Good evening to all the guys on this forum.

I'm about to get off topic, but Jumpugly is right.
When I write or say (without even writing) something, the Internet (via Google or other search engines) offers you various news or articles for sale about it.
This time it wasn't a sales proposal but news.

Why do I say I'm going off the rails of my topic?
Because the theme was the most extravagant, bizarre and unsuccessful ships ever built in the world.
This is certainly not a failure. In fact, if it is built and sold it will certainly be a substantial income.
It hasn't been built yet, but it's already a finished project. (or just an idea, a fantasy?)

I'm talking about the MIGALOO M5 submersible yacht.

An incredible submarine as a pleasure boat.
We know that the submarine is the narrowest and hardest naval vessel for sailors. Not everyone could fit in.
However, it is necessary because it has long been an essential strategic and tactical element for many navies (war fleets).
But who would have thought of making a yacht out of it.

Well, apparently the Austrian design studio Migaloo has presented "the world's only private underwater superyacht", to offer "a not yet existing alternative to large privately owned surface vessels".
Basically when the rich guy doesn't want to be disturbed she dives.

We were also used to hearing news of submarines used for drug trafficking and other illicit trades, but they were small boats of no nautical charm. This yacht is something else entirely, it seems like science fiction.

This submarine, called M5, will measure 165.8 meters long and 23 meters wide at its widest point, with a range of approximately 15,000 kilometers and a speed of up to 20 knots on the surface (or 12 knots submerged).

What is most incredible is that the submarine will be able to descend up to 250 meters deep and remain submerged for up to four weeks.

She will be able to hold 20 passengers and 40 crew members.

It includes a helipad, a swimming pool and spa, a gym, a cinema with art galleries, a party area with a DJ booth, as well as numerous spaces for relaxing or dining. Optional extras include a hot air balloon and an underwater shark feeding station.

Take this news with a pinch of salt (i.e. with due caution) because it comes from the Web and has not yet been confirmed.

Do you think they will really do it? Will someone be so eccentric and rich as to want to shell out a gigantic sum for such a vessel?
Is it just a hoax?
As soon as it's a reality, if it's a reality, ready to make a scale model of it, ahahahahah.

https://christian-gumpold.jimdofree.com/

You are completely right Len, they are absolutely different types of ships, one type (flat hulls, raft type) made only for rivers and lakes, with little or no wave motion, shallow drafts, the other type (displacement hull) also made for seas and oceans.

Hi Roy, I'm sorry you had to work twice as hard because of the foam but if you solved it in the end, I'm happy.

In the second photo it's incredible, it seems real; only the water betrays him.

Hi Bill, it's a little strange that this magnificent RC model only received my comment.
Here too, as with HMS Bluebell, I want to express my admiration for how you painted your model.

Hello Colin.
I had seen this RC model some time ago but I no longer remembered that you also had a boat with paddle wheels.
Recently there has been talk about these models and their lack of governability.
In your case, however, there should be no problems because the hull is not flat but is a classic hull.
It can steer both with the rudder and with the use of the wheels that turn differently from each other, even without the rudder. Did I get it right?

Hi Doogle, you don't know how nice it is to hear these words.
I was getting worried thinking that while I have had to finish my RC ship model for a very long time, I already have many other projects in mind that I would like to do right away but which I can't do.
Now the main problem is time but even if I had time available I lack space.
I'm heartened to know that I'm not the only one chasing a thousand ideas.
I'm glad you're doing some work that will make our beautiful hooby more comfortable, "forgot to mention that I'm also trying to construct a covered area between house and garage for boat storage and cold frame for overwintering plants". Excellent thing.
This space is vital, when you have completed it I hope you will share the photos with us.
I'm glad you appreciate these articles.
Always keep your mind busy, do well, your brain will benefit.

Wolle, don't get offended, don't get angry.
For me there was no problem but I believe that in this way the administrator protects the individual forumers, including you, especially you.
I had no doubts about your intentions, you didn't even need to specify it. For me everything is ok.

Elegant boat.
I really like the name "Centurion".
All that remains is to admire the RC navigation.

More than right, Jock.
I look forward to enjoying the developments of ESSO Deutschland.

Hello Doogle.
In my opinion, nowadays this strange project with current technologies and materials would work well in many contexts. Not in all.
What do you think about it?

Hi Tim, what in Italian we call "scarroccio" and which perhaps translates into English with the word "leeway" or "sideslipping" is natural in all ships but in this type it is very accentuated.

I have no experience with boats of this type, i.e. with paddle wheels, but I think that what Tomarrack wrote is the right solution (even if he doesn't really believe it).
It would at least be worth a try. I would give it a try before giving up.
I would place the thin longitudinal blade that runs from bow to stern in the center of the hull, as if it were a keel. This blade should be almost the entire length of the hull and about 2cm high.
I don't know what the bottom of your hull is like, I imagine it is flat so I would create a T profile to facilitate positioning.
Logically I wouldn't fix it definitively but I would first do some tests to test its effectiveness.

You may ask why don't royal ships need them? RC models, even if they exploit the same physical principles, are found in very different conditions. The same goes for the rudders.
Those who build galleons never use scale rudders. He is forced to oversize them in an astonishing way.
They are so much bigger that I remove the additional "prosthesis" when they are displayed statically, because it is absolutely unsightly.
In fact, at low speeds, without the flow produced by the propeller, rudders are generally ineffective (in scale models).

If you want to make an effective turn, in my opinion, the best method is (once again) Tomarack. Logically to do as he did you have to have two paddle wheels with one it's not possible.
If he wants, he can even shoot on site.

Alternatively, if you have only one wheel, you need to increase the size of the rudder (but you can't ignore the keel).
If you have photos of your model you could open your own topic and we could write our suggestions there. I could make you some drawings to better explain what I mean, I don't know if I was clear.

It's clear that what I wrote refers to mild weather conditions, none of us goes out in rain or storms but I think the minimum objective is to not be stopped by a light breeze or have an uncontrollable boat even in the absence of wind.

P.S.
I agree with what Tony wrote.

In my opinion you are one of the best at coloring naval models. I really like how you make them very realistic.

Hi Jock, I see you are very determined about the choice of concrete and the construction phases.
You have already weighed the pros and cons of using concrete so yours is a wise choice.
The only doubt I have is on the specific weight of 3.16 kg/dm3. It could be different and it could be less. However, since you have decided to proceed with an empirical method (very effective in this case in my opinion): "Once I get to the point of putting my model to water, I will do some testing how much weight I really need" then establish precisely the specific gravity no longer matters.

However, even using concrete (and therefore occupying a much larger volume than a heavy metal) you may still have a lot of space available to create the buoyancy reserve. You only need 34-36 dm3 and I think you could find them anyway.
Since it is very easy to create, it costs nothing and since you want to sail the Esso Deutchland on the ocean, I would seriously think about making it unsinkable.

I invite you to also consider (but you have certainly already done so) batteries as ballast. Don't limit yourself. In such a large RC model you can easily obtain truly exceptional performance in terms of autonomy.
What a great advantage not having to look for light but expensive batteries and instead being able to use heavy and cheap batteries without problems.

Even with the empiric method, it is better to immediately achieve the correct longitudinal trim with the two extreme quarters (bow and stern). In this way the addition of weights in the central quarters will have very little influence on the inclination and you will be able to regulate the sinking with greater serenity.

"I surely let you know once I get there." Of course I'm counting on it, Jock.
As I already told you, your work is one of those that attracts my attention and interest the most. I don't want to spoil too much but I'm curious about the electrical setup. It's not wrong to think about it now.
I hope you will put side lights, fog sirens, fog lights and more.

One question: How will you navigate your tanker, fully loaded, empty or somewhere in between?

Hi Jock, this answer reassures me somewhat. Being able to remove ballast is better especially for ships of this size. In fact, I would first put the model in the water (empty or only partially ballasted) and then insert the various ballast modules in the pre-established and previously tested points.


What I will tell you is absolutely not a criticism but another point of view.

Even though concrete is very cheap, I would never choose it as ballast.
I don't feel like giving you advice, because you are very prepared, you know your stuff, but I want to tell you my opinion anyway.

First of all, I would choose for the ballast the material that has the highest specific weight but at an affordable price (certainly not gold or platinum). Therefore I would prefer lead, brass, steel, iron, copper, zinc, etc. to concrete.
These materials are not as expensive as gold or platinum but they do have a certain cost it is true.
They certainly cost more than concrete, but you can always get them for free among waste materials.

Even if you have a lot of space available in your huge ship model, I wouldn't waste it unnecessarily. If you have set yourself the goal of reaching a certain ballast weight, it is always better to reach that specific weight while taking up as little space as possible.

For example, if to reach a certain weight you need to have a certain volume of cement, with lead you will get the same result with much less volume and therefore taking up much less space for ballast.

Cement has a density that varies depending on the types of cement (there are more than one hundred types).
The specific weight of cement varies from a minimum of 1400 kg/m3 to a maximum of 3200 kg/m3.
The reference weight that is often used is that of Portland cement 3150 kg/m3.

Now taking into account the case most favorable to you and comparing concrete with lead, for example it turns out that the latter is almost four times heavier.
In other words, with lead instead of cement you will take up a quarter of the space intended for ballast. Using iron or steel you will be about a third of the way there.


Why is it better not to waste space?
All the volume recovered using ballast with the highest specific weight can be used to add or move mechanical or electronic equipment that you want to put on board.
If you already have enough space for every type of electronic device imaginable then fill these spaces with very light, non-impregnable floating material.
If you insert more than 34 dm3 of floating material your ship will be unsinkable.
If I'm not mistaken, our estimates ranged from 32.16 dm3 (Rhinoceros calculation) to 32.2 dm3 (geometric/mathematical calculation). The largest estimate with the prismatic coefficient method gave us 33.8 dm3.
(for those who are interested in this topic but have not understood what we are referring to, they can follow the link at the end of the text).
With 36 dm3 I would feel safe.
Logically, inside your hull (undersides plus topsides) you have much more than 36 dm3 available.
To this you can add the volumes of the superstructures if necessary.

The main question (sorry if you already wrote it and I missed it) is: how much weight do you want to dedicate to the ballast?
Regarding this point, I remind you that oil tankers have a maximum immersion (full load of oil) and a minimum (completely empty).
I wouldn't put all the ballast on immediately but I would keep at least five kg for subsequent adjustments.

The transport and launching of this fantastic model is an operation that must be treated separately and which I will truly enjoy. It's not easy but the more difficult things are, the more interesting they are.
It is certainly an operation that must be done by at least two people.

forum/131081

The fourth bizarre, strange and failed ship on this list is BAZIN'S ROLLER SHIP.

Even though I put it last, this is, in my opinion, the most extravagant of all.
Just look at the photo to understand it.
A steamship designed by Ernesto Bazin that moved on six enormous wheels.
Not paddle wheels, but floating wheels, incredible.
Yet this ship managed to cross the English Channel.
This 1896 ship was 36.5 meters long, 13.7 meters wide and was powered by a 550 hp steam engine, she could reach 7 knots.

I have not found any news of particular flaws or inconveniences but this ship did not arouse any interest in builders and owners. It's easy to understand why. Even if she worked well, which captain would be thrilled to command her? In short, it actually seemed a little too ridiculous perhaps.
Later I found other news and much more data on the internet, very interesting, about this ship.
I attach the link at the end but I warn you that I have not checked their reliability and I have not done any checking with the sources as I usually do.

https://it.topwar.ru/121363-eksperimentalnoe-skorostnoe-sudno-ernest-bazin-franc

Hi Jock, you can ask me whatever you want, don't worry, it's a pleasure for me. If I don't know the answer or my knowledge isn't sufficient to answer you, I'll simply say: "sorry, I don't know".
I was about to comment (doing some calculations without 3D drawing software, no need) on your post but before doing so I would like to know something else:
Do you intend to place blocks of already solidified concrete in the hull and then fix them in some way or do you intend to make a casting inside the hold and then let it solidify in the hull itself?

Hi Jbkiwi, you manage to operate where others would get stuck, excellent video. It's very original, very good.
The seabed is very shallow and muddy.

You have my like and a comment on your YouTube channel.

Hi Colin, what you do for your family at your age is commendable.
I admire you.

Hi Jock, I congratulate you again for the work you are doing and the method you are using.
The structure seems very robust and adequate for the enormous size. You're really smart.
A curiosity: you intend to use concrete as ballast, did I understand correctly?

Dearest Bill, when I saw the notification of your new topic I was very happy that you were back to writing.
As soon as I read the content, happiness immediately turned into sadness.
I am saddened by your situation. The only consolation is that you can and want to continue to communicate with us on this forum, this is a very good thing for me.
I wasn't lucky enough to meet you personally but only on the web, however I understand that you are a great person. Even in these moments your human qualities shine through.
I don't forget easily and I remember that, among the many very kind people on this forum, you and ColinH (apart from Andy who made me sign up) were the kindest. You told me several times to write despite my terrible translations and you defended me when I received criticism that you didn't consider correct. There I realized what you were made of.
I don't believe much in stereotypes and generalizations but if I have to imagine the classic English gentleman I have you and Colin in mind.
I will enjoy your every contribution on this site, I'm happy that there are people like you and great model makers like you. Your advice and exemplary models are of great help to me and all other modelers.

Let's wait for April 28th.
Nice things to put the names of family members.

Tony, very good, I hope there is wind and then calms down so you can sail with both types of RC ship models (wheeled ships and sailing ships)
This model is very interesting but sailing, for me, is the most beautiful to do and see.
Which sailing models do you have?

A curiosity: I saw that your electric motor is reduced to 300 rpm. Aren't there too many? Is there an additional reduction that I haven't seen or do the blades just spin that fast?
Sorry if the questions may seem stupid but I have no experience with wheeled ships.

Hi Tony, you did well to create your own "harbour".
You did a great job.
Do you have any sailing videos, would love to see them.

Hi Mike, thanks for this information. These details are very important and interesting to me. Excellent solutions. Your work, with the various problems you have faced and resolved, becomes useful for everyone.

Colin and Doogle thank you so much.
What a pleasure to read your messages again Colin.

Mike, we'll see the motor and gearbox when it arrives, but could you tell us something.
I'm curious to see the characteristics (voltage, power, number of turns, dimensions, etc. etc.) of the product you have chosen.

Thank you very much CommodoreH.

Good evening to all naval modelers. Painted blocks.
It was almost like going blind.

Thank you so much Len, I really appreciate your words.