Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale

[109]

Hi,

no, these are the covers of the mounting eyes (DIA 120 mm). See the fotos of Bs while still on the slip way. Later on they were sealed with a cover.



PS: Can you send me your postal address, please? Thanks.

[Capit�o Norbert]

Hi,

no, these are the covers of the mounting eyes (DIA 120 mm). See the fotos of Bs while still on the slip way. Later on they were sealed with a cover.



PS: Can you send me your postal address, please? Thanks.

Hum ok
i will sent you p.m.
thank you Bernd

[109]

Hi,

I airbrushed the rudders with RAL 8013 and added some more detail. The anodes will be added later.

Dinner ....

[Capit�o Norbert]

great quality work
outstanding

[Richard J OMalley]

Now that is a rudder .

[109]

Thank you both - the compliment goes right back to you and your models!

I finished the second rudder and made a test fitting of the rudders in their proposed position when they will be permantly fitted into the finished hull ...

Bye!

[Capit�o Norbert]

no words

[109]

Hi,

finished the camber of the maindeck: DIA. 450,18 m; height of camber at center of main frame 360 mm.

Have a nice sunday!

Bye,

Bernd.

[russclark]

hi bernd.i just knew that you would have the camber on the deck.because your hull is so fantastic

[Rafael]

Hi Bernd!

I have been following this thread for a while with interest. Your work is realy outstanding.
When you say that the camber's height at the main frame is 360 mm you mean at 112.30 section ? Is the radius constant from bow to stern ?

Concerning the rudders. I've noticed the filling and emptying thread holes on top and bottom of the rudders, do you know if they fill the rudders with fresh water or oil ? It seems to me that filling the rudders with water they reduce the Archimedes forces on the blades so the trunions are not unnecessary loaded, but the fresh water can corroed the rudders, for this reason I am wandering if they use oil instead.

Keep posting more pictures of your fantastic job.

Rafael

[109]

Hi Rafael,

Camber: yes, correct frame number. The radius is constant a along the ship�s length.

Rudder: the filler and drain screws were for filling and draining the rudder with anti-corrosion fluids after construction/repair/maintanance and also to get water out of it if it should have developed a leak. The rudderes were hollow steel constructions with frames and stringes. If I find more infos on the rudders I will post it here. So check back once and a while!

Bye

[EJFoeth]

I like the idea of the welding seems, however:



they are not so well visible? And I guess even in those days they learned to grind the welds down to reduce rudder drag?

[109]

Hi,

I took the pictures in a way to show the welds in a prominent way. With the naked eye there are much less visible. On some pictures of the real hull and rudders welds are sometimes clearly seen, somtimes they are hardly recognizable ... it may depend on lighting characteristic at the moment of fotography ...

[Capit�o Norbert]

Hi,

I took the pictures in a way to show the welds in a prominent way. With the naked eye there are much less visible. On some pictures of the real hull and rudders welds are sometimes clearly seen, somtimes they are hardly recognizable ... it may depend on lighting characteristic at the moment of fotography ...

yes i one pic saw who show what you saying.
really the welds in the pic i saw show clearly the welded lines

[109]

Hi,

but that foto is a good source for weld seams and how well they could be seen under favourable conditions.

[Rafael]

Hi Bernd and all Bismarck fans!

I have many questions about Bismarck reconstruction, but in order do not make this too boring, I shall make them from time to time. May be Bernd can answer or somebody else who has the original drawings of this magnificent ship.

Bernd, you told us before that you've used the body plan in 1:25 scale from the original drawings and the sections of the ship. Did you find a contradictions on them ? It seems for me that in the body plan the bilge keel area has a different radius than the section at frame 112.3. In such case which one should I take into consideration to make my hull ?

I saw the drawings of the Tirpitz hull from Hans Gally and they show an interesting detail on the bow area. The bottom plates of keel are not straight from bow to stern but has a rising up from the frame 216 in about 140 mm at the frame 239. It was really like that? 140 mm doesn't seems too much for such a big ship? Anyway, what was the purpouse of this rising up of the kell bottom plates? Had the Bismarck the same detail as I am afraid of ?

Another detail on the bow of the Tirpitz called "Schallanlage". During launching such a detail was not there according to the pictures I have, but it could be added later. Was it really there ? and again, what was the purpose ?

Merry Christmass to all. All my best for the new year that is about to begin.

Rafael

[109]

Hi!

Bernd, you told us before that you've used the body plan in 1:25 scale from the original drawings and the sections of the ship. Did you find a contradictions on them ? It seems for me that in the body plan the bilge keel area has a different radius than the section at frame 112.3. In such case which one should I take into consideration to make my hull ?

I used several different sources for the hull. My prime source was the 1/100th scale frame and line drawings. This drawing is also the basis for modeling plans available from GALLY or HARHAUS. I also uesed the construction frame drawings in 1/50th scale, but they are from 1936 and thus contain some old design features, e.g. a 386 mm belt armour (later it was 320 mm thick). So, stick with the GALLY plan for the hull. Then your bilge will be fine, too!

I saw the drawings of the Tirpitz hull from Hans Gally and they show an interesting detail on the bow area. The bottom plates of keel are not straight from bow to stern but has a rising up from the frame 216 in about 140 mm at the frame 239. It was really like that? 140 mm doesn't seems too much for such a big ship? Anyway, what was the purpouse of this rising up of the kell bottom plates? Had the Bismarck the same detail as I am afraid of ?

No, this was unique to Tp, it was not a real design feature, it was a measuring error when the ship yard had to lengthen the slip way to accommodate the large Tirpitz hull � German engineers make as much errors as all others, too!

Another detail on the bow of the Tirpitz called "Schallanlage". During launching such a detail was not there according to the pictures I have, but it could be added later. Was it really there ? and again, what was the purpose ?

Yes, the SCHALLANLAGE or active sonar was there as it was on Bismarck. I am in the progress on researching Bismarcks sonar devices, as soon as I settled on a possible solution I will post infos here.
I attached a photo of Michael Otten�s 1:150th scale Tirpitz hull showing Tirpitz�s sonar devices.

All the best for 2012!


Merry Christmass to all. All my best for the new year that is about to begin.

Rafael[/quote]

[Rafael]

Hi Bernd,
Many thanks for your reply. The body plan in 1:25 is not easy to understand. You can be confused following so many lines, but it show so many details on welding and chines. I check them using GIMP, rotating as necessary to put them straight, then I put my frames and sections in a layer on top, I have to make some adjustments on the armour area but the rest is not bad, very small deviations but anyway is necessary to fair the hull lines later on. Hard work ahead. Thanks for your advice it was very useful.

Concerning the construction frame drawings in 1:50, I hope the only wrong features are the thickness of the armour belt, because I am planning to use them to build the ships interior. Please comment.

Did the measurements taken in the shipyard for the Tirpitz were wrong or the construction was wrong?

Regarding the sonar system on Bismarck class. I know that the Bismarck had the hydrophones in a horseshoe shape at port and starboard as it is shown in the magnificent photo of Michael Otten's Tirpitz model, but this Schallanlage on the bow of Bismarck similar to the Tirpitz... I have never see it in the photos in drydock. Are you sure that Bismarck had it ? When was it installed ?

Best regards.

Rafael

[109]

Hi,

I glued the main deck into the hull � now it starts to look like a ship!

Weight of the hull at this stage 10.1 kg.

I also placed the barbettes temporarily on the deck.

Bye!

[109]

Hi Bernd,
Many thanks for your reply. The body plan in 1:25 is not easy to understand.

Yes, indeed!

You can be confused following so many lines, but it show so many details on welding and chines. I check them using GIMP, rotating as necessary to put them straight, then I put my frames and sections in a layer on top, I have to make some adjustments on the armour area but the rest is not bad, very small deviations but anyway is necessary to fair the hull lines later on. Hard work ahead. Thanks for your advice it was very useful.

Please post some updates on your work, too!

Concerning the construction frame drawings in 1:50, I hope the only wrong features are the thickness of the armour belt, because I am planning to use them to build the ships interior. Please comment.

This and the bow profile above CWL.

Did the measurements taken in the shipyard for the Tirpitz were wrong or the construction was wrong?

The slipway extension was at the wrong angle, not the line drawing of the hull.

Regarding the sonar system on Bismarck class. I know that the Bismarck had the hydrophones in a horseshoe shape at port and starboard as it is shown in the magnificent photo of Michael Otten's Tirpitz model, but this Schallanlage on the bow of Bismarck similar to the Tirpitz... I have never see it in the photos in drydock. Are you sure that Bismarck had it ? When was it installed ?

As soon I setteld on my solution I�ll post it here!

Best regards.

Rafael