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

[seadude]

just a thought, although the ship would never anchor, something is needed to steady the ship during construction and launching. The details of both operation are however somewhat unclear to me.

One unique reference I found on launching a ship like the Habakkuk was this page from an old Popular Mechanics magazine. Look on the right side in the middle for a cross-section of how the Habakkuk was to be built. Other than that, I've never been able to find any "highly detailed" construction information, methods, or ship launching information anywhere else on the Net. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=vuEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA105&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3qZezXOBwaSNPwnIYFQMECxIhIdg&w=685

Doesn't it have it's own gravitation field for that..

Haha. Funny. 

[Mossie]

Interesting.  Maybe they would have built a Mulberry dock to make it easier to supply the building effort?  You could imagine other Mulberrys at key strategic points to aid re-supply too.

[sequoiaranger]

>Just a thought, although the ship would never anchor, something is needed to steady the ship during construction and launching. The details of both operations are however somewhat unclear to me.<

There would never be a "launching", as we commonly conceive it (ship built on land and sliding down the ways into the sea). It was to be built at sea. Remember, icebergs are about 70% underwater, and although the interior of the Habakkuk would have lots of open spaces, making it much more buoyant than an iceberg, it still would draw far more than an ordinary ship of that size. I think that the means of construction were some of the sticking points and a reason for its non-existence.

And yes, the Habakkuk would be made to wander forever, being too deep to enter any port, but it would have been strictly a wartime expedient, and not a permanent addition to the Royal Navy (See my proposals for its post-war use at: http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/habbak_f.htm ).

[PR19_Kit]

Presumably when it came time to scrap it, they'd just have to sail it south until it melted..........

[seadude]

Ok, here's another question I have. When I go to put everything on the display base which will be weeks from now, a friend suggested building and painting a 1/700 Essex carrier black to act as a "silhouette" as well as for size comparison next to the Habakkuk model. The reason for the black is so that the people viewing the display won't be distracted looking at the Essex instead of the Habakkuk. If I painted the Essex regular colors, then people will get confused as to which ship they're supposed to be looking at and/or judging. But anyway, How detailed should I build the Essex? If it's just going to be a silhouette and for size comparison against the Habakkuk, then I guess there's no need to add 20mm guns, ship's boats, searchlights, etc., right?

[Mossie]

The reason for the black is so that the people viewing the display won't be distracted looking at the Essex instead of the Habakkuk.

I guess there won't be much risk of that!

The easiest approach would simply be to find a three view of an Essex Class, print it out, cut out the silhouette onto card (or plastic card) & paint it black.

[seadude]

The easiest approach would simply be to find a three view of an Essex Class, print it out, cut out the silhouette onto card (or plastic card) & paint it black.

Sounds nice, but in my mind, it just doesn't seem "visually appealing". I need to have something bigger next to the Habakkuk for size comparison and that's what the Essex is for. Carrier vs. Carrier.

[Stargazer]

Why not get a proper Essex model and paint it all black? 

[seadude]

Tiny update........and time for an unofficial official poll. First, here's a pic of the latex rubber mold I made in order to make the resin 2 dozen turboelectric propulsion pods for the Habakkuk. Would I still have to use some sort of release agent so the resin parts come out of the rubber mold? Would PAM cooking spray work?



And now for an "unofficial" poll of sorts. All the concept sketches, blueprints, and other references I have show a Habakkuk with either a somewhat large superstructure as shown in the first pic, or a skinnier/taller superstructure perhaps similar to what the Essex class AC had in the second pic. My references are split 50/50, so I'm not sure which concept to use and which would look better. What I've shown in the pics is just examples. No matter which I choose, there'll be a lot of cutting and scratchbuilding to do to get the look I want.
Which do you think would be more appropriate? Larger/Taller or Skinnier/Taller?

[Ed S]

That molded engine pod looks good.  I don't know about PAM, but I know people who use Vaseline and wipe a thin layer in the mold as a release agent.

I say go with the smaller island.  The small size will emphasize the vastness of that huge deck.

Ed

[proditor]

My favorite war time carriers were the Lex and Sara, so I say long and skinny, but again, I'm biased.  I think Ed probably has a good point about the smaller island just re-emphasizing the size of this sucker.

[Thorvic]

Its long and thin to accomodate the twin funnels for the two seperate engine rooms, something in a similar manner to the Invincible class, i rather doubt they would attempt to bring both exhausts together to create one large funnel especially taking into account the material they were using and the structure of the monster. Another thing to consider which appears on some of the late war Carrier designs such as the British Malta and the US follow on to the Essex was a seperate aft island for the Radar.

G

[sequoiaranger]

>Which do you think would be more appropriate? Larger/Taller or Skinnier/Taller?<

When I went down the steep, treacherously narrow trail from the Molokai ridge to Damien's leper colony on a (thankfully) sure-footed mule, I asked the owners what was the mule's name. They said, "Lahi-Lahi", which meant, "Tall and Slender". I never forgot that name.

So my vote is "tall and slender", and long if need be. Not only do you have to account for the separate boiler uptakes, but "wide" is very dangerous on an aircraft carrier, for three reasons.

One:  "Slender" is good! Even on a carrier as large and wide as Habakkuk, any obstacle to flight should be minimal. One of the things that carrier designers found out quickly is that there are a LOT of errant landings. One doesn't want cranes, superstructure, etc. protruding above or intruding upon the flight deck if it can be helped. Notice that gun galleries are sited BELOW flight deck level. Early carriers of the three "big" carrier navies (Japan, Britain, and the United States) all had no or tiny islands (Hosho, Argus, Langley). Though Japan continued to have some island-less carriers, they all recognized the need for above-the-flightdeck observation and administration, and islands appeared.   One of the things so obviously naive about the German carrier Graf Zeppelin is the almost continuous rim of protrusions along the flight deck. No one with actual carrier experience would have postulated that.

Another is dangerous wind turbulence that swirls behind objects protruding into the wind. Any "good" aircraft carrier is steaming into the wind during flight operations. Add whatever wind speed to the ship's speed, and it will almost always be somewhere around 50 mph or so. The wind will be whipping and any protrusion makes eddies. Britain, especially, designed-in many aerodynamic features of island and flightdeck to try to minimize turbulence. One additional technique is for the ship to steer a few degrees off to the right of straight-into-the-wind so that the "wake" of the island didn't pass over the end of the flight deck---also one of the reasons the angled deck came about. The landing on such a small space as a carrier (again, the Habakkuk would be somewhat the exception, but the "rule" still applies) means that the touch-down area is SACRED. One doesn't want "bumpy air" at that critical juncture when power is off and the plane is in a near-stall. Presumably, too, the Habakkuk would operate larger, heavier, and less "wieldly" aircraft.  Wounded pilots with limited reflexes shouldn't have extra anxieties to deal with, either.  

Thirdly, stack gasses need to be out of the way of the landing aircraft, too. Stack gasses are warm, and "we" want that warm (read "less-dense") air out of the critical landing area if at all possible. Alternately hot and cold air makes additional swirl and "lift" problems.  So you kinda want "tall", too!!

Lahi-Lahi!

That double-long "Essex" island gets my vote.

[seadude]

Ok, as requested by another modeler on another forum, Here are some other pics that are NOT overhead shots. If anybody still wants to see more/different views, then let me know and I'll take a few more pics. Although if you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find posts where I listed links to plans and blueprints I used in the creation of the wood hull, as well as pics of the unpainted wood Habakkuk hull.

CLICK ALL THUMBNAILS FOR A LARGER VIEW.

Left side of hull:


Close-up of left side:


1/700 Iowa class battleship hull next to Habakkuk model hull for scale comparison:


Views of the bow of the hull:






Views of the stern:





Right side of hull with an Essex superstructure for scale:

[seadude]

Back in Post #205 on Page 14 of this thread, I had the problem of figuring out how I was going to detail the bow and stern of this model. Well, I think I have a solution for the bow, but I'm not sure about the stern and I could use some advice.

I had a rear end deck part from a modern amphib ship that I could use as a bulkhead/structure for putting two 5", two 40mm, and some 20mm on, for the bow area to be detailed. So far, this is the only design/config I've liked at the moment.



The only problem is, I don't have another same amphib bulkhead structure to make the stern area the same way as the bow. The only option that I can think of for the stern is to make it into some sort of boat deck for the ship's boats. Put 1 or 2 small cranes there, a few small boats, and a smattering of light armament for defense in that area. When the wood hull and the flight deck were being built long ago, I completely forgot to add cutouts along the sides of the hull for the ship's boats.   Making the stern a "boat deck" is the only solution I can come up with.
So..........Yes or No?