Re: Torpedoboot V106 in 1:200

[Yevgeniy]

Thanks, Peter,

I also did not like that longitudinal deck camber (thank you for right terminology, I did not know how to tell that). You might be right about the origin of the swell I will stay only with transverse deck camber in this case.

Thank you again,

Yevgeniy

[DrPR]

Transverse curvature is called "camber" and longitudinal curvature is called "sheer" - at least in the US Navy.

I have seen smaller vessels with this type of sheer to the deck - higher amidships than at one or both ends - so the boat may have been built that way. Of course the purpose is to prevent water standing on the decks. Actually, maybe the designers just thought it looked nice.

Larger ships often have sheer with a higher bow and sometimes stern. This is usually on the main deck only, or just the lower superstructure decks.

[Yevgeniy]

Thank you for this valuable feedback. I am still not sure what to do as to the deck sheer of V106 moreover I stick to ingura's expertise on Kaiserlische Marine. I will probably try to achieve deck camber but stay away from sheer - 1/200 is still a small scale to see this sheer as depicted on 3d model - so if it exists it will not be very obvious and if it does not I will be on a safe side.

Thank you again.

Cheeers,

Yevgeniy

[Neptune]

Sheer is more done to protect whatever is stored/placed behind the bow. It creates a higher bow so that the waves don't come straight on deck with only moderate sea. Technically speaking most ships have it as it's a result of the camber. As the bow (and often stern too) arc inwards towards the centre to create their pointy shape, they come towards the highest part of the deck, namely the centre part. By doing so, the sideline automatically gets an upward curve, the sheer.
Of course there is a purpose built sheer too, where also the centre part of the main deck comes up.

The inverse sheer, with the centre being higher than the bow and stern is not so common, but on smaller ships it does happen. Again it's made as a sort of roof for whatever is placed behind it, for the forecastle I mean. It also gives a more aerodynamically sound hull, adding to the speed of the vessel (which was important for torpedo boats).
Just my 2 cents.

[Yevgeniy]

Well, I think we will not be able to solve that unless we see that plan laid in this 3d model.

In order not to infringe any copyrights I will show only 9 ribs running from stem to stern without keel (and showing their place on the keel as well as scale) and 1st two ribs. On this fragment you will see that the curvature of the ribs changes - increases from stern to middle and then decreases to the bow.


It may well be the effect of copy machine as ingura says (you can see that some ribs are not symmetric probably due to copying or it is the overall quality of this 'drawing' ) or it may show inverse sheer.

If this fragment does infringe copyright or does not correspond to forum policy I will delete it (or expect moderators to do it).

So what do you think on inverse sheer seeing this fragment?

Yevgeniy

[ingura]

...

[Yevgeniy]

Peter, thank you again for taking time on this issue - I will do the deck camber without sheer (also taking into account that even if it existed the curvature would be very slight).. This issue is solved now so I will not consider it anymore whatever the case (I am far from doing a museum piece)

Thank you all for taking time. I am now obliged to show photos of my new hull - I need couple of weeks before that.

Cheers,

Yevgeniy
P.S. I have 'corrected' this drawing in Photoshop making ribs symmetric and hull straight I know that it may be different from 'original' but my new 'drawing' is still better than Digital Navy one (it is completely wrong) so it is enough for my first scratchbuild in small 1:200 scale

[DrPR]

Ingura,

You are so correct! I have been building a model working from blueprints from the US National Archives. They are on microfilm, and the cameras used to photograph the original blueprints had some spherical distortion in the lenses so the microfilm images are slightly "pincushioned." In addition, they couldn't get an entire blueprint sheet (up to 12 feet/4 meters long) in a single photo, so there may be six overlapping photos of a single drawing.

To make matters worse, the microfilm digitizer I use also has lens distortion, and I have to copy each microfilm image in four to six scanned images in order to get resolution good enough to read the fine print. I then piece the images together in Photoshop, up to 24 scans to make a single drawing. I use the Warp and Scale functions in Photoshop to correct pincushioning and fit all the parts together. The result is a very good but not perfect reproduction of the original blueprint in high resolution, but in many cases there is obvious distortion.

I have done this for two ships, a Cleveland class cruiser and a Baltimore class cruiser. In both cases the original blueprint hull line drawings were obviously in error. For both hulls the fore and aft station lines drawings disagreed by more than two feet for the width of the hull! This resulted in a one foot "kink" or stairstep in the hull plating amidships - obviously wrong! I discarded the hull lines drawings and worked directly from the Tables of Offsets and Shell Sight Edge tables and reconstructed the hull lines without the errors. The real ships were built from the tables, and not from the drawings.

Finally, the original blueprints were not necessarily drawn to scale - in fact, the general deck plans and profile views often are just sketches, and the dimensions shown are different from the dimensions given on the individual detail blueprints. Add to this the photocopier distortion you mention, and the drawings are of questionable accuracy. For this reason I do not use the lines in the drawings for modeling. I always try to use the dimensions given in the blueprints (or measured on the actual museum ships) and reconstruct the parts to scale.

The errors in the drawings don't matter at 1:700 or even 1:350 scale - they are less than the accuracy you can achieve modelling by hand. But at 1:100 or larger the errors can accumulate to produce noticeable imperfections in the model. At large scales it pays to work by the numbers, just like the real shipbuilders did.

Phil
http://www.okieboat.com

[donalyah00]

I have found a couple of photos in the internet, they might be helpful.
Please note, I have uploaded them only for discussion purposes. If those photos are against forum regulations, I will delete them.

First, a shot of Polish Navy's ORP Mazur - ex.V105 in Puck, Poland soon after "delivery" trip from UK, late 1921. I think there is still original 8,8 cm gun on the foredeck.


One shot of V106 during KM service. Kiel, 1917.


Three shots of ORP Kaszub - ex. V108. Gdansk shipyard, early 1920s. Some details on the deck and rudder are clearly visible.




Sad end of ORP Kaszub - ex. V108. Gdansk shipyard, late 1925, after unexplained explosion.

[Yevgeniy]

Hi, everyone!

It was long-long time ago I started this thread but not forgot about this project. I made a new hull for my V106 as the one done on based on D.Navy plan looked as (I) at the end.

Project was stopped in winter last year because I understood I desperately need a RC boat and started it (I will post photos of a new RC project when I get to the middle of the project - there will be less chances I break a promise to continue ).

Reading new people start V106 I realized I had an update - so here it is. This lovely torpedoboot will be finished...but after I finish my RC dream

Cheers,

Yevgeniy

[Capit�o Norbert]

Hi Yev good pictures

[Yevgeniy]

Thank you Capit�o - your appreciation is another urge for me not to forget this hull in my workshop - will return when I have further progress on it.

Cheers,

Yevgeniy

[Richard J OMalley]

This is a interesting subject .Can't wait to see more .

[Yevgeniy]

Thanks Richard, actually I also can not wait to see more of my V106 - I will remember there is another person who wants to see my ship - so I will continue - but RC guy first (I just dream of going for RC-boating with my ship)

Cheers,

Yevgeniy

[Dave Wooley]

Hi Yevgeiny Just caught up with your post. Will your V106 be R/C or are you looking towards a larger model? Keep up the good work always good to see you posting.
Dave Wooley

[Yevgeniy]

Hi Dave, thank you for your interest in this project, definitely V106 is too small for RC - I work on Stereguyschiy (Sokol type) torpedo boat of Russo-Japanese war in 1:100 which I am going to make RC - I have not made a thread for her as I want to go through a middle of that project before posting photos - I start to become too superstitious with too many models no finished Here is her photo 2 weeks ago

Now I fill her with styrophore (used for ceilings in construction) - no photos so far - but it looks like previous Sokol hull I discarded because I did not use 'slipway' and it got distorted at the end (water containing white glue which works with styropore and similar glues make cardboard used for ribs distorted - I did not want using heavier material for ribs as it is too small ship for ply ribs for instance and it would be harder to cut them)

except that new one is strait at least now - I keep fingers crossed it will remain so

Cheers,

Yevgeniy

[PICKETBOAT]

Yevgeniy

I have been keeping a close watch on this thread and it has been very very help full ,Thanks to yourself and to every one who contributed.
I have spent the last 3 years building V105 in the traditional imperial (and old fashioned) scale of 1/48th and have incorporated much of the information gleaned here. The plug and subsequent glass fibre hull mould I made took 6 months of my spare time. Making vac forming and casting moulds for all the deck detail took another 9 months.
At this larger scale the model (which has just undergone sea trials) performs very well. I have great admiration for modelers like yourself working at very small scales. Even at 1/48th my eyesight struggles with some of the detail.
I too wanted the model to be finished in the early war colours of very dark grey/black with the "much discussed" red/brown anti-foul below the water line. The end result looks very "Teutonic" and on the water, particularly hard to see, which does not help sailing the model at a distance!
What I really want to do now now is to film the model underway in some realistic North Sea conditions (choppy water on a large lake) and post the footage on youtube later in the year.
Have you photos of your model finished?
Can any one else help me identify the strange shaped (some square, some round, some triangular) shapes hung halfway up the fore mast on many of these German destroyers. Were they some sort of identification signal? Should one be on V105.
Keep up the excellent modelling.

Stephen

[Yevgeniy]

Stephen, hi!

Thank you for undeserved praise as I have not proceeded forward with V106 from the stage of the hull building and switched to other projects not least because I understood that I was wrong with making my own drawings of the hull. My main mistake was wrong deck lines (longitudinal curvature) which lead to other mistakes as all proportions of the hull are interrelated. Of course in small scale as 1:200 this can be disregarded. But I really do not know whether I will return to V106 as I started wooden kit of a galleon and it is veeery time-consuming plus I got real drawings of another very attractive Schichau early torpedobooten (called Kasatka serving in Russian fleet - here is its sistership photo http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/03/186/03186001.jpg) somewhat reminding V106 of course very different but you know that having a good drawing is half the business and I really like Kasatka.

I am glad you found this thread to be useful. Would be happy to see your model on water esp. in choppy water when you have the video - hope you will post the link here. At least someone would finish one of those torpedooboots in this thread

Unfortunalely I do not know the reason for those 'shapes' on the mast and also suspect it is a kind of identification.

Thank you for lifting this thread - hope I will see a ready V106 torpedoboot if not at my workbench than at hands of some other happy owner

Cheers,

Yevgeniy

[Richard J OMalley]

I have plans for Buiny and would like to make a hull someday .I am still watching .

[Yevgeniy]

Thank you, sir! That one (Sokol-type) is a must build for me so I will not let myself more projects before finishing others - I have now 3 at workshop

Cheers,

Yevgeniy