Talk:RML 497 (motor launch)

The Design section

This appears to be an amalgam of the original design and an intermediate leisure design. It requires clarity and broiging up to date without losing the intermediate history of how she has evolved over time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted a set of images by an IP editor. The dates may have been genuine, but they were uncited and unexplained in edit summaries; and images were removed for no apparent reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted much of their edit history. Nothing was sourced, much was clearly unconstructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO 8633906

The commons category uses the identifier "IMO 8633906", but this is not mentioned in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hull form

"Based on a destroyer hull albeit much smaller" is not a description of the Fairmile Type B ML's hull form:

L/B ratio for the Type B is 6.11/1, with contemporary destroyers from mid-1930s 'E&F' class to WEP 'O&P' class being a minimum 9.78/1 up to 10.19/1 for the, admittedly exceptional, 'Tribals'. Furthermore, the ML hull is flush-decked with a distinct camber, while British destroyers from the Edwardian 'River' class up to the postwar 'Daring' class all had fo'c'sles extending to the bridge area. Nor is there any cross-sectional similarity of form factor.

The design origin of the Type B ML is therefore unrelated to destroyer design and the contrary claim must be ascribed to a mistaken belief.

-

The article still contains the line relating to this particular boat's 'very fine' form 'for her type'. It is unclear what the exact meaning of this is:

If the claim is that the Type B was of very fine lines for a design within its class (motor launches and medium-sized motor boats of the period in general), then this is not true. Simple research, using reliable sources, shows the following:

• The Type B had a lower L/B ratio than the Type A ML, Denny SGBs, contemporary R-boats, VAS boats and the battleship HMS Nelson, being about equal to a Camper & Nicholson gunboat.
• The Type B's L/B ratio was higher than a Type D MTB's, or those of German ASR launches, and was far higher than the L/B ratio of an HDML, a Vosper MTB or a monitor.

It therefore falls into the middle of the range for contemporary motor boats, so is not especially 'fine'.

An assessment of Beam to Draught ratios reveals a very similar result, with the Type B being somewhat shallower and broader than a Type A, R-boat, VAS boat, FlB boat and HDML, whilst being less proportionately beamy and shallow than a Type D, SGB, Camper MGB or Vosper MTB - once again being unexceptional in form factor.

Is the claim of unusual fineness made in relation to the Type B design itself? If so, this surely requires additional verification, since a claim of form based on original speed is not a logical one, and the Fairmile boats were famously kit-built, with the parts formed on jigs - a hallmark of industrial standardisation. These were not hand-crafted hulls, and frames & keels would be identical with other boats of the same design. (Canadian Fairmile Bs were apparently of slightly different dimensions, but the RMLs were UK-built). 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:240E:F814:5165:2CC6 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Since no further evidence for this claim of unusual fineness has been presented, the statement will be deleted from the article. 2A00:23C7:3108:4D01:3D49:84FE:83A9:D67B (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)