Jump to content

1/350 Furious hull options


Recommended Posts

Hi All, 

 

As much as I'm currently working on something which life has forced a short stall to of late, it doesn't stop me planning future things. So I've always thought HMS Furious and her half sisters were interesting looking carriers following their conversion. From looking at a lot of photographs and some dimensions I've wondered about using other kits as a base. 

 

From the look of the bow profile and comparing dimensions the hull doesn't actually look that dissimilar to HMS Repulse, granted bulges' are different but the dimensions are nearly spot aside the draught. I'm guessing the RN was reusing parts of designs for speed by the time these were being drawn up.

 

Anyone explored anything along these lines before? I've seen a few tentative discussions but no overall outcomes, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday S-boat, building a model of HMS Glorious off a 'Repulse' hull is on my to-do list, but that's as far as it's gone, an idea only at this stage. If it ever goes ahead my build will be 1/600 though, the donor kit being Airfix. As far as I know HMS Repulse was eight feet longer than Glorious, which equates to 4 mm at my scale. I think I can live with that and not risk the hull by shortening it. Repulse had a beam of 90 feet, Glorious 81 feet but was bulged out to 90 feet during her conversion to a carrier - perfect. As to whether the bulges are the exact correct shape, I'll go with what I've got.

     As I said, this is an idea only right now, but if you go ahead with your planned build I'll be very interested in following it. HTH. Regards, Jeff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

Hi All, 

 

As much as I'm currently working on something which life has forced a short stall to of late, it doesn't stop me planning future things. So I've always thought HMS Furious and her half sisters were interesting looking carriers following their conversion. From looking at a lot of photographs and some dimensions I've wondered about using other kits as a base. 

 

From the look of the bow profile and comparing dimensions the hull doesn't actually look that dissimilar to HMS Repulse, granted bulges' are different but the dimensions are nearly spot aside the draught. I'm guessing the RN was reusing parts of designs for speed by the time these were being drawn up.

 

Anyone explored anything along these lines before? I've seen a few tentative discussions but no overall outcomes, 

I took a different route in 1/350 and utilised the hull of the truly horrendous Lindberg HMS Hood (supposedly 1/400). This hull has no bulges and scales out pretty well for  HMS Furious/Glorious/Courageous. It needs adjustment to the profile of the bow and extreme stern (plastic card inserts and Milliput putty) and the flare of the bow (Milliput to the lines provided by a new deck).  Otherwise, it matches available plans pretty well, and bulges can be added depending on time frame. 

 

I currently have 4 under construction, which from the rear are:

 

Furious (1917)

Glorious (1935)

Courageous (1916)

Furious (1939)

 

spacer.png

 

As you can see from this photo, the match to the deck plans is pretty good. The bow adjustments are still visible on three of the ships, and the stern adjustment is visible on Courageous. I found the plans differed at the stern between these ships, though whether this is due to a difference between the ships at various stages, or differences between different plans I was unable to verify. 

 

I still have another Lindberg kit, which I was going to model as Furious (1918), but I haven't managed to touch these three for about three years. I'm waiting for one of them to feature in the Original Builder's Plans series.  The kit contains no other useful item other than the hull - the rest I consigned to the bin. But it does have the advantage of being available very cheaply, when you can find it, as it has such a well deserved reputation. 

 

I really do need to get back to working on at least one of them. 

 

Edit

I've just seen that a 1/350 SS.Zero airship has been released.

 

https://www.classicairships.com/website-exclusives/s-s-zero/

 

This might be just the motivation I need.....

 

HTH

IG

Edited by iang
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday S-boat, building a model of HMS Glorious off a 'Repulse' hull is on my to-do list, but that's as far as it's gone, an idea only at this stage. If it ever goes ahead my build will be 1/600 though, the donor kit being Airfix. As far as I know HMS Repulse was eight feet longer than Glorious, which equates to 4 mm at my scale. I think I can live with that and not risk the hull by shortening it. Repulse had a beam of 90 feet, Glorious 81 feet but was bulged out to 90 feet during her conversion to a carrier - perfect. As to whether the bulges are the exact correct shape, I'll go with what I've got.

     As I said, this is an idea only right now, but if you go ahead with your planned build I'll be very interested in following it. HTH. Regards, Jeff.

Renown and Repulse AS BUILT had a beam of 90 feet. BUT in 1918/20 Repulse and 1923/26 Renown had their hulls bulged and the beam was increased to 102 ft 8 in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Ewen, thanks. I got my measurements from a site as I was typing the post above, and although I thought it was a bit narrow I didn't check further. I guess it pays to check more than one reference if possible. Regards, Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iang said:

I took a different route in 1/350 and utilised the hull of the truly horrendous Lindberg HMS Hood (supposedly 1/400). This hull has no bulges and scales out pretty well for  HMS Furious/Glorious/Courageous.

Hi Ian,

I have never considered looking at other scales for donor kits for my scratchbuilds, so thanks for that heads up.  The Furious class of converted carriers are missing in my 1:350 carrier builds; however, you have now got me wanting to start researching and planning one.:book:

 

cheers,

Mike

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EwenS said:

Renown and Repulse AS BUILT had a beam of 90 feet. BUT in 1918/20 Repulse and 1923/26 Renown had their hulls bulged and the beam was increased to 102 ft 8 in.

This brings up an interesting point about the differences between the dimensions of Glorious, Courageous  and Furious. The former pair had a beam of 81 feet, the last a beam of 88 feet. Unfortunately, manufacturers of waterline kits of Furious have taken this to mean that the hull should be a scale 7 feet wider. In fact, all three had the same beam at deck level but Furious had deeper bulges, which is invisible unless one builds a full hull model.

 

Maurice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Thanks for replies, handy to know that they were actually all the same beam wise Maurice, 

 

iang - four on the go at the same time that's a challenge, interesting idea about the hood hull idea, 

 

The problem with all these ideas is they're easy to have but hard to follow through, 

 

I'm trying to get hold of the profile warship editions that cover HMS Furious, did find them on evil bay but in Canada and I'm always apprehensive about buying from abroad,

 

Sam

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, S-boat 55 said:

'm trying to get hold of the profile warship editions that cover HMS Furious, did find them on evil bay but in Canada and I'm always apprehensive about buying from abroad,

Sam, I'm currently researching Furious myself in order to design a 3d printed version of her in the 1918 refit - I've a spare copy of the Warship Profile 23 'First Eight Years' for her if it is of any interest to you?

 

Am next door in Ireland so postage shouldn't be too mad.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Try poking “HMS Furious” into the title box on the abebooks.co.uk website (resisting attempts to autocorrect to “he’s”, “his”, etc): UK dealer currently offering both Warship Profiles at £5 each.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheBaron said:

Sam, I'm currently researching Furious myself in order to design a 3d printed version of her in the 1918 refit - I've a spare copy of the Warship Profile 23 'First Eight Years' for her if it is of any interest to you?

 

Am next door in Ireland so postage shouldn't be too mad.

 

That's a very kind offer thank you, I'll drop you a direct message,

 

Sam

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Hi, quick question to those who know, in the warship publication which has been very kindly supplied to me, it has sections denoted with different numbers, unfortunately there's no corresponding long section with frame numbers so knowing the position of said sections relative to the length is uncertain. There are twelve sections in total which are profile only each with a number, the first few are 20, 40,60,74,81,96 and so on. Would those be frame/station numbers? If so did the RN use a standard distance between them maybe starting from the forward perpendicular? 

 

Thanks, 

 

Sam

 

 

 

 

Edited by S-boat 55
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sam,

 

Those numbers would be the frame numbers and they would start at the forward perpendicular (FP) which is Frame 0.     Unlike U.S. warships, which tended to keep frames at equal distances (at least in the one's that I have researched), British built warships were framed differently.  As an example,  HMS Ark Royal IV had varying distances between frames.  I haven't got the details to hand but I seem to remember that Frame 0 to Frame 25 was 3ft apart and then there were a few frames at 4ft, with some being 6ft apart.

I shall have a look through my research stuff in the morning and see if I can find any details on how the frames were set up on HMS Furious.

 

cheers,

Mike

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

Hi, quick question to those who know, in the warship publication which has been very kindly supplied to me, it has sections denoted with different numbers, unfortunately there's no corresponding long section with frame numbers so knowing the position of said sections relative to the length is uncertain. There are twelve sections in total which are profile only each with a number, the first few are 20, 40,60,74,81,96 and so on. Would those be frame/station numbers? If so did the RN use a standard distance between them maybe starting from the forward perpendicular? 

 

Thanks, 

 

Sam

 

 

 

 

Sam, I'm presuming the publication is Warship Profile 23, if so the position of the corresponding frame numbers of the half sections on P251 is shown on the colour centrespread immediately below the main side profile.

Frame numbering can be from Forward Perpendicular (as in this case) or Aft Perpendicular, frame spacing varied depending on a number of factors including amount of local strength required, internal equipment fit, bulkhead positions etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look through various resources and found the following text:

"In cruisers and larger ships the spacing of the transverse frames varies from 4ft. to 6ft., in destroyers from 1ft. 9 ins. to 2ft. 6 ins., and in frigates from 2ft. 6ins. to 4ft. 6 ins."

 

Those dimensions for cruisers and larger ships wasn't always true though,  I mentioned that HMS Ark Royal IV (laid down 1943) had varying transverse frame spacings.  Checking my records I have found the spacing on her to vary between 2ft 0in; 3ft 0in; 3ft 6in and 4ft 0in.

 

These variances are also backed up with this image for a cruiser, showing frame spacing of 3ft 0in and 4ft 0in.

 

spacer.png

 

HTH

 

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

Sam, I'm presuming the publication is Warship Profile 23, if so the position of the corresponding frame numbers of the half sections on P251 is shown on the colour centrespread immediately below the main side profile.

Frame numbering can be from Forward Perpendicular (as in this case) or Aft Perpendicular, frame spacing varied depending on a number of factors including amount of local strength required, internal equipment fit, bulkhead positions etc.

Thanks, I've no idea how i missed that, looked and looked thinking surely it must be somewhere, turns out it was

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bootneck said:

I've had a look through various resources and found the following text:

"In cruisers and larger ships the spacing of the transverse frames varies from 4ft. to 6ft., in destroyers from 1ft. 9 ins. to 2ft. 6 ins., and in frigates from 2ft. 6ins. to 4ft. 6 ins."

 

Those dimensions for cruisers and larger ships wasn't always true though,  I mentioned that HMS Ark Royal IV (laid down 1943) had varying transverse frame spacings.  Checking my records I have found the spacing on her to vary between 2ft 0in; 3ft 0in; 3ft 6in and 4ft 0in.

 

These variances are also backed up with this image for a cruiser, showing frame spacing of 3ft 0in and 4ft 0in.

 

spacer.png

 

HTH

 

Mike

Thanks for taking the time to look that out for me, you have to admire how the navy wasn't too concerned with standardisation 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, S-boat 55 said:

Thanks for taking the time to look that out for me, you have to admire how the navy wasn't too concerned with standardisation 

Hi Sam,

 

it wasn't so much the Navy as the civilian shipbuilding companies designers, draughtsmen and the methods employed to forge and cut metal etc. that decided how a ship was constructed. There could be two or more ships built as sister ships and, to all intents and purposes, were identical; however, being built in different shipyards meant that different working practices were employed.  Each company usually had a long history of shipbuilding, dating back to wooden ships, and their methods of design and construction eminated from that.  They could also be constrained by those methods, thereby company A might forge, shape and cut their steel plates differently from company B etc.  Being private companies, and in competition with each other, they tended not to share details of construction. A similar constraint could come from the engine and boiler builders and the method of construction and insertion into those ship's hulls.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...