The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 42  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10720
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
No politics on the main board! *hiss*

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi everyone,

I have a question I haven't been able to find the answer on this great thread (or my searching skills are questionable...). What is the width and depth of the bilge keels on the Hornet (Yorktown class for that matter...). I took some measurements from the CV-5 PDF plans but them being at an angle and all, I am not sure anymore (BTW what is the angle in degrees?). Do you think there is a source for that information?

Thanks,

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Hypno -
The keels are about 0.110 wide in 1/350. I'll look around and see if I can find my exact measurements if you wish, but the Maryland Silver plans show the keels in a small drawing , unfortunately without a scale on it. I used the lines plans available from Floating Drydock to get the width and angle - it shows clearly in the hull stations drawing where you look from the bow toward aft.
The cross-section of the keel is triangular, mostly. It was fabricated by starting with a flat plate, then another flat plate was attached at an angle to the first so that a 'V' is formed. The wide end of the 'V' is attached to the hull. The point where both plates join each other is not at the outer edge of the keel. That original flat plate sticks out about a foot (in real feet) beyond the joint, so the edge of the keel is quite thin. Both keels curve into the hull at their fore and aft ends.
The forward keel does have a curve to it along its length, but the entire keel stays in the same plane, bending along that plane to conform to the hull. The angle of that plane to the hull is about 30 degrees to the vertical. In other words, the keel is more vertical (downward) than 45 degrees as it points downward.
The aft keel is of similar size and construction, but it is NOT in alignment with the forward keel - in other words it does not lie along the same plane as the forward keel. It is spaced more inward toward the centerline of the ship. When viewed along its edge, unlike the forward keel, it does curve concave toward the centerline. I assume it curves to divert water flowing along the hull toward the props. If it were in the same flat plane as the forward keel, I think it would divert water away from the outer props.
This may be far more detail than you wish, but the plans will show this if you look carefully. You may choose to simplify how you represent the keels. I posted pictures of my HORNET hull a few pages back (pp. 29 & 30), and the keels are pretty clear in the pictures, though probably not in enough detail, hence the verbiage here. All three ships in the class had the same hull, at least until ENTERPRISE was blistered in '43, substantially altering her hull lines. I have not looked at plans of her in this timeframe so I cannot comment on how the bilge keels changed.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi John,

Thanks a lot for the comprehensive information!

I guess that would translate to 1.4mm in 1/700 (I am more used to metric). I have followed your great build and that also inspired me to build my model. I am in the process of installing the bilge keels now, and I think I will be cutting them out of styrene and try to sand out the "V" shape. About the un-alignment of the aft keel, yes that I can see in the CV-5 plans.

I guess I should get more proper plans. I have been working only with the free online PDF plans for the CV-5 and from the information found in this forum.

Thanks again for the information.

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Hypno -
Happy to help as others have helped me here.
Good plans are a help and a curse. Once you have them, you get way more info and you have more things to decide to do or ignore. I like the greater detailed information, but it can make things more challenging.
I actually made the keels out of two separate pieces of plastic - one flat piece of Evergreen 0.010 thick by 0.125 (or maybe 0.100, not sure), one beveled piece of (I think) 0.020 by 0.080. I wrestled with how to get a consistent bevel on such a small and long piece. I finally came up with the idea of using two thin metal rulers clamped together to the edge of my workbench. I set the top ruler (which is about 0.020 thick) back from the edge of the lower ruler by 0.080. Then I taped the 0.020 X 0.080 plastic strip onto that 'step'. It is then possible to drag the edge of a hobby knife along the exposed edge of the plastic strip and scrape the plastic strip down to the triangular cross-section shape needed. The metal rulers keep the knife from digging into the plastic and result in a nearly perfect triangular shape I needed. Finish with sand paper and you've got it.
Now doing this in 1/350 was not that difficult once I figured out how to do it. But the smallest thickness of Evergreen strip of which I'm aware is 0.010 so you'd have to use some Evergreen 0.005 sheet and make your own strips in 1/700. The rulers - at least the top one - would probably need to be replaced by a strip of brass that's .010 to make it work for 1/700.

My hat's off to the 1/700 crowd. It's hard enough for me to work in 1/350 - don't know how one keeps their sanity in smaller scales. Of course, it's not clear I've kept mine even in 1/350 . . . . .

_________________
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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi John,

Thanks for sharing the technique! I have seen a similar technique online and I will definitely try it.

In my case, the 1/700 ordeal is for practical reasons. I have limited space and I eventually want to have a collection of ships in that scale. I want them to be able to be stacked together to put away easily (... how sad ...). I plan to do 1/700 until my eyes give up. After each PE session on my previous model, I really needed to rest my eyes and neck!

I have another question to you (or to anyone reading) before I get annoying. It is about your model. You made some very nice hull plating detail on it and it looks great. What do you thing about it in 1/700? I was thinking of just make shade variations or light weathering since the scale is so small (and I used to think 1/72 scale model airplanes where too small...).

Thanks again,

P.S. My hat's off for your CV-8 build! I have learned a lot from your descriptions (and others in this thread too!).

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 557
Location: California
Check out this page for an illustration on a technique for the bilge keels.

http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Enterprise%20Scratch/Enterprise_Scratch_pg3.html

In regards to your hull plating question. I've wrestled with the pros and cons of including that detail. While indeed the plating is visible in reality and large scales, even 1/350 is extremely small when compared to 1/72 or 1/96. I have come to the conclusion to only include the more prominent plating detail that I can readily see in MOST photos and attempt to keep it to a scale feel. Over the years I have become fairly adept at either scribing or engraving relief into lacquer primer. The primer cuts clean without a bur so it is extremely efficient, but you do have to be skilled enough not to screw up. An example is shown in fig. 32 and 33 of the above page. You can compare the scale effect between the model and a photo of the actual ship and make your judgement. This was done with a flat blade against a straight edge, creating an ever so slight bevel giving the impression of plating. Personally, some of the plating that I see is overdone giving the model a rather primitive "Iron" look. Just my two cents...

Paul

_________________
Image

http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi Paul,

That is the technique I was talking about on my previous post (oh do I know that website!). I will try doing it with some styrene I have here. After reviewing it again, I realized there is a couple of images on page 1 showing the bilge keels (I must have some attention problems...) I think those are the ones John was writing about in his posts.

About the hull plating, I have done some scribing in scale airplanes, but here with 1/700 it will have to be extremely thin, I think that would be outside my skill set. I will practice on some scrap plastic and see if I can do it. After the bilge keels and the armor belt, I will start with the portholes, that will take me some time I think.

Thanks again,

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Hypno -
Ask as much as you wish, most folks here are pretty happy to pass along their wisdom as long as it looks as though you have done your homework by at least reading the previous discussions on this thread. If the discussion here rolled off the board after three pages (like some other websites) then things might be different, perhaps. But we have a pretty permanent record that goes back many years. I started posting - mostly questions - way back near the start of this thread, yet I still go back and review the earlier pages because there is so much here.
I think you've done a great job on your HORNET so far - keep up the good work and enthusiasm.

As far as the hull plating is concerned, I felt it was too obvious in too many photos to ignore. It can be seen clearly in photos taken from hundreds of yards away. I chose the method of using Duplicolor 'high build' auto primer after trying to use 3M tape as the plate course. You can see the green tape in some earlier posts of mine (page 20). It was a lot of work and the result sucked as far as I was concerned. As thin as the tape was, it still looked too pronounced. It also did not lay down well and stay there without some additional CA. I bit the bullet and removed it and started over with a smooth hull. At that moment I could have thrown in the towel and said $#&**! it, but I chose to try the paint method. I am glad I did. One surprising result is that after all the work, it does not show up very well in certain lighting conditions. To me that shows how subtle and believable the method is. I would do it again. I can also see why others wouldn't do it. Your call. I also used P/E airports (portholes) since my hull was scratchbuilt. Well over two hundred - not for the faint of heart. They can't be seen in every lighting condition either, but they are there.

You should be aware that the plating is not just a 'layer cake' affair with each layer horizontal to the baseline. There is are more plate courses at midships than at either end, so the plate courses blend in to each other as you get to either narrower end. This blending is very similar to that used on wooden hull ships of the preceeding centuries, and no course of plates tapers to a point. Look at pictures of HORNET in drydock right after her commissioning and you'll see this. Also, the plate courses do not alternate over / under. As you come down from the main / hangar deck, for example, the first course of plates overlaps the next lower course, which itself also overlaps the third course. The fifth course overlaps the fourth and sixth, and then the courses continue alternating from there down in the middle section of the ship. I could not see how to do that with just scribed lines. The 3M tape sort of worked to do that, but it looked clumsy. By painting the second course all the way to the main deck and letting it dry hard, then painting the first course over it up to the hangar deck I got the effect I wanted.
For me, I am trying to be as historically accurate as I can be. In doing so I learn a lot about the history of shipbuilding. Just gluing and painting up the original Trumpeter or BWN kit would not lend itself to that. Of course, that was what I thought I was going to do when I bought both kits . . .
Your results may vary. You may choose not to try this at home. (Your psychiatrist will not blame you.) Woody Allen will not make a movie about you, and no, you won't get Scarlett Johansen in the end.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi John,

Hahahaha! that's a good one! that Scarlett Johanson...

This is what I like about this forum, you get several methods and techniques from very talented and experienced people and then I get to try them out (on scrap as always...) and see which one I can do. Long time ago I used to "develop" (that is too a big word I think) techniques for my scale airplanes, just to see afterwards people in the internet doing something easier and better for years.

When I have an acceptable hull, I will put it in the box, seal it, and then open it and glue it and paint it up. On second thought, when I have an acceptable hull, island, and hangar deck, I will do just that.

Thanks for your kind comment on my current build. I will update that when I have acceptable bilge keels.

Thanks again,

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 480
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
I like that spirit, Hypno.
This is a holistic process, and it all has to look right together. If you haven't already, shrink the plans you do have to 1/700 and see how they compare with your work. Your hull looks way more right than the original Trump clump. On the 1/350 version, I began to realize that just about everything else attached to the hull was just as good as the original kit hull was. Now is a good time to look at what's ahead of you in totality and see what else you may choose to change / mod before you get too far and see something that requires you to go back and undo / redo (says the voice of experience).
Do not be discouraged, you have come a long way in what you've done. Check the distance between the 5" gun gallery decks, for instance, and check the size and position of the deckhouse on the focs'l deck. Check the position and size of the roller doors on both sides compared to the plans. All of these things were the same for all three ships so the CV-5 plans are fine. The 1.1" machine cannon assemblies were not located in the same place on HORNET as on the others, and there were differences in the island for HORNET too. If you have a plan (top) view of the flight deck, compare the kit deck to it since that is a critical piece in aligning the shooting match. I think you may find the kit deck too short and where it tapers back and inward toward the stern on the portside, the taper is not correctly placed. The forward part of the flightdeck is shaped differently on HORNET, and the kit deck may be too narrow at the front edge where the rounddown is located. Hopefully all is in order on the 1/700th kit, but it surely wasn't on the 1/350th kit by either manufacturer. They both also put the capstan on the fantail in the center of the semicircular shield ring (don't know what else to call it - looks like a splinter shield for a gun mount) when it was actually located in the center of the opening where the sides don't meet (the sternmost part of the shield ring open aft).
As always, it's your call how much of this you choose to use. Also be sure to get the colors right for the 12 Mod camo. I have seen the island painted the same 5-O and 5-N as the hull, rather than the correct 5-O and 5-L. It is an easy mistake to make looking at some photos with a certain sun angle.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:31 pm
Posts: 18
Hi all,
I've got a question relating the Hornet's Radar.
I read in the N. Friedman book ("U.S. Aircraft Carrier"), that Hornet initially received the SC radar with a smaller antenna then the CXAM one.
Because its disappointing perfomance the antenna was replaced with the CXAM one's coming from the damaged California, with a resulting permorfance equivalent to a SK radar.
But in the pictures showed in this forum it has been showed the SC antenna was only moved in another position.
Was Hornet fitted with 2 radars? 1 complete CXAM (antenna + tranmitter) coming from California, and the original SC? Or the 2 antennas was used for the same transmitter (I think it is not possible).
Why the SC antenna was retained if it was ineffective?

BR

Corrado


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
peguy wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a question relating the Hornet's Radar.
I read in the N. Friedman book ("U.S. Aircraft Carrier"), that Hornet initially received the SC radar with a smaller antenna then the CXAM one.
Because its disappointing perfomance the antenna was replaced with the CXAM one's coming from the damaged California, with a resulting permorfance equivalent to a SK radar.
But in the pictures showed in this forum it has been showed the SC antenna was only moved in another position.
Was Hornet fitted with 2 radars? 1 complete CXAM (antenna + tranmitter) coming from California, and the original SC? Or the 2 antennas was used for the same transmitter (I think it is not possible).
Why the SC antenna was retained if it was ineffective?

BR

Corrado



Hornet initially had a SC radar antenna mounted on top of the tripod. She also had two FD radars for her Mk 37's. After Midway, the navy decided that all large fleet carriers should have two air search sets, one main set and one backup set. In her post-Midway yard period at Pearl Harbor, Hornet had her SC antenna moved to the top of the main mast on the aft end of the stack and the CXAM unit salvaged from California, one of six CXAM pre-production units made, was mounted on top of the tripod mast. (CXAM-1 was the production version of CXAM, and had a non-tiltable bedspring antenna with heavier dipole structure. Enterprise had this type at the time, along with an SC-1 as backup on the starboard edge of her stack). The SC worked, but it just did not work as well as CXAM in the long Pacific swells. The big antenna is what made the difference. The electronics were very similar. She had two complete sets, not one set with two antennas. It has been rumored, but I have not been able to confirm for many years, that the CXAM set was upgraded to match the SC electronics (which were a bit more advanced). If so, that would indeed approximate SK performance. These radars were all being developed and improved in service continuously by Westinghouse, who often had their civilian service reps aboard ship to maintain and improve the radar units. These early sets were basically hand made pre-production sets, so upgrades could have been made to the unit in place by the service reps upon direct instruction from the Westinghouse laboratory.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:31 pm
Posts: 18
Many thanks.
Since I'm bulding my Hornet in post Midway configuration, I would like to be more aquaninted as possible in the refit details

best regards


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
peguy wrote:
Many thanks.
Since I'm bulding my Hornet in post Midway configuration, I would like to be more aquaninted as possible in the refit details

best regards


For post-Midway, configure radars as I outlined above, remove the hangar deck catapult sponsons, convert the bow 20MM tub into a 1.1" quad tub by adding center curved section to form a three leaf clover shape. On the island remove the catwalk around the front and sides of the top rim of the stack. Aft section was retained. The four gun 20mm battery on the former boat deck alongside the island starboard side was upped to eight guns, one in front and three aft of the existing four guns. Check photos for minor changes to small antennas on top of the island and tripod mast. Some IFF gear was revised. That's about it. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:31 pm
Posts: 18
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
remove the hangar deck catapult sponsons,
Done
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
convert the bow 20MM tub into a 1.1" quad tub by adding center curved section to form a three leaf clover shape.
Done
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
On the island remove the catwalk around the front and sides of the top rim of the stack. Aft section was retained.
In process
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
The four gun 20mm battery on the former boat deck alongside the island starboard side was upped to eight guns, one in front and three aft of the existing four guns.
In process
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
Check photos for minor changes to small antennas on top of the island and tripod mast. Some IFF gear was revised. That's about it.
I'll check
I read many times this forum, trying to collect as many information as possible (I made a little document organized by arguments); I'm not a skillful modeller, but I do like this beatuful ship (and her sisters), so I hope to make a decent Hornet with all these informations.

Many thanks again
Corrado


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:31 pm
Posts: 18
I just discovered that Tom modelworks has released a "Hornet replacement hull" for the trumpeter kit; but I have some doubts on it.
According to them the item contains only the hull , without the flight deck
TM had taken the masters from the HP Yorktowns classes , improving them, for its resin kit, so they propose something similar to my arrangement: HP hull + Trumpeter details.
But the first thing that I doscovered is that the beautiful trumpeter flight deck does not fit on HP hull for several reasons, one of the is the different shape and height of the hangar sides.
Regards


Last edited by peguy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:19 pm
Posts: 672
I have the replacement hull, I see no real issues matching the two. Test fit looks just fine. I cant comment on the fit to the HP hull, but it fits the TM hull from my view

_________________
"Also we will never see a 1/350 late war Enterprise from Dragon due to a paralyzing fear of success...." - Heavy Melder

Lots of unfinished model ships + attention issues = A busy slipway where nothing gets done!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:16 pm
Posts: 305
Hi everyone,

I have a question (again...) and sorry if this is a dumb one or has been answered before, but I couldn't find an answer in this thread.

What would be the typical order of aircraft in the hangar deck? Were they set up randomly or was there a guideline for it? For example, TBDs aft, SBDs amidships and fighters forward? I know that during the Doolittle Raid, an Air Group was below in the hangar deck. I have seen some pictures of the CV-6 deck in the internet, but if someone has more precise information, it would be greatly appreciated.

_________________
CV-8: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=153851
DD-436: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=157123
CVL-24 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=158455


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:58 pm
Posts: 48
Location: Texas
Maybe folks can get a few modeling ideas of Hornet from this video of Hornet in her most famous action, seventy-two years ago right now (if I've got the time zones right).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 42  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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