HMS Naiad revisited

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:30 am

Hi Tommy, work is sadly slow due to my dry dock being subject to angary (he he, how is that for a word of the week!)

But the first coat of filler should go on this weekend.

Interesting enough I have posted how much difficulty I have had with ripples on this build, even abandoning my first attempt. I started to put the plans onto CAD and found to my extreme annoyance that when the transverse bulkheads are plotted and then matched to the side elevation (I scanned the plans) they don't fit properly. The 3D image I ended up with had - ripples!

The height of the tranverse sections simply do not marry up to the side elevation of the ship. The bulkhead plan shows the main deck of the ship is level apart from a slight rise prior to the ramp to the raised foredeck. But when laid out along the line of the keel on the plan you end up with a very pronounced angle down to the stern. I found this when building and corrected it by gradually raising the bulkheads on the keel toward the stern on the first attempt, assuming I had made a mistake, it left me with an uneven stagger which translated as a ripple when the ship was skinned.

This go round I put the deck on first then attached the bulkheads to the keel, when all was done I found the bulkheads were actually "pulling" the deck down so the ripple was now on the deck, I corrected it by sawing through the bulkheads and splinting them until the deck was true again.

Hindsight is wonderful, I should have mated the bulkheads together and checked the keel and sheer lines prior to assembly, it just never occurred to me there might be errors in the plan. I still don't know which is actually true, the side elevation of the tranverse bulkhead plan, I just know they both can't be.

Post by **Dave Wooley** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:06 am

Hi Middle Watch You are experiencing the wonderfull world of scratch building were if it can go wrong it will . The only way to learn is to make plenty of good mistakes then you remember well.
Dave Wooley

Andy G · Post by **Andy G** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:56 am

middle_watch wrote:...my dry dock being subject to angary (he he, how is that for a word of the week!)

I had to look it up! Rest assured that it's been added to my mental Scrabble dictionary.

middle_watch wrote: Hindsight is wonderful, I should have mated the bulkheads together and checked the keel and sheer lines prior to assembly, it just never occurred to me there might be errors in the plan. I still don't know which is actually true, the side elevation of the tranverse bulkhead plan, I just know they both can't be.

I'd put more faith in the side elevation than I would the transverse sections. Easier to draw, for one thing. And the long run of the keel and sheer lines would suggest that the greater accuracy lies there: taking off vertical measurements for use in the sections would allow errors to creep in. I betcha!

On a slight tangent, it might seem counter-intuitive to think that you can improve upon drawn plans when re-drafting them (especially in terms of scaling up) given that in an analogue world each generation of copying leads to more errors, and when scaling up the errors are magnified, but I think it's possible - I've spent weeks of calculator-bashing with HMS Dreadnought's lines taken from the AotS book, working to station lines at my chosen scale, conforming to how the original was built (i.e. hitting accurately scaled feet and inches) compared to the scale given in the plans in the book (i.e. often "out" by a few fractions of a millimetre at 1/384th). But I'm now confident that I have a plan, elevation and hull sections which:

1) Are accurate to within a millimetre or so (under three inches at a full-scale size) - basically as good as I'm going to ever get it. And:

2) Agree with each other, within my measuring abilities - so any combination of two of the plan, elevation and sections can be used to produce the third.

All that said, you guys are building and I'm still handling a pencil.

Andy

Post by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:03 pm

Hi Andy G I' can't draw to save my life and at times I wish I had the skill to use CAD but my mental proseses are still in the dark ages.
Dave Wooley

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:43 am

Unfortunatly I have no decent dry dock view of a hull to check if the deck does angle down to the stern or not, it is the nature of a dry dock of course that getting a side view is almost impossible.

Anyway, the hull does now match the side elevation as the bulkheads have been doctored to make it so.

right, managed a couple of afternoons off this weekend so some progress has been made. On the previous build I simply slathered on the entire contents of a 1200ml tin of filler and ended up with one heavy hull, so this time I followed the admiral's advice and applied thin coats, in fact I cautiously made the first coat no more than a scraping...

My spreading is a bit rough, did ask the wife for help since she can make the icing smooth on a cake, but she wanted to coat it in marzipan first and I was not sure what that would do to the sea keeping qualities!

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:46 am

You can see I have not yet trimmed off the fibreglass yet.

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:50 am

I then sanded smooth and trimmed off the fibreglass at the at the rounded edge of the deck with scissors and sanding.

The darker areas on the hull are blobs of resin being smoothed also.

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:56 am

I started to apply the second coat in small batches, this was as far as I got before work phoned and hauled me back in. Here I sit now and probably will be here all night, sigh.

ARH · Post by **ARH** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:58 am

Now were getting there, thats a nice first layer of paste, give it more sanding and then another coat of paste, very thin, looking good,

ARH

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:03 pm

As you can see from this picture of HMS Bacchante in dry dock the bow of the Leander is razor sharp and a tough proposition to model! I have a long way to go yet.

Out of curiosity anyone recognise this dry dock? The crane is not the usual type seen in the RN dockyards and the dock seems very shallow.

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:04 pm

Cheers admiral!

TommyL · Post by **TommyL** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:23 pm

Firtst coat looks good keep going.

Seems funny that everyone across the pond has a nice garden and patio at their homes.

Post by **Timmy C** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:26 pm

Just be glad it hasn't been raining for 28 consecative days over there

Victorious · Post by **Victorious** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:09 pm

middle_watch wrote:Out of curiosity anyone recognise this dry dock? The crane is not the usual type seen in the RN dockyards and the dock seems very shallow.

Well

It's DEFINATELY not my Drydock

Mines made of wood and doesn't have a crane.

Nice work so far middlewatch, just keep applying thin coats, sanding in between and it will soon start taking shape.

TommyL · Post by **TommyL** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:08 pm

Im not sure if trying to use body filler to get that sharp bow is going to be the best way. Filler is strong but does not like being bumbed much.

I just want to throw in my 2�. You do not have to do what I say but maybe I can help stimulate your mind to figure out a better way.

Art · Post by **Art** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:57 pm

I *was* going to post a pic of the final plunge for this ship, pyrotechnics and all, but thought better of it.

Too depressing to see her go to her final rest as an artificial reef. After so many years of service, to finally surrender last month to a fireworks finale. Better than the breakers yard I suppose.

*&^%**!!! greenies!!

Art · Post by **Art** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:02 am

Out of curiosity anyone recognise this dry dock? The crane is not the usual type seen in the RN dockyards and the dock seems very shallow.

IIRC Looks like the RNZN Calliope Devonport drydock, Auckland, NZ.

HMNZS Waikato ex HMS Bachante. R.I.P

( I stand to be corrected by any officianado. Have not looked up my references.)

middle_watch · Post by **middle_watch** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:46 am

Ah, that would explain it, in which case she in her guise as the Wellington, my mistake. And thanks, I was wondering if it was a civilian yard, they have been used on occasion. I think I am right it was Wellington? Waikato was purpose built for the RNZN

I agree on the putty shaping, my intent was to get the shape right and then flense away a thin layer and replace with aluminium sheet, just in case there are any Thors or Baldurs lurking on the local duck pond!

I did debate originally something similar Tommy, I wondered if a line of nails driven into the bow would form me a suitable skeleton, but decided all I would do is split the ply keel, never thought of your solution, maybe next time, thanks.

Art · Post by **Art** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 am

>>Ah, that would explain it, in which case she in her guise as the Wellington, my mistake. And thanks, I was wondering if it was a civilian yard, they have been used on occasion. I think I am right it was Wellington? Waikato was purpose built for the RNZN

My bad. Yes it was the HMNZS Wellington ex HMS Bacchante and not the Waikato.

A video stream of her last days and sinking can be seen here: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/629493

Victorious · Post by **Victorious** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:10 pm

What a sad end, to another great warship. Why couldn't they have preserved it for everyone to see, instead of just the piviledged few, who can aford to go diving and pay outlandished prices for the oportunity.
That guy certainly had his homework done, by making a killing out of auctioning off all the stuff on her and will no doubt make lot's more from people who want to dive on her. Typical entrepaneur, just out to make money, without any interest into the history of the ship, and her part of British and New Zealand heritage.