1/700th scale HMS Habakkuk WIP (aka Project Habakkuk)

[proditor]

Piling on the bandwagon.  That other guy's 'kuk is beautiful, no doubt, but it just looks like a really big aircraft carrier to me.  There is something too refined in the lines and design that doesn't say "I'm a %^&*-off big piece of sawdust infused ice!  Suck it!"

Yours does.  It feels more primal and elemental imnsho.

Keep up the good work man, it's a beauty too.

[PR19_Kit]

That show one looks too 'American', if you'll pardon the expression. 

There's a distinct character difference in the look of US and Brit carriers. I'd be hard pushed to say exactly what it is, but just look at some pics of the Pacific operations where they sailed side by side, you can tell which is which from miles away. I'm sure the 'real' Habbakuk would have a more Brit look, as yours indeed does.

[sequoiaranger]

>That show one looks too 'American', if you'll pardon the expression.<

Funny, I was going to say that exact same thing, but then I thought of the double Essex island seadude was contemplating using, etc. Still, even THAT looked more British than American.

But... you are absolutely right. Seadude's Habakkuk looks more "British" and all the better for it. It seems, too, that there are no national markings on any of the other Habakkuk's aircraft, and they are all monochromatic, painted the same color as the deck(?). If seadude puts some roundels on the aircraft, and wavy camo, it will look all the more British!!

"We" gotta keep encouraging seadude to finish it. It is really a genuine work of art, and he should be proud of his labors.  I am!

[Sauragnmon]

I'll jump on the bandwagon here and reiterate my own comments that we bounced over yahoo:

The carrier reminds me more of that USS Tun Tavern build, a '45 era Nimitz-profile hull.  The recessed gun mounts under the deck go against the Habakuk claim, as they would have to be buttressed and reinforced.  Additionally, it shows nothing of the deck-integrated design for the hull, nor does it show any of the requirements of the latent design, being that it was built from bricks of pykrete.  The bow and stern both curve inward towards the waterline, which would be structurally weak in regards to the ship and its displacement - it would risk collapsing into the water, and if there would be any slant to the hull it would have to be inward to the deck, which might also cut on the draught in some ways by shifting displacement balance, but that's neither here nor there.

Similarly, I also have to wonder at the sanity of the way the man did not actually put the guns on sponsons, but they are recessed under the deck - or else the deck is extended over the sponsons.  I don't like the whole idea, in truth.  Deck-side elevators are a similar problem with the true Habakuk design.

I'll sum it up - didn't look like the guy did all the homework on the build, especially on the engineering aspect.

[seadude]

First let me say, Thanks for all the well wishes and compliments, guys. I'll do my best to keep trying to get my Habakkuk done.  

Now.........let me put in a disclaimer and say the following on the other Habakkuk: Whatever I may say good or bad, I still think it is a darn good model nonetheless, and I very much enjoyed seeing pictures of it. While it's true that both that modeler and myself espouse different design philosophies (His being that he was building for a '46 contest, whereas mine being more "true to form"), I don't think any Habakkuk model built by anybody (Myself included) will ever be 100% correct because there was never any FINAL design or specifications for the ship, and also there is so little information out on the Net or elsewhere about the Habakkuk. Anybody who builds one will build it in their own unique way. What's model building without a little variety, right?

Now for my viewpoints:
1. His model appears to be more like a modern larger Midway or other class carrier. (See pic below.) The Habakkuk I'm building is more "true to form" so to speak in this link:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/icyhusky/HMS%20Habakkuk%20model%20project/hab13.jpg




2. I still disagree that any type of dazzle camo pattern would not be used. Those types of patterns are designed to do 2 things: a) Confuse an enemy as to the true length and dimensions of a ship, and b) Confuse an enemy as to the speed and direction of a vessel. The Habakkuk only had a speed of 6-7 knots max. The Habakkuk is so huge, that no amount of camo scheme would have been able to hide it.
3. I completely disagree with the deck edge elevator. I tend to believe that all elevators would have been in the center of the ship where there would've been more protected.
4. I'm not an engineer or naval architech, etc. and I have no real way of explaining what I want to say here, but I disagree with all the "recesses" for the 5" guns, boats, and other items in the sides of the hull. I tend to feel these are "weak points" that could be exploited by an enemy and is where the sides of the hull are not at their thickest where a bomb or heavy gunfire could get through. Remember, the Habakkuk was supposed to have 40 ft. thick sides, bottom, and top hull.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/icyhusky/HMS%20Habakkuk%20model%20project/scan-2.jpg
5. The superstructure could be ok, but I'd like to see better pics of it before I give any further opinions. Not quite sure I like the look of the smokestacks though.
6. The shape of the bow doesn't seem appropriate.
7. I like the HA letter markings, but I disagree on the other flight deck line markings. The Habakkuk was designed to operate in the Northern Atlantic where there could be periods of hazy, foggy, and cloudy weather. How are pilots supposed to see the flight deck? Brighter markings would've been preferable.
8. Where are the Mk.37 directors for all those 5" guns?
9. While I have nothing against a waterline dio, I preferred to do my Habakkuk so I could show the ship as a "whole" and hopefully show the means of propulsion the ship would've had. Which reminds me.......I started work a few days ago making the resin turboelectric propulsion pods. I might have some pics ready this weekend.

As for what kind of flight deck surface the Habakkuk would've had, I have no information for that. I presume there would've been some sort of steel flight deck surface. If there was bomb damage, the hole could've been filled with more water/wood pulp mixture, then frozen, then maybe a temporary flexible matting could've been laid down over the repaired spot?

[seadude]

Oh, and one other thing: I've mentioned this before, but I'm going to reiterate it again. While the Habakkuk is of British design/origin, I have chosen to build an "Americanised" version as I believe the Americans and Canadians had more resources to build the ship than what Britain did. I think it would've been preferable for the Americans to outfit the ship with an American bridge superstructure, guns, radars, etc. as our naval yards and factories, etc. were closer to the Habakkuk construction site. I mean, if we had any extra Essex bridge superstructures being built or any surplus 5" turrets, etc., then it just makes sense to use those on the Habakkuk, right?

[seadude]

And another note.........I do like the possibility of airships operating from the Habakkuk as shown in that model. I think that could've been another possible use for such a ship. Since land based planes had shorter ranges to search for u-boat threats, it's possible that airships could've been deployed from a Habakkuk as they had longer range and could stay in the air for far longer.

[Ed S]

Seadude.  Don't worry about what some other modeler has done.  Obviously one doesn't stop building F-4 Phantom models because someone else had done one.  Besides, he did his as a waterline model and avoided adding the engine pods.  And I think you are off to a good start on your castings for these.

A few comments on his model and the thought processes he went through.  Yes, it has more of an "American" look to it and it looks more "modern".  He postulated that since the subject was WWII '46, the ship would have been built later in the war. And since it was being built at an American shipyard, they would incorporate some design features (such as the island and elevators) from the latest American carriers.

And finally, for those who have expressed concern about landing or taking off from an icy deck, the "real" Habakkuk would have had it's ice walls sheathed in steel plate giving it a smooth, non-eroding exterior, and the deck would have been made from steel as any other carrier.  So there's no need to consider trying to fly on or off of an icy surface.

Ed

[seadude]

Ed, if you ever get the chance, I would love to know who this other modeler is and possibly chat with him. While our Habakkuks are different, I still think he did a good job and I'd love to learn more about his model.

[seadude]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that other Habakkuk is larger than mine? Maybe it's just the angle of the camera pic making it look longer. If the real Hab was 2000 feet long and 300 feet wide, At 1/700 it should be about 34" long and about 5 1/2" wide.

[Brian da Basher]

And another note.........I do like the possibility of airships operating from the Habakkuk as shown in that model. I think that could've been another possible use for such a ship. Since land based planes had shorter ranges to search for u-boat threats, it's possible that airships could've been deployed from a Habakkuk as they had longer range and could stay in the air for far longer.

Glencoe makes a model U.S. Navy blimp that's not hard to find. While it's not in scale, with a bit of Scale-o-rama, it would really add to the flight deck.

Brian da Basher

[proditor]

Takara also made some 1/700 scale blimps in the aircraft of the world iirc.  Not sure how available they are, but my guess would e-bay, and under a 10 spot without shipping if one were so inclined.  I'll check.

Yup, seems doable: http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=takara+blimp&_sacat=See-All-Categories

[Ed S]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that other Habakkuk is larger than mine? Maybe it's just the angle of the camera pic making it look longer. If the real Hab was 2000 feet long and 300 feet wide, At 1/700 it should be about 34" long and about 5 1/2" wide.

That sounds pretty close to his final dimensions as well.  It may just be the angle of the photo.  And of course, the base may effect the impression of size as well.

Ed, if you ever get the chance, I would love to know who this other modeler is and possibly chat with him. While our Habakkuks are different, I still think he did a good job and I'd love to learn more about his model.

He isn't on line much.  He doesn't do any forums or other online discussions.  He does check email occasionally.  But next time I see him, I will ask him if he would be interested in any email correspondence. I prefer not to pass out his email address without his permission.

Ed

[seadude]

He isn't on line much.  He doesn't do any forums or other online discussions.  He does check email occasionally.  But next time I see him, I will ask him if he would be interested in any email correspondence. I prefer not to pass out his email address without his permission.

No problem, Ed. I understand.

Over on the MW (Modelwarship) forums, I was kinda joking with someone about building a 1/350th scale Habakkuk. IMO, I think something like that would be too large to build and show at a contest. BUT..........if anybody wants to try and tackle a 1/350 Habakkuk, then you're welcome to it. More power to ya. I talked to a friend tonight who did some quick calculations and he came up with the following for 1/350th scale:
Height of hull (Minus superstructure) - 6.85 inches
Width of hull - 10.28 inches
Length - 68.57 inches (About 5 feet, 8 inches)

1/700th scale:
Height of hull (Minus superstructure) - About 3 1/2 inches
Width of hull - About 5 1/2 inches
Length - About 34 inches

Measurements for a real Habakkuk:
Height of hull (Minus superstructure) - 200 feet
Width of hull - 300 feet
Length of hull - 2000 feet

Anything else you want to know, then just ask.

[Mossie]

I remember when I had very tentative thoughts about modelling a Habakkuk & calculated the dimensions.  A standard show table here in the UK is six foot & the Habbakuk would sit nicely on that.  You could use it as you would a shelf & display other models on it's deck.  Either that, or put it under the table, it would fit nicely.  Would love to see someone do it!