The Ship Model Forum

Speaking of big turrets, here's a pair of [b]14"/45 cal. triple-gun turrets and barrels for USS [i]Pennsylvania[/i] BB-38 in 1/96 scale[/b]. [i]Pennsylvania[/i]'s turrets differed from sistership [i]Arizona[/i]'s in detail. [i]Pennsy[/i]'s turrets' external vent trunks did not have access plates. Notice that the rooftop periscopes are accurately asymmetrical.

Thanks to Martin Quinn for providing high-resolution photos of the real turrets.

These model turrets are so big that only one fits in the 3D printer at a time and it takes about 15 hours to print just that one.

[b]Hello zadmiral! Thanks for your comments, compliments, research efforts and opinions![/b] Your many years of research are indeed impressive.

Please be advised that this thread is intended for product announcements rather than hypothetical design discussions. But your comments are appreciated. Since you challenged my design here directly, please allow me to respond here directly. Afterwards, if you would like to continue the discussion, let's do that elsewhere.

[b]Bottom line up front: computer 3D modeling confirms a longer 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouse doesn't work for the Montana class. The 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun doesn't fit in it. The Mk.28's gunhouse is not tall enough to allow the gun to fully elevate without shoving the breech through the floor.[/b]

[u]Until a Navy design sheet surfaces, suffice it to say, it is impossible to create an "accurate" design of an object that not only never existed, but whose design may never have been completed.[/u]

[b]Montana Builders Model.[/b] I recognize and agree it should be noted that the [i]Montana[/i] builder's model has what appears to be 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouses aboard it, the kind fit to earlier fast battleships. It is my opinion that there is consensus that the Mk.28 gunhouse would not have been fit to the Montana class. A new design, called the Mk.41 gunhouse, was intended for the Montana class. The fast battleship Mk.28 gunhouses' presence on the model tends to indicate that the design of the Mk.41 gunhouse was not yet designed, not yet complete, or otherwise not available to those who constructed the ship's builder's model. Perhaps the craftsmen who built the Montana model knew a Mk.41 was coming, but having nothing yet to work with, may have used the existing 5"/38 cal. gunhouse as a "placeholder". We may never know.

[b]Analysis Methodology.[/b] So what might the actual Mk.41 gunhouse really look like? Since the Mk.41 gunhouse never existed, and without authoritative references, it is impossible to know. To offer a reasonable solution, we are fortunate to be able to analyze a 5"/54 cal. gunhouse that does exist in reality, the Mk.39 gunhouse used for the Midway class aircraft carriers, and try to understand why it looks the way it does. We can evaluate the Midway gunhouse seeking to learn how its size and shape are determined by the physical characteristics and space requirements of the very real and well-documented 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun. A critical factor in our understanding is to identify how that gun moves within the gunhouse from full depression to full elevation and to determine the space required to permit that movement. We'll also need to ensure sufficient space for the crew. This will tell us how long and how tall our gunhouse ought to be. This is the analysis methodology I followed when creating my hypothetical design.

[b]Why the 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouse is too small for the Montanas.[/b] I started by replicating the basic shape of the 5"/54 cal. gun in 3D. Then I determined how much space it needed through its full range of motion. Then I placed that 3D model gun inside a 3D model 5"/38 cal. gunhouse I had previously designed from authoritative references. The CAD software allowed me to move the gun through its full range of elevation. The CAD software showed that a North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa class mount's gunhouse was significantly too small in all dimensions. [u]The gun simply doesn't fit.[/u] At that point, it was immediately clear that the 5"/38 gunhouse, even one that was lengthened, was not suitable and had to be abandoned.

[b]Finding a reasonable gunhouse.[/b] The design question then became, "since the 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 mount's gunhouse is too small for the 5"/54 cal. gun, what kind of gunhouse should we replace it with?" Since the Mk.41 gunhouse was never constructed, and despite searches by several at NARA, no surviving plans have been found to exist, nor have any photos of a Mk.41 mockup been found.

The next logical step was to evaluate the the single-gun Mk.39 gunhouse used by the Midways which did enclose a 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun, the same gun intended for the Montanas. Detailed plans and photos for the Midway class Mk.39 gunhouse and Mk.16 gun are available. Here's one good drawing.

[attachment=1]5in-54 Mk.16 and Mk.39 for CVB cat-0462.jpg[/attachment]
[b]Characteristics of the 5"/54 cal. Mk. 16 gun.[/b] Comparing Navy drawings of the 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun and it's position within a 5"/54 cal. Mk.39 gunhouse to the smaller 5"/38 Mk.12 gun within a 5"/38 cal. Mk.30 single-gun gunhouse, the 5"/54 Mk.16 gun [u]extends 21" further to the rear from the trunnion than does the 5"/38 cal. gun[/u]. This is probably because the 5"/54 cal. projectile and cartridge casing were much longer than the 5"/38's projectile and casing necessitating the Mk.16s much longer breech block, and possibly to balance the longer and heavier gun barrel.*

[b]Busting the gunhouse floor.[/b] Computer 3D modeling confirmed that the longer breech means that the gun has to be positioned higher in the Mk.41 gunhouse than where the 5"/38 gun is placed in its gunhouse. That in turn requires the gunhouse to be taller, too. [u]When the gun barrel is elevated to it's design maximum of +85 degrees, the longer breech block extends downward further.[/u] If you put a 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun in a Iowa class 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouse, the gun can't be fully elevated because the breech comes into contact with the gunhouse floor long before the barrel reaches max elevation. To keep that from happening, the 5"/54's trunnion must be placed higher above the gunhouse floor than the trunnion of the 5"/38. Thus the gunhouse roof of any gunhouse enclosing a 5"/54 cal Mk.16 gun must be taller than a gunhouse enclosing a 5"/38.

Notice in the drawing above, the design of the Midway class Mk.39 gunhouse reflects the need for a taller gunhouse. [u]The trunnion on the real Mk.16 gun in the real Midway class Mk.39 gunhouse is positioned nearly 15" higher than the trunnion of the 5"/38 cal. Mk.12 gun in a twin-gun Iowa class 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouse.[/u] Compare:

[attachment=0]5in-38 Mk.28 32 38 (small).jpg[/attachment]
Trunnion placement tends to confirm that [u]the 5"/38 cal. Mk.28 gunhouse is not just too short front-to-rear, but too short roof-to-floor, too, for the 5"/54 Mk.16 gun[/u]. We see that in the case of a very real and in-service gunhouse built for the 5"/54 cal Mk.16 gun, the designers built a much larger gunhouse to accommodate it. This tends to indicate that those designers fully realized that a single Midway Mk.16 gun would not fit in an enlarged gunhouse enclosing a single 5"/38 cal. gun and something entirely new was needed.

With that understanding, the same is likely to be true of the twin-gun Montana class Mk.41 gunhouse. Enlarging a twin-gun 5"/38 cal. gunhouse won't work either. That's why I used the existing Midway class Mk.39 gunhouse as the basis to design a [b][i][u]theoretical[/u][/i][/b] Mk.41 gunhouse, not an Iowa class 5"/38 Mk.28 gunhouse extended to rear.

[b]Crew space.[/b] When I created my design, I lengthened the 5"/54 cal. Mk.39 mount to provide suitable, proportional pass-around space to the rear of the guns. This is an important characteristic of twin-gun turrets. My design is [u]not[/u] simply a wider Midway turret. If we add a second gun, we also need to provide more space at the rear, presumably to permit the passing of crewmen from one side of the mount to the other, if necessary, without fouling any of the gun crews at their stations. For example, the single-gun 5"/38 cal. Mk.30 mount on Fletchers, etc., has a certain space to the rear of the gun. But in the twin-gun Mk.28s (fast battleships), Mk.32s (carriers and cruisers) and Mk.38s (Sumner and Gearings) there is a lot more space behind the guns, proportionally so for each of the 5"/38 cal. Mk.28, Mk.32 and Mk.38 designs.

So, when I designed my theoretical Montana Mk.41 gunhouse design, I used the same single-gun to twin-gun proportional lengthening of the 5"/38s to determine how much to lengthen the Midway Mk.16 gunhouse to create a functional Mk.41. [b]That gives us a gunhouse appearance that looks like this:[/b]

[attachment=2]Model Monkey 1-350 5in-54 Mk.41 Mounts for Montana class a.jpg[/attachment]
[b]I hope many of you will find my methodology sensical and the design I created pleasing and satisfactory.

zadmiral, please continue your research efforts! If you should find plans of the Mk.41 gunhouse, I hope you will share them with us. I will be very excited to create a design based on them.[/b]


* The 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun fired a projectile that was 26 inches long. The casing was nearly 33 inches long. By comparison, the shorter 5"/38 cal. Mk.12 gun fired a projectile that was 20.75 inches long, more than 5" shorter than the Midway 5"/54 cal. projectile. The 5"/38 Mk.12 cal. shell casing was 26.7" long, more than 6 inches shorter than the Midway 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun's 33"-long shell casing.

The 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun is reported to have been unpopular because the weight of the larger shell resulted in faster crew fatigue. See also: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.php

Hello sir...
Your work is awesome. Kudos
I have been on a FB site and we have been discussing the USS Montana.
I saw you had secondary battery gunhouses available. I am the person you quoted in a forum link provided there.
I have done extensive research (10+ years) on the mk41 gunhouses. Ordnance drawings for this do not exist.
I stated that your gunhouses were incorrect.
And here is why.
The mk39 as used on the Midways was a pedestal mount. This meant that the shell ejection chute was in the floor of the gunhouse. And the back portion of the roof was beveled/angled.
Battleships however needed a lower profile mount. And thus had the shell ejection chute in the back wall of the gunhouse.
I discussed this with Mr. Norman Friedman and he agreed the mk41 gunhouses would have been slightly longer versions of the mk28/32 gunhouses with the ejection chutes in the back wall. And a slightly larger base ring.
The pedestal and base ring gunhouses are not interchangeable.
You might notice that in your version that there is no place for the shell casings to be ejected. The chutes must be in the back wall.
Your work is amazing. I only wish you made battleship parts in my scale..
Thank you for your support of the model builders industry.

[b][color=#008000]Thanks Kelley and Jon![/color][/b]

For aircraft modelers, I am happy to report that [b]1/48 scale B-17 Flying Fortress flaps and flap wells[/b] are now available in gray resin. I hope that this 4-part flap and flap well set will be an attractive alternative to photo-etch sets with lots of fiddly parts.

Coming soon: a 3D-printed [b]cockpit[/b] is in design for the classic [b]Revell 1/32 scale Bristol Beaufighter[/b] as is a [b]seat for the classic Airfix 1/24 scale P-51 Mustang[/b]. Hollow Merlin exhausts are already available in 1/32, 1/24 and 1/18 scales.

[quote="TOMLABEL"]Agree with Miguel!!!
Received the Yorktown and Lexington class islands (along with one other item) last week and all are excellent. Love the new resin material!!!

Keep up the good work Steve!!! :thumbs_up_1:

Kelley[/quote]

Have to agree with Tom Label. I received my 1/350 Lex island and funnel two days ago. Fantastic parts that will really add to my kit. It took awhile but I was able to remove all of the supporting sprues without any issues. Also received my Lex anchors, Mk56 fire control directors, Mk37 fire control directors (Cold War) and my Cold War life raft racks for my Gallery Intrepid. All are great including the 20mm ready service lockers that I had purchased previously. I am one happy customer.

Agree with Miguel!!!
Received the Yorktown and Lexington class islands (along with one other item) last week and all are excellent. Love the new resin material!!!

Keep up the good work Steve!!! :thumbs_up_1:

Kelley

[color=#008000]You're very welcome! I hope they are a help to you in building HMS [i]Sheffield[/i].[/color]

Another popular Model Monkey product in 1/700 scale, with blast bags:

[quote="ModelMonkey"]Here you go:[/quote]

Thanks :) The height doesn't quite seem to fit either front or rear funnel, but shortening the rear funnel by a few millimetres should be fairly straightforward and extending the front one isn't too much of an issue since the base of the funnel is almost entirely obscured by the aircraft hangars.

[b][color=#008000]Thanks so much, Miguel![/color][/b] Very glad to see your comments!

More big and small:

Steve ,got my first batch of your new resin pieces ,and are the best hands down ,not a single problem as the previous Frosted Detail, they are perfect for modeling and the detail is IMHO even a bit better than FUD(smooth fine detail) ,now I am feeling sad ,because I have quite a lot old pieces in FUD, and wish this new material was available back then.
Good job Steve :thumbs_up_1:

Here you go:

Great stuff as always!

Could you provide the measurements for the Belfast funnels please? I am wondering how much surgery would be needed to convert them into passable replacements for my iron Shipwrights HMS Sheffield :)

More:

[b]1/96 scale fans! Here's a [color=#0000FF]5"/38 cal. Mount for Destroyer Escorts[/color]:[/b]

[b][color=#008000]Thanks, Mark![/color][/b]

Hi Sean,

I regret to say that I have not designed a '44 [i]Enterprise[/i] island.

Hey Steve -

Didn't you have a '44 or '45 Enterprise superstructure available a while back? Or am I just misremembering?

- Sean F.

Wow Steve! Those look nice.

[b][color=#008000]Thanks Kelley![/color]

Yours shipped this morning![/b]

Beautiful, Steve!!! :thumbs_up_1: Can't wait to receive mine!!
Kelley

[b]Here's the [i]Enterprise[/i] island with sprues removed.[/b]