The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Technically the first FLETCHERS to get the "D-shaped" tub were LaVALLETTE (the first) and FLETCHER in July-August 1943. Then STEVENS and HALFORD in September-October 1943. NICHOLAS and O'BANNON, along with a whole group of other first-built FLETCHERs, came in for overhaul and upgrade in December 1943. I like to call this the "MINY-style" tub, because MINY was the ONLY yard known to modify FLETCHERs with this style of tub. The tear-drop shape was the "Standard" official design.

I know that O'BANNON and some others had the scallops, but not all D-Shape tubs had it. Look at the photos of FLETCHER. However after a quick review, it appears that many of the early modified units did have the scallops. However, those Anti-Kamikaze modified units in 1945 don't all seem to have the scallops.

As for missing details, the lip at the bottom on the lower edge of the tubs, both the Tear-drop and D-shape, still needs to be added on. See attached image for the MINY style of "lip" added to support and enclose the bracing underneath. I don't have any drawings or photos showing the bracing under the D-Shape tubs. There were two pretty substantial girders running under the full length of the deckhouse deck and extending aft becoming an overhang. They were 24-in off centerline both port and starboard. See attached image (aft is to the left). Remember that the early units with the original one deck higher quad 1.1-in mount tub, were modified to the lower configuration with D-shape tubs from scratch, so what MINY added in for bracing is unknown. So I would just use what was installed on the tear-drop shaped tubs. Other units that had the lower tub likely retained at least the original tub floor bracing. The Tear-drop bracing was pretty simple and can be seen in the drawing.

Several units had "external" spent rounds bins, but this is a variation hard to justify.


Attachments:
zDD445DshapeTub-13Aug43.jpg
zDD445DshapeTub-13Aug43.jpg [ 187.97 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD447DshapeTub-13Jan44.jpg
zDD447DshapeTub-13Jan44.jpg [ 67.32 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD445ClassAftDeckhousex1.lr.jpg
zDD445ClassAftDeckhousex1.lr.jpg [ 193.19 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD481AftGunTub-12Mar44.jpg
zDD481AftGunTub-12Mar44.jpg [ 130.47 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD445AftDeckhouseGirder.jpg
zDD445AftDeckhouseGirder.jpg [ 171.53 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD532DshapeTub-Jan45.jpg
zDD532DshapeTub-Jan45.jpg [ 188.54 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD572DshapeShape-Sep44.jpg
zDD572DshapeShape-Sep44.jpg [ 128.77 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
zDD671DshapeTub-Jun45.jpg
zDD671DshapeTub-Jun45.jpg [ 188.33 KiB | Viewed 1133 times ]
Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Better?

I can delete the scallops and make a second version without them for ships who didn't get them. That's super easy. The supports and racks on the inside of the splinter shielding will be the hard part!

Image

Image

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
On the D-shape MINY Tubs, the sides of the bulwark overlapped the sides of the deckhouse. AKA the bottom edge of the "bulwark" proper isn't at the deck level of the deckhouse (tub floor). The heavy I-beams shouldn't be seen, at least by very much, in profile view.

Maybe this drawing from Floating Drydock's Plan e-Book will help to understand what I'm talking about. I don't know about their dimensions, but this gives you a good idea of how things were arranged.


Attachments:
zFloatDrydockDshapeTub.jpg
zFloatDrydockDshapeTub.jpg [ 124.78 KiB | Viewed 1124 times ]
Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, this is where I am right now. Its almost done. The modeler will have to add some photoetched railing atop the little tub for the Mark 51. The little ribs underneath that Mr. Davis pointed out have been reduced in size, and internal supports added to the interior of the shielding. The 40mm clips and such likely will not be added. I just can't get them printable, they're so small in 1/350th. I've been trying all afternoon and short of obscenely resizing them which would defeat the purpose, it just doesn't look like its happening. That may be another application for which photoetch would be best.

The one issue right now is that as I upload the part to Shapeways, faces disappear. I've had this issue crop up before, even after fixing the mesh in Netfabb. I'm going to throw in the towel for tonight, watch the Angels lose again, and retry it tomorrow. For some odd reason, time seems to cure these little Shapeways issues.

Now, should I add a little mounting hole for the Mark 51 or leave well enough alone? I'll also add pipe railing along the exterior of the deckhouse just above deck level an maybe a few other little details. Otherwise, I think she's about done. Anything obvious that I've missed?

Thanks,

Bob


Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
At least a centering indent for the Mk 51 director.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Will do, in a few. Right now, she who wants catnip and chin scratches demands my undivided attention.

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Getting really close with the O'Bannon D-shaped deckhouse and tub. The Fletcher one will have a slight alteration of the director pedestal. I'm at the point where I'm installing the pipe railings around the deckhouse sides. As long as their mostly flush with the sides of the deckhouse, they'll print like the ones on the Sims conversions did. Now, the issue...

Are there any photos of the aft face of the deckhouse for either DD? Or, was there a generic pattern for any details there?

Sorry for the lack of progress but work started up and they've got me teaching a full load of 5 classes and almost 200 students, so time has been really tight.

Thanks,

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
D-shaped tubs are on order from Shapeways. Due to the simple nature of the deckhouse, I'm offering it first as a simple no detail part. The modeler can attach PE doors if he wants. I'll also do a part with the simple handrails on the sides of the deckhouse if I can get pics of the starboard and aft side, with more details. Otherwise, I can't tell where to put those rails.

Then, its back to the standard teardrop tub and - ta da! - a Fletcher floatplane conversion. Think USS Stanly and her subgroup.

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
There were TWO Aircraft-Handling FLETCHER Configurations.

Out of the six destroyers designated for this mission, only three FLETCHERS actually had and operated aircraft ... STANLY had a catapult installed for less than a week before it was ordered removed and NEVER operated an aircraft. STANLY never had a "Sub-Group".

PRINGLE group had an unsuccessful crane on the centerline and was used exactly four times.

STEVENS and HALFORD group had a breakneck crane installed on the portside main deck.

PRINGLE, STANLY, and HUTCHINS were converted to an interim Fleet Destroyer without the small deckhouse in early 1943 while STEVENS and HALFORD were completed with the new crane. LEUTZE never was completed to the Aircraft-Handling configuration.

I don't normally plug my own book, but my Round-Bridge FLETCHER book from Classic Warships has the MOST accurate story and photos of these Aircraft-Handling Destroyers. I wrote a full article in the INRO -WARSHIP INTERNATIONAL Journal a few years back.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:18 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3952
Location: USA
Beautiful work, Bob, truly inspiring stuff!

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
I have your book, its great! I'm using the plans of Stevens (for some reason I wrote Stanly) from the Floating Drydock. The catapult may be something better reserved for PE, to be honest, but I'll see what I can do. Anyway, the plans essentially portray this configuration at the top of the page, so that's how it'll eventually look: http://www.uss-stevens-dd479.us/history.html . Combine that with a Trumpeter OS2U and voila! I hope to have it done by Thanksgiving or Christmas, at the latest. Well, the trip to Maui permitting!

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, here's the latest.

Well, Shapeways rejected the tear drop tub due to thin walls, so I took the time to redesign the part. This seemingly simple project just keeps going and going...

This represents the square backed version, where the forward splinter shielding railing is cut off and flat backed. The shell dump openings were added, though I think there may be one or two too many. The Mark 49 package is ready to go. The last photo shows the director attached, and is meant to represent the photo Mr. Davis posted earlier of Fullam. It’ll only take a few minutes to modify the design to add the circular railings to make a standard tear drop shape.

My apologies for taking so long. Work is the main culprit. I was on disability for most of the year, and I find its so incredibly tiring being back at it; seriously, I’m tired all of the time. I also want to do things right and not put out any work that looks like garbage.

Now, would you prefer the plain tub, or the tub atop the deckhouse like the renderings I posted earlier in the thread? Please let me know.

Thanks!

Bob

Image
Image
Image
Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
That looks good ... I'm drooling over the Mk 49 directors!!!

The only comments I have are the three areas I have circled.

The two small circles deal with those are shuttles ... holes ... not raised areas. They don't actually have to be holes, but sunken instead of raised as a depression.

The large circle deals with how high and/or the diameter of the twin 40-mm mount foundation. The hole looks fine. I'm just not sure about the size of the ring. Let me think about it and check photos. Look at the image of the tub under construction. You can see the foundation ring before the 40-mm mount foundation ring is installed atop it and see what I'm talking about. It is a shallow "washer" shape. Some kits have the mount's ring on the bottom of the twin 40-mm and some mold it onto the deck of the model. The last image is the best I could come up with in a quick manner of a twin 40-mm mount. I'll look for a better view when I'm less tired.

My concern is that if this "ring" is too high, the twin 40-mm mount will sit too high.


Attachments:
TearDropTubxCAD-10Oct2015.jpg
TearDropTubxCAD-10Oct2015.jpg [ 34.58 KiB | Viewed 934 times ]
DD686AftGunTubConstruction.jpg
DD686AftGunTubConstruction.jpg [ 191.74 KiB | Viewed 934 times ]
Twin40-mmMountBase.jpg
Twin40-mmMountBase.jpg [ 169.85 KiB | Viewed 934 times ]
Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okey dokey, fixed! The little scuttles looked like doors or hatches in the drawings, so I made them raised. It was a simple issue to do an Extrude Cut and make them recessed. Here are two more versions, one with the tub eight equal to the railing, the other with the extension with some stiffeners. I forget which ships they represent. My brain is too hazy from the painkillers. Seriously.

Anyway let me know. Thank you Mr Davis, for you super observations! I'm having issues with getting the CAD program to recognize the director assembly. It keeps ghosting out the splinter shielding but I'm working on it.

Bob

Image
Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
I added a small detail to the Fullam-type tub, the little extension hanging off of the back end of the director cylinder. I had to do it by eye, but it looks okay. The idea here is that if one is using the Tamiya Fletcher parts, that the inner surface of that extension will just glue on to the forward face of the deckhouse, allowing for a nice, easy alignment. Thoughts? Does this look better?

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The extension looks a little to deep in the z-axis. Reference the attached image. The short "bulwark" outside the tub has a seam right about at the deck level of the tub. I didn't think of it before, but maybe it is a good idea to include the area outside the tub proper as part of the total part?? Don't do the railings, just the deck and short bulwark along the edge of the deckhouse. Modelers can cut and fit pieces to fill that in, but some will whine about doing so. :big_grin: Think about it.

There is still the issue of the rim at the bottom aft beyond the deckhouse deck. See the arrows to the lower right in this image. Remember that this "rim" (good name?) supported and confined the ribs that supported the overhang part of the "tub" deck.

The tricky part is that you are now interfacing with the kit deckhouse. Tamiya and Trumpeter could be slightly different in size and shape of the deckhouse. So the only way I can see doing this is to take a guess then get a "draft" part to check fit and then alter the final "product".


Attachments:
zDD481AftGunTub-12Mar44.jpg
zDD481AftGunTub-12Mar44.jpg [ 130.47 KiB | Viewed 911 times ]
Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
I suspect Fullam was an oddball. The cylinder was certainly extended. Compare the design with the photo you posted several pages back. The look about the same. I wonder if the cylinder being extended was an early try or variant, or perhaps an attempt to avoid the little centerline stiffener that would otherwise be there? Pelase ignore the ghosted out splinter shielding. Its there on the model, but the CAD program has an issue displaying this after a Boolean operation.

Image

Image



The bottom stiffener can’t be added without blocking up the shell dump holes. Some Fletchers seem to have had much smaller holes there and it may not have been an issue, but with this particular ship's design it doesn’t seem possible.

The thickening or rim is now there.

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, reaching the end point (FINALLY!)

The redesign let me redo a few things. I'm goign to release these as an integrated tub and deckhouse. That seems to be the best thing given the differences between the Tamiya and Trumpeter kits. Photos show a myriad of different doors and hatches, so there's a hole there where the modeler can install PE doors. The little handrail is now there. Other tiny details would be ship specific, so I didn't go any further. Photos seem to show this a fairly untextured, undetailed area, so I didn't overdo it.

Now... What am I missing? What else needs doing? The mounting holes are 1mm in diameter for the Bofors, and .5 mm for the Mark 51 director. Comments greatly appreciated. The missing railing in the Fullam model with the Mark 49 is not missing shielding, the rendering process just ghosted it out. Its there in the STL file.

Bob

Image

Image

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Shapeways has FINALLY updated things and given me a 11/3 shipping date. I'm hoping it will be MUCH earlier than that. They're running a promo for their designers and shop owners, and I suspect that's slowing down production. As soon as the parts arrive and I can check them for accuracy, I'll open things up for ordering.

Thank you for everyones' help and many suggestions!

Bob


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Shapeways says they're in production!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group