Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 6th, 2012, 10:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
It does look great, but are you sure about the underwater hull? I recall that the Counties had four stabilizer fins on either side, with the stabilizer "wing" cut up between. Would you mind showing your evidence for your choice?

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 8:18 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1315
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
bezobrazov wrote:
but are you sure about the underwater hull? I recall that the Counties had four stabilizer fins on either side, with the stabilizer "wing" cut up between. Would you mind showing your evidence for your choice?
You are sure Bezo :?:
Look these 2 drawing source
One show any stabilizer
[ img ]
Another one show the stabilizer :?
[ img ]
:?


Last edited by Colombamike on October 7th, 2012, 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 9:12 am
Offline
Posts: 6512
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Colombamike hits the problem right on the nail.
Like the Type 82 I found conflicting drawings. In Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates there is a line drawing of Batch I with no underwater hull, a line drawing of a Batch II clearly showing only the one single bilge keel (as shown on my profile). The Jacobin plans above have one of the four stabiliser layout - the other shows nothing. I found no other side plans which even showed an underwater section. I do have a cross-section from the Falklands Anniversary edition of Navy News which shows the four stabilisers.

My concern is whether only Batch I ships had them or not, or whether they were later removed. I can easily put the four stabilisers in. I just wish RN underwater views weren't so damn hard to find to clarifying what is going on. I've even hunted for dry-dock photos! Any sources to confirm are most welcome!

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 10:17 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1315
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
Hood wrote:
I've even hunted for dry-dock photos! Any sources to confirm are most welcome!
:?
HMS Glamorgan
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 1:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Hood, I quite understand the dilemma. However, I cannot see that such an advanced - and weight critical design as the Counties would've been without stabilizers. The British, in fact, in the 1950s were leading pioneers in fitting the variable stabilizer fin systems to both warships and merchant ships; the S. S. Oriana and S. S. Canberra being well-know cases. I've used the latter Jecobin plan to alter your Norfolk into the HMS Glamorgan as post-1982 refit. Would you like me to send a copy of that to you? I won't post it here, since I've adapted it to my private, aestethic preferences, so it won't fulfill the SB-requirements. (It has never, though, been intended for public showing anyways!)
As for the dock yard pic, on a closer examination, it does show the broken stabilizer wing area, with the fins presumably either retracted into the hull (for protection) or simply removed for dock yard purposes. A comment on the first Jecobin drawing: I believe it is similar in case as some of Alan Raven's drawings, which often shows a very bare underwater hull outline. In other words, it ought not to be taken literally!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8445
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O-ck0pBXvGE/S ... +copia.png

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 7th, 2012, 2:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Yup, Heuhen, I did use those as a reference too. Did forget about them though, when writing my earlier post.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4125
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
All images so far show batch 2 ships only. The problem is with the batch 1 ships which are shown in Jacobin's plans without ant stabilizers at all.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 8th, 2012, 8:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
I have a hunch that the eminent 'ood will sort this out to perfect satisfaction. :D

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: County Class DestroyerPosted: October 8th, 2012, 11:11 pm
Offline
Posts: 2845
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Given how many stabilizer sets were required, and the degree to which they would complicate machinery layout, it seems unlikely to me that the Batch II ships would receive stabilizers in a way that did not so change their layout that it would be visible above decks.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Return to “Real Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]