Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2023, 10:35:58 AM

Quote from: seadude on November 16, 2023, 06:51:26 AMHmmmm. Zipang vs. Habakkuk? No contest. Zipang would totally beat the Habakkuk. 

Depends how many bombers carrying BIG bombs the Habakkuk could get off the deck before the Zipang got within gun range......................

Not to mention the wings of torpedo and dive bombers carried aboard

Ok, so both the 1/350 scale Habakkuk prototype and a 1/350 scale German WW2 Type VII C u-boat are done and both will eventually be added to the display base next to my Habakkuk model in the future.
The sub was a 1/350 scale Revell kit. The torpedo did not come with the kit, but I thought it would make a nice addition for scale comparison.
The sub was not my best work.    Too many fiddly bits and too small for my eyesight to work with. But, I managed as best I could.
Next up on the build schedule will be a small cross section showing the interior of the Habakkuk vessel. That will probably take multiple posts to explain and show.

Looks good

Earlier in Post # 45 on Page 4 of this thread, I explained briefly about how I (and the media) got the interior of the Habakkuk wrong by thinking there were upper/lower port and starboard aircraft hangars when in actuality the sides to the left and right of the central crew spaces was really a "resin/honeycomb" construction made up of concrete, regular ice, or other materials to help with the Habakkuk's buoyancy and structural integrity.
The below first diagram which shows port and starboard aircraft hangars is wrong. And any other artist concept sketch or drawing that shows the interior this way is wrong also. This image was found/part of a 2 to 4 page article in the Illustrated London News, Pages 14 and 15, Saturday  March 2, 1946, No.3071, Vol. 115 or 118?
I'm guessing the article (and any drawings within) were written after a press release was made to the public and the media in 1946 about Project Habakkuk. And as usual with the media, they probably got some aspects of the Habakkuk wrong, either intentionally or accidentally.
The second picture below dated July 5, 1943 is part of an official proposed set of blueprints where you can clearly see it says "Resin construction" on either side of the central crew spaces.
The third to eighth pictures below show my preliminary progress on making the cutaway cross section for my Habakkuk display. The section will not be very "thick". Only about 3" inches. It's possible I may use styrofoam to create the 40 ft sections of pykrete wall. I'm not sure on this yet. As for the central crew areas, there's not much information to go on about the dimensions of that area. The second picture below of the proposed official blueprint does give a total width of 60 ft for the central crew/storage/machinery areas, but it does not give any dimensions for how high each deck/space should be. When you take away the 40 ft for the top/bottom of the hull (80 ft total), that leaves about 120 ft high to play around with for figuring out how high each central crew deck and machinery space should be. I'm thinking maybe 10 ft high for a standard crew deck? Further compounding the problem is that there was supposed to be aircraft storage in the central area as well. So now I have to figure out what the heights of various aircraft are in order to figure out how high an aircraft hangar should be. Oh, and now that I think about it, does anybody else think a aircraft hangar/storage area that is only 60 ft wide may be too narrow for aircraft to move around in? I mean, aircraft in that wide of a space are going to have to have foldable wing systems. Does anybody have statistics on what the dimensions were for width of hangars on British carriers or American Essex class carriers?

That last picture makes that torpedo look as if it's amost 40 foot long 

Gondor

Quote from: seadude on November 18, 2023, 12:36:23 PMDoes anybody have statistics on what the dimensions were for width of hangars on British carriers or American Essex class carriers?

This link lists hangar heights for both Implacables and Essexes: https://www.armouredcarriers.com/were-the-armoured-carriers-worthwhile.  Navypedia lists the full flavor of Essex variant dimensions, as well as Implacable
Essex: https://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_essex.htm
Implacable: https://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cv1_implacable.htm

Quote from: scooter on November 18, 2023, 01:11:21 PM

Quote from: seadude on November 18, 2023, 12:36:23 PMDoes anybody have statistics on what the dimensions were for width of hangars on British carriers or American Essex class carriers?

This link lists hangar heights for both Implacables and Essexes: https://www.armouredcarriers.com/were-the-armoured-carriers-worthwhile.  Navypedia lists the full flavor of Essex variant dimensions, as well as Implacable
Essex: https://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_essex.htm
Implacable: https://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cv1_implacable.htm

Thanks for those. I did some calculations and here's what I came up with. So if the Habakkuk center crew section is 60 feet wide, I'm just going to make it 2" inches wide.
WW2 Essex carrier hangar bay width
21.3 meters (69.88 feet)
In 1/350 scale = 2.4" inches

British WW2 Implacable carrier hangar bay width
18.9 meters (62 feet)
In 1/350 scale = 2.13" inches

Habakkuk central crew/storage section width
60 feet
In 1/350 scale = 2.06" inches

Quote from: Gondor on November 18, 2023, 01:09:43 PMThat last picture makes that torpedo look as if it#s amost 40 foot long 

Gondor

It's the correct size. Trust me. I measured it.
G7e torpedo
23.50 feet length
In 1/350 scale = 0.81" inch (A tiny bit more than 3/4" inch. Probably close to 13/16" inch.)
And the Habakkuk pykrete hull is 40 ft thick which is 1 1/4" inches in 1/350 scale.
A difference of about 7/16" inch between the torpedo and the pykrete hull wall.

A deceptive picture then.

Gondor

The figure of Geoffrey Pyke has finally enabled my brain to grasp just how huge this thing is 

Quote from: Gondor on November 19, 2023, 01:37:46 AMA deceptive picture then.

Gondor

Huh? 

Quote from: NARSES2 on November 19, 2023, 05:37:03 AMThe figure of Geoffrey Pyke has finally enabled my brain to grasp just how huge this thing is 

Just wait till I get the Essex carrier built for scale comparison. Then you'll see how really HUGE the Habakkuk is/was.

So now the Habakkuk cross section piece is on a tiny bit of hiatus. I need to go to the hobby store and buy some wood colored spray paint to paint all the styrene sheet pieces for the cross section. According to various references, the Habakkuk was to use a LOT of plywood, corkboard, and other wood boards for insulation purposes throughout the interior of the vessel as well as to cover the outer surface of the pykrete hull. How the wood insulation was to be attached to the outer pykrete hull was never fully explained or developed.
 Anyway, if I don't get back to work on the cross section before Thanksgiving holiday, then I'll get back to work next week after the holiday.
The below pictures are from a media article about the Habakkuk in the Illustrated London News magazine in early 1946. The particular issue is already mentioned in Post # 108 further above.
Now there's some things I do like about these pics and will use for my cross section, and some things I don't like.
For starters, the Habakkuk needs fuel for it's machinery and refrigeration plants as well as the motor nacelles. As shown in the first two pics below, you can see where it says there are holding tanks for oil fuel. I do like this aspect of the design that the media drew for it's article and will be adding it to my cross section. Now whether the actual Habakkuk vessel had a fuel tank design similar to what's shown in the article, there is no information on this. But I do think it does make some sense to have tanks in these areas.
On a side note, somewhere in the book (I forgot which page.) "Code Name Habakkuk, A Secret Ship Made of Ice" by L.D. Cross, there is mention of how much fuel the Habakkuk vessel was to use. Supposedly, it was about 120 tons of diesel fuel a day. How many gallons that is, I don't know. Now that's just the fuel needed for the ship itself. The fuel needed for aircraft consumption is not well documented.
The other things I'll be adding to the cross section are a horizontal access corridor tunnel which connects the central crew areas to the motor nacelles. This will probably be made with styrene tube. I've also seen some artist sketches and diagrams that show a vertical access shaft connecting down to the motor nacelle. But I'm not too keen on this and I'm not sure a real Habakkuk vessel would have this.
Also, I'll be adding the refrigeration piping (Made with leftover sprue pieces) that goes around/through the main pykrete hull as you can see in one of the below pics as indicated by some red arrows.
In other news.............
Did some random thinking last night about this whole project. If and when I get this done, I have nowhere to put it.    It'll be insanely huge. And because of it's huge length and such, it will most likely be too big to take to a contest. And if that wasn't bad enough, what happens to it if something should happen to me? I doubt any of my friends would want it. Where would it go? I don't want to see this destroyed and put in a dumpster. Could donate it to the Jasper Museum in Jasper, Alberta, Canada, but it's too far away. Ship it to the UK and donate it to someplace there? Again, too far away. Only possible option that comes to mind is donating it to the National Research Council of Canada (If they want it.) since they are the ones who did the majority of work on Project Habakkuk back in WW2.
And if for any reason whatsoever I cannot complete a full size 1/350 scale HMS Habakkuk model ship, then I will just cut my losses and instead settle for a smaller Habakkuk display with just the German u-boat, the Habakkuk prototype, and the cross section I have built. It won't be as grand as a full Habakkuk ship model, but at least it's something.

Quote from: seadude on November 19, 2023, 09:22:07 AM

YEAH! It's a Firebrand flying over the Habbakuk! 

Did a bit more work on the Habakkuk center cross section, but boy, did I screw up on the dimensions/measurements.    Suffice to say, it would take too long to explain. Maybe once I get my thoughts together, I can explain fully in another post sometime in the future.
The first picture below shows the approximate measurements for the cross section I hoped to be using. Most measurements are fairly correct except for the 60 ft wide center crew section. When I did preliminary measurements, my center crew section will be slightly wider at 2 1/4" to 2 1/2" inches instead of the 2" I had hoped for.    But like I said, I'll explain all this later sometime.
The second picture below shows my older 1/700 scale Habakkuk cross section I built back in 2009. At that time, I didn't detail the interior of it as 1/700 scale was too small. I did add some callout numbers to it to help identify various items.
Chances are, I may not detail my larger 1/350 scale cross section that much either. Where the heck am I going to find 1/350 scale tables, chairs, and other equipment to put inside? I think Z Gauge railroad accessories are somewhere in the 1/220 range or so. Not good enough. So therefor, my 1/350 scale cross section may look similar to my older 1/700 scale one. I'll probably end up putting callout numbers in certain places to help identify various features.

I'm taking out shares in the producers of plasticard strip, sheet and sections 

Quote from: NARSES2 on November 22, 2023, 05:53:26 AMI'm taking out shares in the producers of plasticard strip, sheet and sections 

At the rate I'll be buying and using it for this insanely huge project, I may have to buy the entire companies of Evergreen Plastic and Plastruct Plastic.     
I'll save you a seat on the Board of Directors. 

Thank you sir, you're a gentleman