My N Scale Ships

[AlkemScaleModels]

Yeah, that's been state of the art for more than 70 years. I'm not sure of the physics of scale testing of naval vessels. I think hydrodynamics are hydrodynamics regardless of media, but never looked into it beyond air and explosives effect (or heavy metals). I know the testing there has been critical to many naval advances. Just am not familiar with how to weight a model hull to mimic the full-scale hull.

Scale models are used to test hydrodynamics and aerodynamics as  long as you consider the appropriate dimensionless scale variable. IIRC the appropriate scale number for hydrodynamic testing of open channel flow is the Froude Number.   In aerodynamics it's the Reynolds Number and Mach number for supersonic flow that are applicable though Reynolds applies to liquid flow too.  Dang, I haven't thought about these things in many years. I'm very rusty on this subject.

BTW I am starting construction of the first ship model for my O Scale layout this weekend. It will be a 1/48th scale waterline model of the USN Passaic in its 1863 configuration. It scales out to 50 inches long and 12 inches wide. One could literally build a oNeTRAK module on the deck of this ship as it is relatively flat.
Here is a photo of the crude mock-up, with a roll of duct tape as the turret. I should put an N Scale car on it for comparison.

[TiVoPrince]

Wondering
if the old school method of vacuum forming styrene could be the answer?  Possibly a great way to create modular bits that combine to make waterline ships in lots of interesting configurations...

[pnolan48]

Good news!

I spent yesterday afternoon and evening searching for the box that held my small ships, unpacking most of the railroad boxes (hence my post in the classified section about fair pricing on engines--didn't know you can't respond there).

I spent last night sleepless that the small box had been inadvertently thrown away. Some of these small ships--the McLane cutter and the yard minesweeper--had taken many hours, as they were built with few tools and materials when I was away from home. And they were the first ships I had extensively researched and tried to model all the clutter that is on a ship.

I could not believe I would throw away this one box! So this morning I renewed the search, and was getting pretty glum when I noticed that my CD storage tower was sitting on top of a box that was precisely the footprint of the tower. I'm a neat packer and also unpacker.

I literally threw the tower aside and picked up the box. Now, this was one of perhaps 1300 items listed on my mover's manifest. For the first time--with the absolute last box, no less--I realized what "CP" meant--"Customer Packed."

But below that was what thrilled my soul. In the mover's handwriting was the word "BOATS."

I knew exactly what was in that box because I had packed it. I ran upstairs to the dining room table--my temporary workspace for unpacking special stuff--and found:

The USCGS McLane
The YMS-39 Yard Minesweeper
The Subchaser
The USGS Achusnet
The second Navy tug
A few bits and pieces to glue unto any of the above missing something.

The damage was minimal--a few secondary posts dislodged, a few lines slackened, a door broken off, a few tiny parts loose in the packing. I picked up those tiny parts with tweezers and thought, Man, I must have been crazy to built THAT!

I'm excited that I can now take new photos of my work. Those who have followed my model railroad posts and articles know that I have a love-hate relationship about photographing my work. But today's cameras, lenses, and software make it almost enjoyable.

Today, for just a few minutes, I admired my small ships, and the work I put into them in a very different time in my life.

And then I sat down in my new computer room in my new house, on a new and spectacular 25-inch $200 HP monitor (Why did I wait!), with my fairly new Silhouette cutter, and cut out the pieces for a hull for a Benson-class destroyer to replace the one I gave away.

This Benson will be great.

Finding that box just reassured me that life is good. . . Tissue, please . . .

[pnolan48]

Wondering
if the old school method of vacuum forming styrene could be the answer?  Possibly a great way to create modular bits that combine to make waterline ships in lots of interesting configurations...

Neat idea that I never would have considered. I tried to make canopies for R/C planes that way back in the 60s, until my mother forbade me from the kitchen and, especially, the kitchen stove. I think maintaining the thickness, and thus the strength, would be troublesome. But let's face it: all casting and forming operations on the onesy-twosy level are more art than science.

I'm not sure about the modular idea. There is, obviously, commonality between hulls. I've found a 240' minesweeper that is virtually identical from the forecastle break forward to a 346' Benson-class destroyer. Why re-invent the wheel? thought the designers, Cox & Gibbs.

However, buyers for the bigger ships, I think, will know the differences in hulls and other parts of a particular ship. I'm trying to lower the cost of purchasing a ship without going overseas. But most ships would still be a big-ticket item for all but a few railroaders. When a model gets past $250, it has to be prototypically correct.

I apologize if I'm talking this subject to death.

[One of One-Sixty]

Nimitz class would never go to Philly Naval Yard .. they are nukes, and the only nuke qualfied yard is NNSY and Newport News ..

You will be more accurate with one of the older carriers - JFK is currently there

Thanks John for that tidbit, its a bit ironic considering the history that surrounds the Philly Navy Yard, and its involvement in the birth of the nuclear program for vessels as well as its hand in the Manhattan Project.  But then again, it does not surprise me considering that they was trying to close it down as early as 91.  Now it is basically a place ships go to die.

Now Willow Groove NAS will be closed and re-aligned to become the PA Air National Guard

But since I am modeling the PRR in the late 1990-present anything is possible including a modern and bustling Philly Naval Yard, which along with the old Naval Aircraft Factory turned into a fully operational facility to pay homage to the rich history that the Navy had in Philly.

[jmlaboda]

Would be interesting to see how easy it would be to convert the Nimitz to the Eisenhower... I wa on Ike '79 - '81... it was one of the best experiences of my life!!!{/i]

[John]

Would be interesting to see how easy it would be to convert the Nimitz to the Eisenhower... I wa on Ike '79 - '81... it was one of the best experiences of my life!!!{/i]

Shouldn't be that hard .. when built, they were pretty close to class .. some minor difference topside ..  however, after the 1st gulf war, they started adding all kinds of stuff ...

[sixpakpop]

Shouldn't be that hard .. when built, they were pretty close to class .. some minor difference topside ..  however, after the 1st gulf war, they started adding all kinds of stuff ...

Bridle arrestors. Nimitz had 3. 2 off the bow and one off the waist cats. Eisenhower had 1 off the bow only. Was an "I Like Ike" guy from '80 (the IO Cruise) to '84.

[pnolan48]

Over on the Weathering, Detailing, Scratchbuilding . . . forum, I've posted a number of times about using a digital cutter, in this case a Silhouette, to cut parts for ships.

Here are the first results of MSO-438, US Esteem, a 173-foot wooden minesweeper in 1958 form. I started with the USN Booklet of General Plans, which did not specify much about the sections. At the bottom is the first prototype, more a quick feasibility study as I didn't pay close attention to the proper width, height and shape of the hull sections.



In the middle is the second prototype, where I almost got the sections correct, but made the hull far too undercut. I also blew the bridge, but that is reparable.

At the top is a third prototype, when I actually started studying photos and found a square-off stern rather than a curved one. I think the WWII metal hull Admirable-class, on which this wooden class was loosely based, had a rounded stern. I made the hull slightly fully.



This is a closer 3/4 bow view, and the bow may still be a little sharp. Every part was cut with the Silhouette. You might be able to see that porthole and door locations are scribed into the plastic.



And this is a 3/4 stern view. There are still a few places where I have to add a millimeter or so.

This was made entirely of .020 styrene, which is sufficient for a ship of this size. I ran out of .010 styrene which I will use to show the shallow recess along the hull. Once I'd got the drawings down, and some experience with the cutter, I was very happy with the precision, and the far less time it takes to cut and built it to this stage.

I am thinking of building five or ten of these, fully detailed, for sale.

[John]

Bridle arrestors. Nimitz had 3. 2 off the bow and one off the waist cats. Eisenhower had 1 off the bow only. Was an "I Like Ike" guy from '80 (the IO Cruise) to '84.

yea .. those were probably the biggest differences between those two .. the differences were more obvious on the TR ... I was Nimitz from 80-84

[pnolan48]

Roger,

I build what is called a waterline model. I add just a bit of height to the hull for pouring "water." Most sets of plans indicate the plan of the hull at the waterline, but it can also be determined with measurements between the profile and sections.

Many kits can be built as full- or waterline hull. I've sliced off the below waterline of one hull with a razor saw. Or you could put the full-hull ship into drydock. What ships did you get?

[Rowan]

Beutiful ships mate.

 

[pnolan48]

To continue on the fleet review, here's the second freighter I built, modeled from a drawing of the 1957 fast, refrigerated Rio DeJaneiro. It has more modern cranes. The tugs are purchased items from Savon Arts--very good for the price, which I think was about $25. It's named Sarah Adams, after my second oldest daughter. I'll have to take a few more pictures of her, as she wasn't bad for a second attempt done from one drawing.

[pnolan48]

Those are oldies, probably more suited to HO or, if they are 1:125, TT. I've found that ship hulls (nevermind the superstructures) don't scale very well. That is, a 200' foot hull in 1:125 scale is not convincing as a 260' foot ship in 1:160. Perhaps my eye has become too trained, as I find 1:144 and 1:192 ships just wrong. Which leaves me a lonely paddler building ships in 1:160.

[pnolan48]

I do love the ads that come up on this thread.



Not sure this will show up but, wow, wish I could afford one stanchion on that one.