perfectly circular (less stanchions?), no gap for sighting hoods),
3- 2nd pic from the top in right hand row (shape looks close to pic 2 in your post above post).

Very curious!

Oh, certainly!!!
Certainly - a "mushroom-tipe"!



Really, curiously and strange! By one ship - different turrets.
I shall try to find the Album of drawings of the Putilov's factory.
Perhaps, there there will be an answer to this riddle.

I'm not sure how you can tell it's perfectly circular from that angle.

Sorry John since the turret top was an oval, "circular" was a wrong word to choose Still, I have done a little photoshoppig... The bottom pic is horizontally flipped top left corner one. So now angles are much more similar and I still see the difference! Doesn't the bottom one look more perfectly eliptical than the top pic?