Shipbucket

haha you were not certain about if it was correct either, Hood?
anyways, damn fine drawings there, of quite interesting ships

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Ace: "not certain about if it was correct either, Hood?"
But it is not possible to know what "correct" might be for a 'neverwere', at that stage of development.
Let me see if I can explain that pessimistic statement, reviewing the actual design process for these ships. It would be a lot easier if I knew how to post a few typical drawings on this site, but I shall have to manage with words.
As briefly as I can, the end result is that Hood's Shipbucket drawings give his good impression of what those designs would have looked like if completed as shown by the sketch plan at that stage. That is the drawing on page 2 posted by Hood on 20 Oct 2013.
That drawing is a scan of a photograph of the sketch plan, published in Warship 1997. The photograph shows two deck layouts as well as the profile. Its background is uniform light grey, the lines dark grey rather than black. The apparent shading towards the bow in the posted drawing is a result of light leakage in the process of scanning from the book. I know for I did it for another site. The ship is about 6in long in the photo, but the original drawing was 1/16in = 1 ft and so for a 515ft ship it would have been about 32in long, but showing no greater detail than that shown. It was probably a blueprint (judging by the photo's grey background with some evidence of folds to fit an envelope). Hood had only the posted scan to work from. Official drawings were not concerned to show the appearance of a finished ship, but only to illustrate variations subject to question at the stage reached.
That represented the stage a little later than the beginning of the design process, early in 1929, at which choices were being made between five designs differing in armament and protection. The sketch designs were requested 15 Dec 28 and the first conference held 30 Jan 1929. There were presumably five drawings, (though not necessarily, as Design 1 could well serve for discussion of Design 2 and at a push all could be discussed on the basis of those for Designs 1 and 3 which were published in Warship.) the sketch plans would be expected to show a ship which would be stable and float level, which was influenced by the actual disposition of armament, engines, fuel etc. The sketch design might need to be revised to match the standard Form A "Legend of Particulars and Estimate of Weights" when the design was submitted for approval by the full Board of Admiralty.
What I need to do now for a complete picture is describe how all this fits into the design process, which began with a Jan 1929 Staff Requirement for a 30 knot 6000ton ship with 3x2 6in, passed through Board Approval before detailed plans were prepared and construction began and ended with the completion of Leander in 1933 at 7300tons, 4x2 6in, 32.5 knots.
Typically, the very first stage might be accompanied by very simple outline drawings only a few inches long. The final stage would be a set of 'as-fitted' detailed plans usually 1/8in = 1ft sent to the shipbuilders to use for the actual construction. There might be other sketch design drawings if there were significant changes after the early design conference. Such an 'early Leander' late in 1929 was published in the Warship article. The ship at that stage was more like Leander but with a rather slimmer funnel. Design changes during construction were not unknown, but needed Board approval.
None of those Warship diagrams give much idea of hull form, having but one half profile, a basic U shape, roughly amidships. It would be usual, for the purposes of estimating power/speed requirements, to choose a hull form already tested in the Haslar tank. In this case, with length/beam about 10, that would probably have been the D or perhaps the E cruiser form. The final hull form would be determined from model tests once the length and beam had been set by the size needed to accommodate machinery and armament and maintain stability.

I am familiar with that process, smurf, as it still works the same these days, and I am learning that exact trade
if hood had a main cross section with enough shape to work from to represent that part correctly, it can be shown quite exact in sb scale. especially with complex torpedo and armoured belt profiles, sometimes this is even required. when little information is present though, it might sometimes be better to revert to a basic style of representing the hull to make certain that that what is drawn is correct. I think this is the process hood followed

it might, on the other hand also have been something to stop me from nagging about the hull shading which I hope is not the case here.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

" that process, smurf, as it still works the same these days" That's true only in a very general way, isn't it, with modern computer design and redrafting tools, compared to 1930. Much can be done today, with minor variations and multiple copies of drawings produced in hours or even minutes, which would have taken up a draftsman's time for days then.

Hood had only the part of the sketch design posted on p2, with no information about hull sections, detailed or not.
The hull half-section on the profile in Warship shows no detail. There are a few words annotated to it, but I can't read them for certain even with a strong lens. I think the horizontal top is labelled lower deck and the right hand side vertical is 'bulwark' and the scale 1/8in = 1 ft. There is another figure which I think is an armour thickness.

"better to revert to a basic style of representing the hull to make certain that what is drawn is correct."
When what is drawn has not yet been determined in detail, I fail to see how you can know that a rendering 80 years later serving another purpose and based on limited information is "correct" - unless you just mean "appropriate in a Shipbucket rendering"?

Hood: "Shading fixed, gone back to basic shading for these ships." I didn't see what was 'fixed' but I can see no way of deciding between any two reasonable alternatives from the information actually available to Hood from 1929. I think he has done a remarkable job based on a limited source. I say that from the great similarity between his Design C and the Warship picture of Sketch Design 3.
To make my point from another direction: the minutes of the Jan 1929 conference say
"Catapult. This was accepted without discussion." It is therefore impossible now to be sure what type of catapult was intended, and so possible but fruitless to argue whether or not Hood's more detailed rendering is 'correct'. [You could conduct that discussion on the basis of what catapult was actually mounted in Leander, but Leander was 1300 tons heavier and at least 30ft longer. Although a heavier type was desired, Arethusa had space to carry only a lightweight catapult, but she was 15' shorter than Design 4 and would have been 20ft shorter still except for her unit machinery layout.]
I think people sometimes expect too much from Shipbucket, just as some do from Springsharp. After all, if I've understood it correctly, it's a bit like a very detailed meccano set. It's style is very recognizable and can be readily differentiated from real ships.
But I've had my say now. It's time I went back into retirement!

I mean the initial design process. we still start with a basic linedrawing and a set of basic calculations. making the design somewhat more detailed and refined can be done much faster, but the first setup is still much the same

the change in shading was the difference between the basic sb style, showing the hulls outline to one showing the hull shape a bit (http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... f=5&t=5460) that is all.

all that said, you have made some interesting comments here and I do not hope you are leaving sb again into retirement

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I second Aces request.

You are too young for retirement!!

Your help on the UK threads that are currently being worked on is invaluable.

The hull shading issue is very minor, differences in artistic opinion, it does not affect the drawing.

Smurf, I hope you do stick around. I'd certainly value your comments on my 1914 programme Royal Sovereigns (Resistance, Repluse and Renown) which I've had to put together with even sketchier material, just text descriptions.

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

Following further information from Smurf the Design 3, 4 and 5 have been redrawn (sorry guys they look even uglier!) but all have some refinements such as higher masts etc. Page 1 has now been fully updated.

The pre-Leander design will follow later on.

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

Not sure what to say, really impressed by the research that goes into doing such designs.
JSB

I am so glad the final designs of the Leander morphed into such lovely looking well balanced ships as the Leanders. The follow on Amphions were even better looking and in my opinion were the nicest looking of the 6" cruisers. Without question those early designs could easily fall in to the category of the worst looking of the 6" cruisers, these were just butt ugly, that funnel and bridge combination, ugh.

Your drawings of them are quite good too