Shipbucket

It does look great, but are you sure about the underwater hull? I recall that the Counties had four stabilizer fins on either side, with the stabilizer "wing" cut up between. Would you mind showing your evidence for your choice?

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

You are sure Bezo
Look these 2 drawing source
One show any stabilizer

Another one show the stabilizer

Colombamike hits the problem right on the nail.
Like the Type 82 I found conflicting drawings. In Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates there is a line drawing of Batch I with no underwater hull, a line drawing of a Batch II clearly showing only the one single bilge keel (as shown on my profile). The Jacobin plans above have one of the four stabiliser layout - the other shows nothing. I found no other side plans which even showed an underwater section. I do have a cross-section from the Falklands Anniversary edition of Navy News which shows the four stabilisers.

My concern is whether only Batch I ships had them or not, or whether they were later removed. I can easily put the four stabilisers in. I just wish RN underwater views weren't so damn hard to find to clarifying what is going on. I've even hunted for dry-dock photos! Any sources to confirm are most welcome!

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

HMS Glamorgan

Hood, I quite understand the dilemma. However, I cannot see that such an advanced - and weight critical design as the Counties would've been without stabilizers. The British, in fact, in the 1950s were leading pioneers in fitting the variable stabilizer fin systems to both warships and merchant ships; the S. S. Oriana and S. S. Canberra being well-know cases. I've used the latter Jecobin plan to alter your Norfolk into the HMS Glamorgan as post-1982 refit. Would you like me to send a copy of that to you? I won't post it here, since I've adapted it to my private, aestethic preferences, so it won't fulfill the SB-requirements. (It has never, though, been intended for public showing anyways!)
As for the dock yard pic, on a closer examination, it does show the broken stabilizer wing area, with the fins presumably either retracted into the hull (for protection) or simply removed for dock yard purposes. A comment on the first Jecobin drawing: I believe it is similar in case as some of Alan Raven's drawings, which often shows a very bare underwater hull outline. In other words, it ought not to be taken literally!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O-ck0pBXvGE/S ... +copia.png

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Yup, Heuhen, I did use those as a reference too. Did forget about them though, when writing my earlier post.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

All images so far show batch 2 ships only. The problem is with the batch 1 ships which are shown in Jacobin's plans without ant stabilizers at all.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

I have a hunch that the eminent 'ood will sort this out to perfect satisfaction.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Given how many stabilizer sets were required, and the degree to which they would complicate machinery layout, it seems unlikely to me that the Batch II ships would receive stabilizers in a way that did not so change their layout that it would be visible above decks.