The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:11 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 905 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Dick -
Thanks. I'm not diming anyone out. Based on the (incomplete) info at the time it seemed reasonable to me too. John did master and produce the 1/350 resin LEX, that's why I e-mailed him to ask what supported that particular choice. It looks as if he came around (heh, heh) to your point of view when he mastered the model.
At my request Steve Larsen produced the curved bulwarks as noted above (including the single teardrop shaped one) so the parts are available to change any model depending on it's state of build and the courage of the modeler to cut into an existing model if change is decided. I stopped my LEX build when the Flag Plot discussion began and so I am in good shape to move ahead with Steve's 3D printed parts. ( I am not affiliated with Steve in any way - just an end user of his craft.)
John

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9590
Location: EG48
Sheridan hasn't been active in message boards since maybe 2003-2004, I think. I remember my first trip to NARA II in College park in 2005 and Don Montgomery was there by chance looking for the negative of that same photo to see if it was any "larger" than the print (i.e. was the print cropped at all?) for Steve. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
John W. wrote:
lvsquarerigger wrote:
So we are still left with nothing definitive but it seems the guesses and lucky pics here and there are what we have to live with. Still, it's more than what we had before so there is some progress even if it's only a little.
James


James -
Not sure what you mean by "nothing definitive" or little progress. I have seen several pictures that I think it is reasonable to say do confirm what the PHNY changes were - and that they are as documented in the drawing Steve Wiper published in WP-33. I have made my case about the drawing's authenticity elsewhere above, as has Steve Wiper. Even though we don't have the whole ship in pristine shape, those photo glimpses confirm what the drawing says. I saw no contradictions for that matter where something in a photo was different than the drawing. Therefore I think it is reasonable to infer that the other changes documented in the drawing were done as the drawing documents - even on the parts of the ship we have not yet seen, and may not ever see due to the massive destruction. The Flag Plot changes show up as partially complete in the PHNY photo posted a ways back with the barges in the foreground. In the same photo, the upper forward pair of twin 1.1" mounts show them arranged fore and aft as in the drawing, though not the shape of the forward end of the bulwark. Seeing the bulwarks for the after three 1.1" mounts certainly makes the case pretty strongly the shape (rounded end) is the same on the forward two pairs even without a photo (yet). Why would it be different? The picture of the bulwark on the 1.1" mount just aft of the stack has the same unique teardrop shape as the drawing does. How many bulwarks shaped like that have you seen? Not many I'd bet. Back to the Flag Plot changes, they are documented (including the rangefinder location on top) in the drawing. Finally, most of one of the 20MM swing-up platforms placed in some boat pockets shows in the ninth picture from the top above. And one key detail in the drawing and further clarified on page 70 of WP-33 is that the platforms are sectional, not one continuous unit. Each gun mount and splinter shield swings upward separately - probably due to the weight (each 20MM mount itself weighs ~1600 Lbs). The picture shows the platform is indeed split between each pair of 20MM mounts.
We may have gotten the most info we will ever get, but I think it brings us really close.

One thing I have wondered for some time is where did the idea of the 1.1" "cattle pens" shape come from. I have never seen a photo that clearly confirms the rectangular shape, nor any drawing. I think I know that answer based on a conversation I had by e-mail last week with someone I thought would know for sure. That answer was that there was no documentation upon which that shape was based. It was just an assumption - as many have made including me - that the quickest way to do the job was to use flat plates in a rectangular shape.
Tracy (not the person I e-mailed) has posted correspondence that shows the Yard had at least a week to ten days to work before LEX's arrival and they fabricated as much as possible in advance of the ship's actual arrival to expedite the work when she did arrive. (That's the Navy way.) The grease pen / paint markings which show in the pictures above on some of the newly installed components, are like the part numbers on a plastic model sprue to identify a specific part so that assembly would be as quick as possible. With plenty of lead time, the actual shape could be more like then-current USN standards (don''t the rounded bulwarks just look right?) rather than Civil War-era Gunboat iron plate chic.
Honestly, I think we have really got a lot of the puzzle filled in. Opposing points of view respected, but please make them with data.



Hi John. By definitive I meant a clear photo of any specific item under discussion. It seems it's always off in the background,the pic at Pearl behind the barge, the battle shots obscured by smoke or at the wrong angle to show the detail we want. For instance the flag deck extension in the pic behind the barge is a framework but not filled in. In the photo of her steaming after the first torpedo attack the flag bridge is not clear as to whether it's open or closed at the front but the FC radar is clearly visible.

As to the fold up 20mm platforms I used that same detail to make my pockets mount above the deck instead of flush but did not really see that they were separate sections. When I looked at it again the delineation is there along with that obvious word platforms at the bottom. So I agree we do have much evidence of what was done but in some areas not concrete. It suits me but I'm anal by nature and just picky.

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Tracy White wrote:
Sheridan hasn't been active in message boards since maybe 2003-2004, I think. I remember my first trip to NARA II in College park in 2005 and Don Montgomery was there by chance looking for the negative of that same photo to see if it was any "larger" than the print (i.e. was the print cropped at all?) for Steve. Unfortunately, it wasn't.


Tracy -
John has been doing model related work for the same Railroad Historical Society to which I belong. ("Hysterical" Society to some who don't like details and historical research to verify things such as what we are doing here.)
John

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
lvsquarerigger wrote:
Hi John. By definitive I meant a clear photo of any specific item under discussion. It seems it's always off in the background,the pic at Pearl behind the barge, the battle shots obscured by smoke or at the wrong angle to show the detail we want. For instance the flag deck extension in the pic behind the barge is a framework but not filled in. In the photo of her steaming after the first torpedo attack the flag bridge is not clear as to whether it's open or closed at the front but the FC radar is clearly visible.

As to the fold up 20mm platforms I used that same detail to make my pockets mount above the deck instead of flush but did not really see that they were separate sections. When I looked at it again the delineation is there along with that obvious word platforms at the bottom. So I agree we do have much evidence of what was done but in some areas not concrete. It suits me but I'm anal by nature and just picky.

James


James
Being "picky" doesn't make you a bad guy. Many of us here want to "get it right", perhaps to somewhat different levels of "right". My personal view is that we've always had good pictures and plans sufficient to do a creditable model of LEX up to about mid-March 1942. The work done at PHNY just before the 15 April 1942 departure was in question, however. But we've pretty much had the baseline - how she looked upon entry to PHNY - as the starting point. Diligent work by folks on this site have filled in some things here, some things there describing the changes. The Flag Plot area is pretty clear in the famous shot of LEX down by the bow after the torpedo hits. Finally, Steve Wiper's WP-33 helped wrap up, in my view, the likely changes. The pictures from PETREL showed agreement in those pictures taken of areas were the PHNY work was performed. For me, there was sufficient correlation with the drawing that, again in my view, I find authentic for me to feel comfortable to continue my build of LEX. I respect that others may not quite be willing to pull the pin on that grenade. But I would think most people probably think that with the wreck exploration we pretty much have close to enough information. It would be great if we got the photos of the completed work referenced in one the Naval letters Tracy found. But I think the likelihood of any photos we uncover after this point showing something different or even radically different is very small. I could be wrong. But I am proceeding under the assumption there's little chance of things changing. Put another way, we have photographic samples of parts of the drawing and they all seem to agree with each other. What is the chance that some areas not photographically sampled will be different? Not much I believe.
Being an engineer by training, we were always taught to be meticulous in our calculations and double check the results. Be picky in other words. We also learned as a result of practical experience when to quit and accept the results as "close enough". One can calculate to ten decimal places. Many times an answer to one decimal place is way good enough.
John

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 426
https://i.imgur.com/iyk6YQN.png[/

Trying to post a pic of the 1.1 gun sponson. Hope this link works.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1732
They have now posted images of the bridge. The one where they are speculating "5 inch gun directors" is actually the top of the 8" spotting level. You can see the 8" director and the base/lower framework for the MK-3 radar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1732
Jon C Ryckert wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/iyk6YQN.png[/

Trying to post a pic of the 1.1 gun sponson. Hope this link works.
I wish they had gone a bit lower, showing how it faired into the hull. Note that the rounded outboard extension of the tub was bolted, not welded, just as we had speculated earlier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9590
Location: EG48
R/V Petrel Facebook image gallery links:
Bow Gallery
Bridge Gallery
Main Body Gallery
Stern Gallery

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Testing if I can get bridge pics here


Attachments:
29103855_1671180196250788_5915469234806696000_n.jpg
29103855_1671180196250788_5915469234806696000_n.jpg [ 325.1 KiB | Viewed 701 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Ok. Here are more. I first photoshopped them to lighten them and show more detail. Some of them I rotated on my computer, not the photoshop so don't know if they post that way until I post. Oh well. Nope they didn't rotate .

James


Attachments:
File comment: Where the bridge broke off
29132981_1671180942917380_8288899881333844736_n.jpg
29132981_1671180942917380_8288899881333844736_n.jpg [ 315.24 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]
File comment: Port side of the bridge
29137037_1671180276250780_8815499395587260562_n.jpg
29137037_1671180276250780_8815499395587260562_n.jpg [ 276.09 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]
File comment: The starboard side of the bridge
29103855_1671180196250788_5915469234806696000_n.jpg
29103855_1671180196250788_5915469234806696000_n.jpg [ 325.1 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]
File comment: The top of the 8" director platform. The base of the FC radar is clearly visible
29178432_1671180712917403_2097335364985992864_n.jpg
29178432_1671180712917403_2097335364985992864_n.jpg [ 215.3 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]
File comment: Another angle of the 8" platform
29186262_1671180106250797_5030633621610601987_n.jpg
29186262_1671180106250797_5030633621610601987_n.jpg [ 190.55 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6386
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Looks like the enclosure for the flag bridge was destroyed when she sank. In the photo labeled "starboard side of the bridge" you can see the windows of the navigation bridge, and the original enclosed flag bridge above (to the right in the photo) that.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
I Was looking at this photo and noticed that there was a door on the side of the housing. Anything I had seen previous had the doors on the back of the housing. To put a door there would mean changing the deck or making the housing narrower. I looked at my bridge and am not sure how to proceed.

Any thoughts?

James

Got the books and plans out and was thinking and trying to figure out what had been done when it dawned on me I was turned around. Looked at the struts and realized I was looking at the back not the side so a lot of fuss for nothing.


Attachments:
File comment: A crop of the 8" platform
29186262_1671180106250797_5030633621610601987_n1.jpg
29186262_1671180106250797_5030633621610601987_n1.jpg [ 150.16 KiB | Viewed 576 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1732
MartinJQuinn wrote:
Looks like the enclosure for the flag bridge was destroyed when she sank. In the photo labeled "starboard side of the bridge" you can see the windows of the navigation bridge, and the original enclosed flag bridge above (to the right in the photo) that.
I am not sure that the modified bridge was exactly what some of us are thinking it was. The remaining deckhouse on the flagbridge level that you can see in that new photo was not original. That deckhouse was extended forward in her final Pearl Harbor mod and displaced the rangefinder to the top of the new structure. The deck edge bulwark was extended around the front of the new deckhouse and everyone assumes that the open walkway was enclosed with a glassed in structure. But what I see in James Noblin's photo is an awning, possibly steel, supported with a few thin posts. I am not convinced that more was added after his photo was taken. Obviously such a light structure would tear away during the sinking, let alone the explosions that marked Lexington's end. Some photos of the ship taken before the combat seem to indicate that the roof in that section did not extend fully out to the outer lower bulkhead on the sides, so I question the side-to-side glassed in structure depicted in the Trumpy kit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
I took the high res photo of Lex after the first torpedo attack and cropped and lightened it. With the higher exposure you can see the front of the flag bridge cabin and the walkway around the front. That was how I had done mine but after the pics here I started to change it so the cabin went all the way forward. Now it seems I had done it right and now have to do it over again. Imagine that? :smallsmile:

James


Attachments:
File comment: Flag bridge cropped and lightened
NH 76560a.jpg
NH 76560a.jpg [ 180.65 KiB | Viewed 535 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1732
In this Navsource photo, does it look like the roof over the front of the flag bridge extends all the way out to the edge of the walkway bulwark?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0202ah.jpg
The "as modified" drawings in Steve Wiper's book show the faceted front to the flag bridge deckhouse seen in the new photo. The drawings don't reference the walkway being enclosed. Perhaps less was lost than some are thinking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 992
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
lvsquarerigger wrote:
Anything I had seen previous had the doors on the back of the housing.


I think that is the back.

That looks like both tripod legs on the left of the picture.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6386
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Elvis965 wrote:
lvsquarerigger wrote:
Anything I had seen previous had the doors on the back of the housing.


I think that is the back.

That looks like both tripod legs on the left of the picture.

Bob

Agreed - that is the back.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
I went back and edited my post to give my aha moment when I realized I was turned around but the reason for this post is more pics from Petrel and this time of aircraft. The thing for me is they have quite a few tbds and it's possible my dad flew in one of them. I don't know for sure as the copy of his service record only says torpedo squadron two and later unit six when he was on Sara. Does anyone know of a listing of air crew and planes?

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Albuquerque, NM
This is just an emotional communication with everyone here. I viewed the aircraft pics from Petrel and thought "Gee, my dad could have been flying in one of these aircraft". After my reaction this morning I think one of them is his plane, I'm drawn to the two upside ones together, and I've been a wreck all morning. All I want to do is cry. So I do think he flew one of these but thought to share my reaction, and also release some of what I'm experiencing.

Thanks

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 905 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: garyrunnalls and 13 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

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