Rusty_S85

I have been wodnering if the texas group is still around and doing business. The site is still up but everything on the site at best is a few years old. To be honest it seems to me the hobby in the past few years has pretty much died to be honest.

Ihave always wanted to get into it but it just seems as more and more time goes by it becomes more unpopular to others.</p>

Wreno

Which Texas group? The NTXBG is alive and well, and, in fact we have a battle tomorrow. Held our 6th annual national event, NABGO (wich, this year, was the venue for the AusBG World Championships as well. If you are talking about Region 4 of MWC, they held their National championships in Houston this summer.

We, in the NTXBG, have been going through some teething issues on getting our newsletter and such coordinated on our new web site and format over the last year or so, sadly. Last month's battle report was written on a timely basis, but does not have the newspaper to appear in.

There has been an issue with getting guns which slowed things down a bit, but Strike Models took over Swampworks and BDE RC, and is re-engineering the Big Gun style ones and making them easier to manufacture, so all the old Swampy and BDE RC stuff is coming available again - and much more (thanks to the tireless efforts of Steve and Keri at Strike).

Does that answer your question?

Cheers,

Wreno

Rusty_S85

Yes it does. I was talking about the North Texas group but I am not in north texas, Houston here and I planned on eventually moving out in central texas more towards austin.

But was just wondering if they were still around. I know cost is one of the things that really keeps me from getting involved with the hobby. I was hoping that over time the manufacturing of the armament would become more efficent and the cost would go down.

I still would love to build the Battleship Texas with 5 working turrets and I would figure out a way to design an interuptor to prevent the center turrent from firing in the direction of superstructure.

Aside from that I was told by numerous people Ishould consider an unarmed ship but as I keep putting forth I dont have the ability to transport huge ships which was the reason I was looking at the Battleship Texas since it would be around 47". The only unarmed ship Iwould consider building would be a troop transport version of the Titanic or a hosptial ship version of the Britannic but both of those would be over 70" in scale which would be way to long to fit in my vehicle.

Its also good to hear that swampworks isnt totally out. Last I heard they went out of business basically. But since its been so many years since ive had a very strong interest in the hobby I will have to track down sites and get caught up on any changes that has been made.

Wreno

Interestingly, we have a contingent that commutes to the NTXBG battles from Round Rock, just north of Austin.

In Big Gun, transports can be a lot of fun (I drive several), in small/fast gun they have a more limited role from what I understand.

I have a Titanic (maiden voyage was the Texas Cage Match at NABGO this year). The smaller cargo ships are far more manoeuvrable. In fact we have two little 3 island tramps in the club - about 22" long. Very hard to hit and very manoeuvrable. An Abdeil class fast minelayer is another interesting cargo option - very fast, and can be used to run cargo (at least in NTXBG). Or the Kormoran (it can be cargo or commerce raider). The smaller ships are a bit tougher build to get right, of course. However, the Titanic makes me really apprecaite my little 22" Lake Shore and even smaller USS Reluctant (a modified Camano class).

A liberty is a good starter ship, and, in some clubs they are used as loaners for new members. Built right, they can be moderately decent in manoeuvring, but not like a little tramp steamer. However there is a lot more room for error.

As for the cost of entry, yep, guns are expensive, but are pretty much a one-time expense. Say a ship costs $1,200 to build - but has a service life of 10-15 years (most of ours are at least that old, and we have retired precious few). Maintenance each month is negligible. Now compare that $1,200 with entry into other sports (the number of $100-$300 planes you will crash before you learn how to fly, the golf lessons and clubs to learn golf, the tennis lessons and equipment you would take to learn tennis, etc.) and you will see that it is not as bad as yo think.

You might want to start planning for [link=http://www.nabgo.org]NABGO[/link] (the North American Big Gun Open), near Dallas, now. It is usually right around/after July 4th.

As for the sites, many are listed on the NTXBG site. But, to whet you appetite, you might want to visit
[link=http://www.strikemodels.com/]www.strikemodels.com/[/link]
[link=http://battlersconnection.com/]battlersconnection.com/[/link]
and
[link=http://dreadnoughthulls.com]dreadnoughthulls.com[/link]


Cheers,

Wreno

Rusty_S85

That is good to hear, just north of Austin would be very close to me if Imove out where Iplanned on. Austin would be about an hour drive.

As far as the ship I am still not sure. It really comes down to transporting it and honestly Iwould love to build Olympic/Titanic troop transport or a Britannic Hospital ship. I have a great idea of how to get the 3 screws working just like they would on the real ship. The two outter and one center prop spins when going forward but the central one is killed when you go into reverse.

Only thing is I dont know if I would be able to go with a scale speed of 24 - 25 knots. Olympic got up to 23 knots maximum but Titanic got up to 21 1/2 knots without all the boilers lit up nor running at the max revolutions her engines could run. 24 - 25 knots is in theory possible but rules are kind of iffy on these groups. One is I hear the speed has to be the same speed the orignal prototype went and if it went slower than 21 knots it doesnt matter all ships will be setup to run at a bare min 21 knots.

I will also have to keep an eye out for events, I would like to go to an event to see how things goes. Also need to get the most uptodate rules cause if I do start to build I would hate to have to go back and make changes.

But it would be impressive to command a Olympic class liner that is measuring in between 70 and 75 inches in length over the New York class battleship Iwould like to do which would be around 47 or so inches in length.

I am also thinking might consider building a flower corvette. Not sure if the north texas rules will allow putting armament on a flower corvette but they did have a pretty good sized deck cannon about the same size used on US subs during WWII.

kotori

Hi Rusty, although a few clubs have folded over the years, the rest of us are still going strong. In fact, many of us are so busy building, battling, and patching that we don't have time to keep our websites fully up-to-date.

As far as building a ship, there are lots of options if you are car-challenged. torpedo-armed destroyers and cruisers are compact and very portable, as well as packing a powerful battleship-killing punch. If that doesn't work, you can always go with a ship like Viribus Unitis: ultra-compact battleship with very dense firepower, but no need for complex interrupters or other systems like many WWI vessels. I'm hoping to build a predreadnought in the next year or two, as a demonstration for how to do them.

For transports, keep in mind that there are MANY different transports to choose from, ranging from giants like RMS Queen Mary down to coastal tramps/fishing boats and even LCVPs. In particular, Strike Models has a nice LST kit. I have seen Stephen's demonstration version, it is a great way for a beginner to get started. Also keep in mind that smaller transports take less damage, because they are smaller targets and are also better at dodging.

Lastly, don't be discouraged by your vehicle. I have seen lots of creative ways to transport ships, from roof racks to leaning back the passenger seat to hitching a ride with someone with a bigger car. I can carry my entire fleet: two battleships, one destroyer, and three different transports, plus two tables, a toolbox, two lifeguard rescue tubes, one more person, and a bunch of other gear inside a compact economy car. It takes a bit of planning to pack and unpack everything, but it is entirely possible.

Wreno

Don't worry too much speed, as in NTXBG, all transports get 22 knots as the minimum allowable. Even my little tramp steamer. Also, having a Titanic, I can tell you that with all 3 screws going forward she turns rather poorly. With only the center screw operational, she turns far better. I can also tell you that it is quite a handful to carry around fully ballasted.

You do realize that, under many rulesets, a Titanic class is largely a point/hole magnet with those huge broad sides. Something like a Cimarron or Altmark is far more competitive and hard to hit. Again, I like the Kormoran, as it can be a cargo ship or a commerce raider with the flick of a switch when properly set up, and is not too big to wrangle around. And, again, a Liberty is a good starting first cargo ship.

Kotori is correct that you can get surprisingly large ships into surprisingly compact cars with some creativity. For instance some sedans have pass-throughs for the trunk where the seat rear seat or armrest folds down - many ships, with the superstructure removed will fit. Also folding seats and playing angles (putting he ship in diagonally) can help.

As for the flower class, they are a tough build, being smaller than my 18" tramp steamer, but they carried a 4" gun, as I recall, so you could cetrainly arm it in the NTXBG (the minimum gun size for arming is 3").

The most up-to date NTXBG rules are posted on the NTXBG site, ntxbg.org. The most up to date BGCWI ruleset is up on is up on rcwarships.org.

Cheers,

Wreno
NTXBG

Saxondog

The thing about this hobby that I continue to wonder about is why have the system's not evolved? Seems that progress is lacking and the same old battle techniques are not very satisfying. Why have new system's not been developed?

What has changed from the first systems sold by Swampworks? How has the hobby grown and why does newer technologies not seem to be applied? I have seen this hobby remain a battle of very close quarters, the distance and hit rates beyond two feet do notexist? It seems like the Dreadnought was invented to battle like a square rigged ship like Constitution. Close quarters battle without the salvo firing technique of the first generation dreadnoughts?

It seems that a atmosphere of no new idea's prevails. Why battle like ships of the line when technology is available to fire at a greater distance and achieve a good hit rate? What is the attraction? What has changed over the last year that would encourage new membership?

Is itpossibleto ask these questions without being attacked for suggesting that maybe the time has come to grow? I would very much like to encourage young people to join the hobby, but the truth seems to be that if they suggest any new manner or system they are quickly told no. Why? When do we here of new systems,techniques or even rules.

Best regards, Saxondog
<br type="_moz" />

kotori

The hobby has been growing and evolving continuously since its inception nearly 30 years ago. Our electronics are modern hobby RC gear, which has improved dramatically over the past few years. Smaller, lighter, more powerful electronics and batteries have opened up a whole range of ship classes that formerly were impossible to build. Destroyers, once considered "expert-only" builds, are now #3 on the list of recommended rookie ships. Our guns have become more compact and MUCH more reliable. predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts are actually getting armed with *gasp* all their guns. HMS Dreadnought was built in 1995 and armed with four non-rotating cannons, but now we have the technology to arm all 10 of its guns and make them rotate. Most recently, one of our club members developed a fire control computer, that would direct all of a ship's guns at the designated point, allowing it to fire a full broadside towards targets not directly off the beam.

The issue here is that you aren't going to *sink* anyone by firing from scale ranges. Heck, you aren't going to sink anyone even by firing from 15 feet away, and that's WAY shorter than scale range. There simply isn't a way to safely elevate the guns enough that you can put holes below the waterline at those ranges. Sure, I have seen shots skip as far as 30 feet and still put holes in targets, but those were high up the hull and didn't let any water in, and usually took quite a few tries to score a single hit. Low hit rate plus no holes below the waterline means no sinks, and that's not very fun for us skippers. If you want to sink a ship, that means getting close. Really close. Most hits are scored from 6 feet or less, and most fatal damage is inflicted from 2 feet range or less. That isn't the limitations of technology, it's the limitations of human beings. You're standing on shore, watching the guns rotate on your ship 20 feet away, trying to hit an enemy ship that's another 20 feet away moving in a different direction entirely, and you expect to achieve a good hit rate?

I am curious, what technology are you referring to? How expensive is it? How bulletproof is it? How waterproof is it? To the best of my knowledge, the technology you are referring to does not exist in our scale, except to certain modern militaries, and some technology-oriented universities. If something new has been released to the general public, let me know so I can use it to take my revenge for losing this year's Last Man Standing battle.

The short answer is that 33% of "suggestions" for new systems from new people involve flamethrowers, 33% involve high-powered rifles, 33% involve dynamite, and that last 1% involve totally impractical ideas such as battling 1:144 fighter planes, or having a 20-man crew for each ship. That's 99% of "suggestions" that immediately violate every safety rule in the book. Most people who see this hobby think "battle bots plus guns on water? Lemme grab my shotgun and we'll blow s*** up". I've actually heard people say that exact quote. The fact is that people who think that way (or worse, people who act that way) have no place in this hobby, so I have no problem turning them away. The last 1% of people form the core of our new members, once they've learned the basic limitations of reality.

Saxondog

My questions were not meant to be anassault, they are valid. I have built, Tested, improved and will shortly market a 1/16 scale paintball system for our hobby. Thetechnologywe use to aim the guns are a simple laser pointer, available for 5.00 at most vendors. Their have been airsoft guns on tanks for a while.

The turret of a tank works the same way as far as aiming and correcting shots. Most guy's battle I/R but the paintball systems are just now being developed and marketed. Your .177 bbammunitionwas posted over two years ago in the Tank section of this forum, also using a laser pointer device toaccuratelyaim and fire.

Several members have built systems that fire .6mm ammo at FPS rates above 150 and as high as 450. Now this may not be the best power for your hobby but you asked about the technology.

Could the directors on your ships not be fitted with a single laser? My 1/200 Yamato from Nichimo has all main guns rotating with the main director, and this ship is 22yrs old. I am not throwing stones but battle at close quarters seems to require less skill and whoever has the most C02/GREENGAS wins the day. Also the camera technology is available for less than 50.00 and is very reliable. Mounted in a director this could possibly work.

Just seems that if anyone not of your group suggest new idea's they are faced with a negative reply. Soon Lindberg will release the USS Arizona in 1/144 scale. Perhaps this kit will encourage a shift to a different system. Paintball will not sink your battleship but could be used in an effective way to enhance your hobby as ranging fire or with a set of rules maybe a new type of battle.

I am only interested in apracticaldiscussion, at no time am I trying tocriticize your hobby, group or anyone in the hobby. Just see the technology used in our hobby could be used in yours.

Saxondog<br type="_moz" />

Wreno

You seem to think nothing has changed since the Swampworks days, but that is wrong. Along with all the stuff Kotori mentioned, there have been numerious refinements, things tried and failed, tried and found to be good, etc. in the Big Gun area as well as small/fast gun. There is even a new format, Treaty.

Remember, many of our members are more historian than roboticists. We are more akin to sailors in the days of buccaneers, with close in broadsides determining the day. A good captain can already make a shot at 10ft or more with practice (I have made one from a shore battery that hit at probably over 60, or close to that amount - three skips before it hit). Laser pointers are kind of out of character for the period, and, secondly, hard to see in the bright sunlight on bobbing ships. And then you have reflections, etc. And, yes, we have tried pointing laser pointers at the ships (from a few feet away on the shore), and found them pretty useless. Green lasers, perhaps, but they are more costly and more likely to dazzoe. Remember, safety is important to us.

Then you mention cameras. Time looking at the gun camera is time not assessing your situation. Situational awareness is a key component of the sport, trust me. Also, reliability is a key component, the more complicated you make the plumbing, the easier it is to get a fatal stoppage.

One thing you will find, though, is that we adopt technologies rapidly as they become available (if they are useful). We love the antweight robotics guys for some of the electorics they fostered (though some of our guys are fostering their own as well).

But, one of the points you seem to miss is that it is all about doing real (though easily reparable) damage and really sinking. Or taking real damage and surviving. Sinking is digital - you sink or you survive. And working with electronics, pneumatics, etc. in a very harsh environment provides plenty of intellectual challenges.

It only takes a few battles under your belt to "get it." Most of the complaints of lack of innovation come from people who have never even been to or seen, much less participated in, the sport.

By the way, 6mm paintballs below the waterline (were the "good' shots hit" should tend to be washed away, right?

We already have guns that fire plenty fast and hard enough, and, in many clubs, the speed is limited (due to legal requirements) - so ho does it help us to fire a 6mm paintball 450fFPS when we cannot legally fire our ammunition faster than, say, 165FPS? Again, knowing the constraints helps define the issues.

Of course, you will find the innovation on the more specific, dedicated forums more than you will on a general purpose forum like RCGroups or RCU. These more open groups are more likely to get the newb who has the "ultimate idea" of a torpedo or mnie that totally destroys any ship it hits (which, of course, is not the purpose of the sport in the first place).

An example. One common conception is subs. Everyone seems to want to build a sub. However, remember, if your opponent cannot see your sub, neither can you. Some have been built. Some even have battled. The consensus is that the effort and cost to build a 1/144 scale sub is better spent on a good battleship, which is cheaper and easier to build and is more likely to do damage and survive. Subs, while cool, are a novelty.

Cheers,

Wreno

Saxondog

OK by the way,I was asked to describe the technologies. I did not suggest you use 6mm ammo,I stated that systemsexistfrom .177 to .608 and these systems work for our hobby tanks. All I am tying to do is open a discussion of the limitations andpossibleadvances to the hobby. I still have several ships and have posted the new kit I just got the 1/200 Arizona. Iunderstandyour group does not use this scale, fine but the systems changes were the point of the discussion.

Again I ask what has changed? We battle onpropertythat is owned bymuseumsand we have a obligation to public safety. And are required to provide liabilityinsuranceAll states have a limit on Paintball/airsoft weapons and the high FPS do not work well in the tanks as it is to dangerous. Good hits at 100fps are great,30-50 feet at most for hit rates. But I still ask what has changed? Who sells the systems? Where are the kits sold and how have they changed from the Swampworks kit of yesteryear?

Then you say laser sights are not period correct? Ok battling likepirateswith dreadnought type ships is not period correct either. Instead of attacking small sections of my post and taking those sections out of context I will ask some short specific question as I amseriouslyconsidering this hobby and their is a new group in Texas that have built a fine tank/aircraft battlefield and they are considering ships as part of thebattlefield.

Also in traveling to Texas from Tennessee I had considered attending a meet of the group in Texas, and the new armor / aircraft battle group. So let me ask some questions,I am really interested in the answers. I need someguidance.


What psi are the systems? How are they regulated? What is the power source is used CO2 OR Greengas? What size and type of ammo? Are biodegradable bb available in your ammunition size? What about pumps, damage control, rate of fire,ammunitionamounts allowed, how many working guns per ship? Is this still based on size? Who controls the battle? Are their restrictions on the FPM and if so how are the guns checked to verify this regulation isenforced?

Best Regards, Saxondog<br type="_moz" />

kotori

Saxon, I would be very interested to hear how well the RC tank paintball technologies are working. Reason being one of my friends is working on 1:48 scale ACW ironclads for combat and demonstrations at the local re-enactors group. ACW ironclads often have very strange or difficult-to-make-penetrable hull shapes, and are thus not suitable for traditional solid-shot cannons, so my friend was very excited when I told him that RC tanks can now use 6mm paintballs.

To answer your question about what has changed from the Swampworks days of yesteryore, I think the differences are best summarized by comparing a Ford Model T to a modern sports car. The very basic concepts haven't changed much, but there have been incremental improvements everywhere. A skipper from 20 years ago could look inside a modern ship and identify at least 75% of the stuff. The only major changes that a skipper from 20 years ago would NOT have recognized are the fully waterproof ESC, and modern paintball CO2 bottles and regulators. Our guns still follow the same basic operating principles, although we have made huge improvements in reliability, efficiency, and ease of manufacture. Fast Gun cannons still are plumbing fittings and copper tubing soldered together, and Big Gun cannons are still large, machined plastic and metal turrets. We still mostly use brushed DC motors, although a few fast gunners are switching over to brushless motors, especially for their pumps. Our pumps are still basic centripetal impeller pumps, although they now use much more efficient impellers and are more reliable.

There have not been any major technological revolutions in the hobby since J.C. White invented the rotating Big Gun cannon. That's not for a lack of trying, though. The best and brightest have been working at it since the very beginning. We even have the basic idea down. 1) An onboard sensor capable of detecting and identifying targets, and providing accurate range and bearing on them. 2) A fire control computer capable of bringing all guns independently to bear on a target, and adjusting elevation to the input range. And 3) A rotation/depression system accurate enough to benefit from that control. The technology for that exists today. The problem is that it is neither simple nor cheap. Sonic rangefinders have difficulty distinguishing between a wave and a ship, especially when they are mounted on a rolling, heaving platform. IR rangefinders and laser rangefinders have similar problems. You could use a pair of cameras for stereoscopic rangefinding, but even that is a complex task. And then there is the cost issue. I have no problem mounting a pair of non-waterproof, non-bulletproof sensors on my ship if they cost $1 each. But I cannot afford to do so if they cost $30 each. I sink to often and I get shot too often to afford that kind of expense. The current generation of sensors available to the public is too expensive for use in combat warships. I expect the situation to change as new sensors are introduced, and I am watching the market for either waterproof/bulletproof sensors (especially micro wireless cameras) or sufficiently inexpensive sensors. But it hasn't happened yet.

On laser pointers: I don't care very much about "period correct". So I have no objections on that account. But I have investigated laser pointers, and was disappointed in them for naval use. The basic problem I encountered is the same reason why age-of-sail battles were fought at pistol ranges instead of the ranges cannons of the time were capable of: a ship is an inherently unsteady weapons platform. An RC tank with laser pointer can stop to steady its aim, and get very good results with a laser pointer. But a ship cannot. With the ship rocking and rolling, it's hard to spot the laser point when it's on another ship. When it points into the water, you cannot see the dot, and when it points above the ship, you cannot see it either. It does help, but not very much. I scrapped the project after considering the safety hazard of using a powerful laser pointer onboard a sinking ship, and the probable cost and difficulty of waterproofing and protection vs the small benefits.

One thing you may be interested in is the WWCC's battles at the annual Maker Faire. The Maker Faire is a celebration of inventors and geeks, and draws hundreds of thousands of people each year. My local club, the WWCC, built a portable pond so we could battle at this event several years ago, and last year we were the single biggest attraction at the Faire. The pond is surrounded on 3 sides by clear, bulletproof armor (the 4th side is for skippers, and has a steel wall behind it). Audiences could come and watch as we held a 15-minute sortie on the hour every hour from 10am 'til closing on both days of the faire. Insurance for this event was provided by the Maker Faire itself, but I'd bet NAMBA would be willing to cover similar battles provided the appropriate safety measures were taken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZMGx1H9GcU

I'll answer the rest of your questions later tonight. Right now I gotta go cook

Wreno

To answer some of your questions with regard to Big Gun: In Big Gun we use .177, 3/16", 7/32", and 1.4" calibers. Mild steel corrodes away pretty quickly in the environment.

We use CO2 regulated to a max of 140 or 150 PSI on the primary regulator, with individual guns being regulated down to the proper velocity/penetration range (often 65-85PSI). Some use on-board of off-board (for single shot systems) compressors - same pressure limitations.

Big gun turrets rotate and, generally, all barrels fire as one.

In NTXBG (the club you originally asked about), if the ship had a gun of caliber over 3", you are allowed to arm it. All of 'em. IF you can figure out how and want to. Caliber is dependent on the caliber of the prototype ship's guns.

All of this is a far cry from original Swampy days.

The kits from Strike and Battlers are also improving, albeit slowly - plus Dreadnought Hulls and others have joined the fray. Some of the kits from Strike have CNC cut subdecks and decks with turret holes already in place, etc. Some of the superstructure, turret covers, etc., and termite armor have become available.

As for the comment on lasers, ships did gent into broadside type slug-fests events in WWI and WWII, though they were generally switching to plunging fire (which we cannot do for safety reasons). Some consideration has to be given to real world limitations.

Many build their ships from scratch - it is not that hard, and a wooden scratch=build ship can be really beautiful.

In the NTXBG the limitation is on penetration of a standard foam, though many clubs use chronometers or other methods to enforce power. Enforcement is up to the safety officer (and every member of the club is a deputy safety officer).

The rules for the NTXBG and lots of helpful articles (including an introduction to the sport that may answer some questions originally published in Servo Magazine) are on the site - as well as links to other clubs and to suppliers. [link=http://ntxbg.org]ntxbg.org[/link]

Also, you might want to look at [link=http://rcwarships.org]https://rcwarships.org[/link]

With ESC's the Morgret Fire Control System in development, auto-pump circuits, battery technology changes, radio technology changes, waterproofing techniques, etc. there have been numerous changes over the years -and more on the near horizon - especially since the original Swampy days with only BB guns made out of plumbing bits, and a limit of 3 -5 to a ship based on units. Several ships have microprocessors in them now, and others have circuits designed for them that have not been installed yet for one reason or another. We even have a ship in the club with an auto-stabilizer.

Cheers,

Wreno

Saxondog

Thank-you very much. I am grateful for yourresponse.The Micro compressor is of interest. Sorry for not being more direct with my questions. You have provided the information I needed and now I have a better understanding of the progress made in the Hobby. cheers Saxondog

kotori

Onboard compressors are what we used to use before CO2 became widely available. Open the case of a 12v bicycle (or automobile) air compressor, and you can remove the guts of the system. This makes for a much more compact air source that is only limited by your batteries. You still need to build a electric pressure cutoff switch, and figure out some way to protect the system against water, and prevent electrical noise from a high-current, cheap chinese motor from interfering with your electronics. They are also only half the size of a 20-oz CO2 bottle (not counting the battery), so the space and weight savings is questionable. I tried one, but was not impressed with the result. Electrical noise from startup disabled both my ship and a nearby teammate's ship. I drifted across the pond, while my teammate got swarmed and sunk just outside the Axis harbor. After that, I switched back to CO2.

External compressors are a different story, however. They're basically the same thing, except not removed from their factory-designed case and not installed in a ship. We use them to charge up the single-shot "torpedo" cannons on destroyers and cruisers. In this role they work very well, since you can power it from a car battery instead of your ship's onboard batteries. Also, something about leaving a compressor in its factory-designed case helps reduce noise both electrical and audible, preventing issues like what happened to my test onboard compressor ship.